# Corporal punishment and kids



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

As a therapist who works primarily with oppositional youth, corporal punishment is a topic I find myself coming back to over and over again. I can remember my own experience of being hit once by my father and never stepping out of line again thereafter, however, the research concludes that CP only teaches violence as an appropriate means of conflict resolution and shows that kids who received corporal punishment in their childhood and adolescence were more likely to use physical violence in later life. For obvious reasons, this is the position I hold when working with parents, however, I think that I am personally on the fence in some regards.

What do you all think? Is a little slap always a bad thing?

MrR


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I think the difference is the environment in which the corporal punishment is delivered. When corporal punishment is applied within the context of a loving, protective environment, it can yield positive results. The child has to feel secure and there must be absolutely no confusion as to the connection between the transgression and the (strictly controlled) consequences. My children can count on one hand the number of times they were spanked in their lives but, they were spanked and they have turned out pretty well...knock on wood!


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Well, my wife does behavior modification professionally. If I ever hit my kid she'd shoot me.

I say never. There are better ways.

-spence


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Corporal punishment uses fear as a means of directing behaviour (the stick). Today we tend to prefer inducements (the carrot). Maybe a balanced mixture of the two is best. In my experience corporal punishment is certainly very effective. But it seems today that parents are reluctant to use it ("this hurts me more than it hurts you"...). Maybe this is one effect of the feminisation of Western society and the consequent demise of the adult male as law enforcer. Interestingly, corporal punishment was always used to get boys to behave, never girls...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I just think corporal punishment is not only wrong but also ineffective. First, even as a parent, I think it is as immoral to hit my child as it would be to hit you if we were in a disagreement. Second, the goal of a parent is to bring up your child to think for himself, to inculcate correct values in the child, and to enable the child to have a moral sense that he can apply as an adult. Impressing the child with the desire not to be hit, or, in other words, to keep guessing whether I will be mad at what they do, undermines these goals.

I'm glad to say that I have never hit my sons (not that I claim that I've never made any mistakes) and they are now two responsible, decent young men.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I gave my kids light spankings when they were younger. A slap on the wrist, a whack acrosss the fanny. Probably more so with the older one, less on each succeeding child (3 total).

I don't consider that immoral, but maybe a higher judge might.

Oddly, my oldest (now 25) seems the most socailly well-adjusted. The youngest (18) the least so, at least, that's my best judgement at this point in their lives.

All three are/were honor student throughout all phases of their education, participating in extra-curricular activities such as orchestra, marching band, and university rowing team.

No doubt, I've been blessed, despite my shortcomings as a parent.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

In today's atmosphere it is virtually impossible to discuss the issue of corporal punishment without the discussion deteriorating rapidly, and those who advocate it demonized.


----------



## knickerbacker (Jun 27, 2005)

Spence said:


> Well, my wife does behavior modification professionally. If I ever hit my kid she'd shoot me.
> 
> I say never. There are better ways.
> 
> -spence


I live in San Francisco where a woman who "does behavior modification professionally" typically means a dominatrix.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

First, I think many people are mistaken in what they feel the aim of CP should be. I feel the aim should not be to inflict pain, which is what I think most people see as the aim. The aim should be to affect the feelings of the child, be it guilt, shame, etc. so they do not want to repeat the act due to the emotional feelings, not the fear of pain. I have always used the same outlook when training animals, CP is to startle/scare/show dominance, not to cause pain.

For those that think all forms of physical punishment show violence is the answer to conflict, you too also have the wrong vision of the aim of CP. Again, it should be to cause an uncomfortable emotion, not undue physical pain. A light slap on the back of the hands, done properly, does not really hurt but will cause guilt, shame, embarrassment, etc. Further, people that think you can "reason" with a two year old need to take some developmental anatomy or pysch classes. I am sure there are bigger experts than me here, but to my understanding, the mylenation process and development of neural networks takes literally years in children, making high levels of abstraction physically impossible at very young ages. A bit of behavior modification using CP could well stop your two year old from grabbing a hot object one day.

Either way, we managed to put men on the moon that had undoubtedly been spanked by their parents. Society will survive.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Spankings for children are often appropriate.

I also think that fistfights between male adults are also warranted at times.

M8


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

AlanC said:


> In today's atmosphere it is virtually impossible to discuss the issue of corporal punishment without the discussion deteriorating rapidly, and those who advocate it demonized.


Maybe, although it hasn't happened in this discussion, and I don't see any evidence that it's moving in that direction.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Spankings for children are often appropriate.
> 
> I also think that fistfights between male adults are also warranted at times.
> 
> M8


Could you specify a number of situations in which another male adult would be justified in striking the first blow against you?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I am a firm, emphatic and enthusiatic believer in corporal punishment. My family had a strong tradition of it. My mother would beat the hell out of me with a wooden coat hanger about once every three weeks when I was little. Sometimes it would break and she'd grab another and beat me some more! I like to think I turned out reasonably well. I was a very well behaved little boy! My mother and I had a close, loving relationship to the day she died, a decade back.

I have a simple theory of pedagogy. Pain begets fear, fear begets cooperation, cooperation begets harmony, harmony begets love.

Getting back to family tradition, my grandmother would force my mother to go out and cut a stout switch and then have at her with it. Throwing her in ice-cold tub of water was another tactic when she was having a tantrum.

My great-grandmother used to beat my grandmother so severely that their former slaves would weep at the sight and beg her to have mercy!

We had very severe corporal punishment at my prep school, as well. The year after I left the headmaster abolished it. The first prefect, one my best friends, gave a little Quaker boy a modest beating--only about 11 of the best out of compassion for his puny stature. The little coward screamed and cried like a girl (part of the code was to take your beating in silence; gasping was permissible). Later he tearfully showed the welts and bruises on his butt to the headmaster. The headmaster and the first prefect had an awful row, which ended with my friend leaving the school and corporal punishment being abolished. The school has been going downhill since then, IMO!

Didn't have too much occasion to beat my stepson. I would warn him though, "Pain is the thing/I live to inflict/like beating a boy/ with a shiny big stick"!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> As a therapist who works primarily with oppositional youth ...


You say that as if there's some other kind of youth.

Whether we like it or not, rebellion from and rejection of family (at least temporary rejection) is part of the maturation process. The harder you try and come off as an authority figure, the harder your kids are going to reject that positioning -- even though your genital waving might seem to "work" in the short term.

The issue is not whether children need to understand acceptable behavior limits. The issue is simply how and when parents communicate these limits to their kids. Corporal punishment has always been the last resort for parents who've not developed proper relationships with their kids.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Whether we like it or not, rebellion from and rejection of family (at least temporary rejection) is part of the maturation process. The harder you try and come off as an authority figure, the harder your kids are going to reject that positioning -- *even though your genital waving might seem to "work" in the short term.*


On post 11? Welcome aboard. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> You say that as if there's some other kind of youth.


Oppositional in a pathological sense. A kid I saw this morning chased his principal with a pair of scissors before he cornered him and stuck him in the leg. When restrained by school police he called them the n-word at the top of his lungs before being handcuffed. His drawings in art class depict various teachers laying on the ground in pools of blood with him standing over them, pistol in hand. He just turned 8.

Care to rephrase your statement?

MrR


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The harder you try and come off as an authority figure, the harder your kids are going to reject that positioning -- even though your genital waving might seem to "work" in the short term.


Misunderstanding the line between "parent" and "friend" is what leads to such behavior. Consistency in defining boundaries and having appropriate consequences for transgressions, whether they be CP or not, is essential. I think that any kid raised properly is going to hate their parents at one point or another but you see the same thing in parents who eschew an authoritarian parenting style and let their kids run wild. No boundaries equates in the child's mind to not caring. Oppositional behavior and noncompliance results as attempts to gain the parents attention.

mrR


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

knickerbacker said:


> I live in San Francisco where a woman who "does behavior modification professionally" typically means a dominatrix.


Well, to be honest that sounds like a lot more fun 

-spence


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> Misunderstanding the line between "parent" and "friend" is what leads to such behavior. Consistency in defining boundaries and having appropriate consequences for transgressions, whether they be CP or not, is essential. I think that any kid raised properly is going to hate their parents at one point or another but you see the same thing in parents who eschew an authoritarian parenting style and let their kids run wild. No boundaries equates in the child's mind to not caring. Oppositional behavior and noncompliance results as attempts to gain the parents attention.
> 
> mrR


I agree with all of that. My point is, the world is filled with parents who don't develop proper relationships and communication with their pre-adolescent kids, then try to assert authority over them when the kids reach their teen years. It never works, or at least it didn't in my case. My dad was an alcoholic no-show for the first 12 years of my life, then decided to become Ward Cleaver when I started smoking dope at age 14. Many of my friends had similar experiences.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> I have a simple theory of pedagogy. Pain begets fear, fear begets cooperation, cooperation begets harmony, harmony begets love.


I have to say I'm basically with you there - I was thrashed by my father, it did me a lot of good and I love my father all the more for teaching me to behave myself. However, there is a fine dividing line between robust chastisement and thoughtless violence. Fear can beget resentment, resentment conflict, conflict hatred - and guilt.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> First, I think many people are mistaken in what they feel the aim of CP should be. I* feel the aim should not be to inflict pain, which is what I think most people see as the aim. The aim should be to affect the feelings of the child, be it guilt, shame, etc. so they do not want to repeat the act due to the emotional feelings, not the fear of pain. I have always used the same outlook when training animals, CP is to startle/scare/show dominance, not to cause pain.*
> 
> For those that think all forms of physical punishment show violence is the answer to conflict, you too also have the wrong vision of the aim of CP. Again, it should be to cause an uncomfortable emotion, not undue physical pain. A light slap on the back of the hands, done properly, does not really hurt but will cause guilt, shame, embarrassment, etc. Further, people that think you can "reason" with a two year old need to take some developmental anatomy or pysch classes. I am sure there are bigger experts than me here, but to my understanding, the mylenation process and development of neural networks takes literally years in children, making high levels of abstraction physically impossible at very young ages. A bit of behavior modification using CP could well stop your two year old from grabbing a hot object one day.
> 
> Either way, we managed to put men on the moon that had undoubtedly been spanked by their parents. Society will survive.


I agree, and this is how my parents raised my brother and I. A quick smack on the hand or butt and then sent to our room. I think it was mainly an attention getter. They only did it when we were pretty young, after that it was grounding or taking away television, video games or playing outside with friends. Geez, the way some of you talk about it you'd think cat o' nine tails were being used.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

As long as corporal punishment is not allowed to become abuse, it has a purpose. Ridiculous abuse is obviously not helpful, but a couple swats on the butt is a tool that can probably help as long is it is not abused or overused.

Corporal punishment is never good if it is principally done because someone is angry at a given moment.

As far as studies that prove it does not help, I wonder if those who do the studies are not prejudiced against it before the study is done. A study can frequently be used to prove whatever the studier wants to believe.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Actually, at my prep school a cat of sorts was used. The favorite device was to take three heavy belts of the "motorcycle" or "garrison" type, split them down the middle and knot the ends and then secure the other ends to a sawed-off baseball bat. When a lusty, athletic 17- or 18-year old got a 15-foot running start, that thing did pack a wallop, as I can testify from experience!

On the more general aspect of corporal punishment, I think of what my old colleague Dave Arnold said. Dave's name is no doubt familiar to some of you. He was one of the best men I ever knew--a "totally decent man," as my mother characterized him. (She pitied him having to work with me and the rest of the old Guns & Ammo gang.) He was sometimes, though not always, a very wise man. He liked to say, "Boys must beaten." He remarked that whenever he was beaten unjustly, he merely felt that it was karmic retribution for other misdeeds he had gotten away with. He also mentioned that being beaten by pretty young teachers as a little boy (this would have been in South Africa 60 years ago) provoked strange pleasures and longings, but that's not germane to this argument.

I think a lot of the problem with all too many of today's boys is that they are not beaten as little boys. Suddenly, when they are eight, nine or ten, their mothers are confronted with unruly, cheeky, wild boys who have never been habituated to discipline. So-o-o, they haul them off to shrinks, who diagnose them with ADHD, "Disobediant Disorder" or something similar and dose the hell out of the with Ritalin and sundry other drugs. I strongly suspect--although I have no hard evidence--that this is a major reason why the girls are now entering college in much greater numbers than the boys and why young women are starting to dominate profession after educated profession. The girls, being more naturally docile, are less likely to be the recipients of a lot of doping.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

My dad sometimes used to make my brother and I do pushups from about Jr High age through HS. He said our sore arms/chest would remind us of what we had done. Then we would have something taken away...usually TV. Uhh 1,2,3..1! 1,2,3..2! We were still allowed to read books (he'd say, why don't you actually use your brain, and do something worthwhile?). I credit all that book reading time to my love of reading now...guess that was his plan all along....Uhh 1,2,3..19! 1,2,3..20! Discipline and strength training all in one....I kinda like that one.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> As long as corporal punishment is not allowed to become abuse, it has a purpose. Ridiculous abuse is obviously not helpful, but a couple swats on the butt is a tool that can probably help as long is it is not abused or overused.
> 
> Corporal punishment is never good if it is principally done because someone is angry at a given moment.
> 
> As far as studies that prove it does not help, I wonder if those who do the studies are not prejudiced against it before the study is done. A study can frequently be used to prove whatever the studier wants to believe.


Good point regarding parents venting their own anger on their kids through CP.

As far as the research, its conclusive that CP is detremential to later development. Pretty extensive longitudional studies have followed a large sample of subjects through childhood and adolescence into adulthood. Such studies have been replicated a few times over.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> As far as the research, its conclusive that CP is detremential to later development. Pretty extensive longitudional studies have followed a large sample of subjects through childhood and adolescence into adulthood. Such studies have been replicated a few times over.


I think this pretty well puts paid to Mr. Libourel's painful recollections.

In the past, corporal punishment was normal. One hit children, animals and wives to make them behave. We don't do that any more. I think this shows progress.

The idea of beating children into submission is IMHO not only ineffectual and harmful to the child, but harmful to society by producing deeply flawed individuals unsuited for life in today's world.

Young children can be physically controlled, if need be, without striking them. If, in this century, you can't control your children without hitting, let alone beating them, you are, in my view, deficient as a parent.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Oh, I beat my last dog Dempsey a couple of times when he challenged me. I loved that dog passionately. When I had to put him down in August, my wife, her son and I all agreed that he was the best dog we ever had. The beatings just taught the dog his proper place. All the serious dog people I know endorsed my beating him.

"A woman, a dog and a walnut tree:
The more you beat them, the better they be."


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Oh, I beat my last dog Dempsey a couple of times when he challenged me. I loved that dog passionately. When I had to put him down in August, my wife, her son and I all agreed that he was the best dog we ever had. The beatings just taught the dog his proper place. All the serious dog people I know endorsed my beating him.
> 
> "A woman, a dog and a walnut tree:
> The more you beat them, the better they be."


I prefer the much more politically correct and humane procedure of grabbing recalcitrant canine's throat while tossing it onto it's back; a cross-species version of doggie one-upmanness based on studies of alpha wolf behavior. (No need to whisper in dog's ear.)

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

A word of caution: while administering beatings, be sure to remove one's tongue from one's cheek, or one might bite it during the strenuous exertion of a good beating.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> A word of caution: while administering beatings, be sure to remove one's tongue from one's cheek, or one might bite it during the strenuous exertion of a good beating.


I think General Patton said it best, "We are going to grab them by the nose and kick em in the ass. We will run through those lousey Hun Bast***s like s*** through a goose! By God, I feel sorry for them...By God, I really do."


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> A word of caution: while administering beatings, be sure to remove one's tongue from one's cheek, or one might bite it during the strenuous exertion of a good beating.


Be careful, too, lest the canine being thrown register strenuous objections.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Gurdon said:


> I prefer the much more politically correct and humane procedure of grabbing recalcitrant canine's throat while tossing it onto it's back; a cross-species version of doggie one-upmanness based on studies of alpha wolf behavior. (No need to whisper in dog's ear.)
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I am not a big fan of "alpha rolls." A lot of trainers do not consider it efficacious. It also can be dangerous. Wanna try it with a 130-pound Japanese Fighting Dog (Tosa) in an uppity mood? That's what I was dealing with.

Even a small dog can administer a nasty bite while you are grabbing for his throat.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I am not a big fan of "alpha rolls." A lot of trainers do not consider it efficacious. It also can be dangerous. Wanna try it with a 130-pound Japanese Fighting Dog (Tosa) in an uppity mood? That's what I was dealing with.


I don't want to try _anything_ with a 130-pound Tosa in _any_ kind of mood. When a dog's weight is measured in triple digits it's a little too bear-like for my taste. If Jan says such a beast must be clubbed from time-to-time to keep it in line, I'll take his word for it. Whatever works. I'll stick with cats.

As for corporal punishment: It may be necessary in some instances, but in the long run I imagine it is counterproductive. I have no children, so the issue is now purely theoretical for me; but as a child I was routinely hammered and I can't say that thought much of the practice at the time. However, it did impress upon me one important lesson: Don't get caught; whatever you do, don't get caught. And after the age of about nine, I didn't. Perhaps in the afterlife my father has learned of the many beatings he might have given me, but was denied the opportunity because I took extreme caution to conceal my malfeasance. If so, he is no doubt annoyed and depressed about the matter. Serves the bastard right.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Lushington said:


> I don't want to try _anything_ with a 130-pound Tosa in _any_ kind of mood. When a dog's weight is measured in triple digits it's a little too bear-like for my taste. If Jan says such a beast must be clubbed from time-to-time to keep it in line, I'll take his word for it. Whatever works. I'll stick with cats.


I never "clubbed" him, never would have. On the first occasion, he was lying on my bed. When I started to lie down beside him, he growled nastily. I jumped up and roared, "No." He growled again. I picked up a belt, doubled it and whacked the bed beside him. He growled yet again. With that I laid into him with the belt and chased him into his crate and confined him there. I didn't allow him back on my bed until he had been good for about a week. I gave him a lot of rigorous obedience work in the interim.

The second time was a few years later. He was lurking under the stairs with the remains of a toy he had demolished scattered in front of him. I started cleaning up the mess and got another nasty growl. Again I gave him a verbal reprimand, again he growled. This time I got a broom and whacked him upside the head with the brush end a couple of times until he got the message this was unacceptable behavior.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I never "clubbed" him, never would have. On the first occasion, he was lying on my bed. When I started to lie down beside him, he growled nastily. I jumped up and roared, "No." He growled again. I picked up a belt, doubled it and whacked the bed beside him. He growled yet again. With that I laid into him with the belt and chased him into his crate and confined him there. I didn't allow him back on my bed until he had been good for about a week. I gave him a lot of rigorous obedience work in the interim.
> 
> The second time was a few years later. He was lurking under the stairs with the remains of a toy he had demolished scattered in front of him. I started cleaning up the mess and got another nasty growl. Again I gave him a verbal reprimand, again he growled. This time I got a broom and whacked him upside the head with the brush end a couple of times until he got the message this was unacceptable behavior.


I was paraphrasing freely with "clubbed." I meant no suggestion of abuse or violence.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I do not favour CP. However, I have been in situations where it was a matter of averting greater injury and death. I caught a ill mannered and utterly mistrained stallion that broke free. I've seen, and heard verified reports of one literally biting a man's face with horrific results and a woman's breast. To control this 1200 lbs of trouble, I had to belly kick it 3 times, punch it in the mouth and finally use an australian trick of safely dropping it off it's feet ( the Jeffrey Method.) I didn't win any 'Horse Whisperer' awards, in fact a bunny hugger type called the Humane Society on me. But nobody was hurt, or worse. All three of my actions incidentally are replicated by horses in their herd interactions. Most of the high mammals animals will use corporal communications with young, including primates. Again, I would prefer enough positive or neutral inducements used to avert CP. But there are situations where it may be the lesser of potentialy greater violence or injury.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Could you specify a number of situations in which another male adult would be justified in striking the first blow against you?


Sure. If I'm screwing his girlfriend or wife, for starters. Calling my mother names. Throwing a drink on me (I like the way Ron Artest handled that). Etc., Etc.

M8


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I have to agree with M8. During grammar school I would say I was involved in about one fight a year. It would start for some childish reason and would end when someone got a bloody nose. More often than not a teacher would intervene (and having a nun of the old school break up your fisticuffs was perhaps the scariest thing to encounter.) Parents would be a called, a week of detention would ensue and within ten days time, my opponent and I were on good terms again and the fight was forgotten. No harm, no foul. Boys being boys. If such an event happened today, especially at a public school, there is a decent chance the police would be summoned and an expulsion from school might be the result. I don't suppose that innocent school yard fights exist anymore.

My last fight by the way was in 1987 , my freshman year in high school. Again some trivial matter but I was seriously outclassed by my opponent and the fight didn't make it of the first round. He popped me in the nose, I fell down and after suffering from a few seconds of humiliation before the crowd waiting for the Q44A bus, the victor offered his hand to me, the vanquished, helped me up and we went for a slice of pizza. Again no harm, no foul. Can boys no longer have decent, honorable fistfights? 

Karl


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> I have to agree with M8. During grammar school I would say I was involved in about one fight a year. It would start for some childish reason and would end when some got a bloody nose. More often than not a teacher would intervene (and having a nun of the old school break up your fisticuffs was perhaps the scariest thing to encounter.) Parents would be a called, a week of detention would ensue and within ten days time, my opponent and I were on good terms again and the fight was forgotten. No harm, no foul. Boys being boys. If such an event happened today, especially at a public school, there is a decent chance the police would be summoned and an expulsion from school might be the result. I don't suppose that innocent school yard fights exist anymore.
> 
> ...


Good heavens, in my day, one fight every few weeks was the norm in grammar school. I don't remember any discipline being ever being imposed. (And I was at a very "nice" elementary school.) Of course that was the late '40s and early '50s. My stepson never had a real fight from kindergarten through high school although he has been in a couple of scuffles since then. Jeff Cooper and I were once talking about how you never see boys fighting anymore (and this would have been in the late '80s or early '90s.) Old Jack Lewis told me not long ago about a large class of Marine officer candidates being asked if they had ever been in a fistfight, and only two responded that they had. And these are the Marines, dammit! Very different culture from what I grew up in.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Good heavens, in my day, one fight every few weeks was the norm in grammar school. I don't remember any discipline being ever being imposed. (And I was at a very "nice" elementary school.) Of course that was the late '40s and early '50s. My stepson never had a real fight from kindergarten through high school although he has been in a couple of scuffles since then. Jeff Cooper and I were once talking about how you never see boys fighting anymore (and this would have been in the late '80s or early '90s.) Old Jack Lewis told me not long ago about a large class of Marine officer candidates being asked if they had ever been in a fistfight, and only two responded that they had. And these are the Marines, dammit! Very different culture from what I grew up in.


That's because they were officer candidates, and had more than two brain cells to rub together. Physical violence has always been the last resort of the incompetent. Just ask our current president or anyone in his administration.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Physical violence has always been the last resort of the incompetent. Just ask our current president or anyone in his administration.


What a simple view on life you must have. You just insulted everyone from Charlemagne to Winston Churchill. What you fail to grasp is that while you might consider yourself "evolved" beyond the need for violence, most of humanity has not and if you are unwilling to fight, you merely become that much easier to triumph over. Man is both a body and a mind. A true _yin/yang_ situation.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> "A woman, a dog and a walnut tree:
> The more you beat them, the better they be."


How about *NO* dinner for you tonight!


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

In this present time and age, the backyard fights boys have between themselves are no longer the same kind we see 2/3 decades ago.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's because they were officer candidates, and had more than two brain cells to rub together. Physical violence has always been the last resort of the incompetent.


This assertion doesn't make sense. Shouldn't physical violence be the last resort of the competent, and the first resort of the incompetent? Or something like that? Physical violence as a last resort sounds like sound policy in most instances. In either event, physical violence is an awfully effective tactic - and the threat of violence is _very _effective, in practically all spheres of human endeavor. Isn't the very existence of the Marine Corps an express threat of violence? If so, why would men who shun violence wish to join the Marine Corps, even as officers?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> This assertion doesn't make sense. Shouldn't physical violence be the last resort of the competent, and the first resort of the incompetent? Or something like that? Physical violence as a last resort sounds like sound policy in most instances. In either event, physical violence is an awfully effective tactic - and the threat of violence is _very _effective, in practically all spheres of human endeavor. Isn't the very existence of the Marine Corps an express threat of violence? If so, why would men who shunned violence wish to join the Marine Corps, even as officers?


His Bush Derangement Syndrome got the best of him. The post's intent was meant to insult Dubya more than make a valid point in the thread.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> His Bush Derangement Syndrome got the best of him. The post's intent was meant to insult Dubya more than make a valid point in the thread.


Maybe I'm just dense, but I didn't see Lushington's observation as primarily a slam on Dubya. It struck me as pretty apt as a general principle.

However, now that you mention it....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Maybe I'm just dense, but I didn't see Lushington's observation as primarily a slam on Dubya. It struck me as pretty apt as a general principle.
> 
> However, now that you mention it....


No Jan, was a reply to Lush concerning his comment on FrankDC. Frank was trying so hard to insult Dubya, he got his argument wrong, as Lush pointed out.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLibourel,

I think Wayfarer was talking about FrankDC's post. Our good friend is Lushington is no fan of Bush but still retains the power to be objective.

Karl


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Hedonist said:


> In this present time and age, the backyard fights boys have between themselves are no longer the same kind we see 2/3 decades ago.


How so? If you mean the prevalence of Asian martial arts has made fighting between boys more vicious and dangerous, judo was popular and widespread in the 1950s and karate by the 1960s.

Personally, I have always regarded the Asian martial arts as somewhat overrated vis-a-vis the "western" disciplines of boxing and wrestling.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> No Jan, was a reply to Lush concerning his comment on FrankDC. Frank was trying so hard to insult Dubya, he got his argument wrong, as Lush pointed out.


I meant exactly what I said. Stupid people resort to violence because they believe it to be a last resort, when in fact it is not.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I meant exactly what I said. Stupid people resort to violence because they believe it to be a last resort, when in fact it is not.


So then, Winston Churchill was "stupid"? Socrates? JFK? (*gasp*!)

Or are you going to say violence is the *first* resort of intelligent people?

Either way, you are looking fairly bad.

Cheers


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Good heavens, in my day, one fight every few weeks was the norm in grammar school. I don't remember any discipline being ever being imposed. (And I was at a very "nice" elementary school.) Of course that was the late '40s and early '50s.


Amusing.. I was educated at a fairly prestigious boys school in England (early sixties) where between the ages of 12 and 15 fighting was almost a daily event for me. I was admittedly among the more belligerant elements, but even so "scrapping" was not only considered normal among the boys, but was readily condoned by the staff on the grounds that it allowed us to "let off steam" and it developed "character". However, they drew the line at "damage to school property". Hitting people with books and the like was severly punished for this reason (usually by caning). Straight fistfighting was OK. Happy days...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So then, Winston Churchill was "stupid"? Socrates? JFK? (*gasp*!)
> 
> Or are you going to say violence is the *first* resort of intelligent people?
> 
> ...


Yours is a straw man argument. To say that physical violence can be a last resort has nothing to do with my point.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Yours is a straw man argument. To say that physical violence can be a last resort has nothing to do with my point.


Sorry for this very pithy reply, but all I can think of is, "HUH?!"


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Sorry for this very pithy reply, but all I can think of is, "HUH?!"


Oh good grief, is the concept that hard for you to grasp?

1. My point is, stupid people resort to physical violence prematurely to solve problems.

2. Your point, by bringing up Churchill etc, is that physical violence is in fact sometimes necessary.

Point #2 has absolutely nothing to do with point #1.

And if you still can't understand the difference, I give up.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

People seem to forget that kids will be kids and fighting is one of those things we boys do growing up. Let them fight, get it out of their system and move on. People need to stop coddling children these days.

As far as parents go, a good butt whoopin never hurt anyone. Parents need to be reminded to be parents and punishment is a requirement of proper child rearing!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Oh good grief, is the concept that hard for you to grasp?
> 
> *1. My point is, stupid people resort to physical violence prematurely to solve problems.*
> 
> ...


The concept hard for me to grasp? Listen doughboy, we were all trying to tell you that you have formulated your argument incorrectly but you were too thick to listen. If violence were the premature resort, it would be their FIRST RESORT not their LAST RESORT. By coming last, it can not possibly be premature. Is that concept too hard for *you* to grasp?

Ya gotta love the Internet.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

>> If violence were the premature resort, it would be their FIRST RESORT 
>> not their LAST RESORT. By coming last, it can not possibly be premature.

Again you missed it. They *mistakenly believe* violence is the last resort, when in fact the decision is premature.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> >> If violence were the premature resort, it would be their FIRST RESORT
> >> not their LAST RESORT. By coming last, it can not possibly be premature.
> 
> Again you missed it. They *mistakenly believe* violence is the last resort, when in fact the decision is premature.


You are making no sense. If violence as a last resort is a mistaken belief, then you have still maligned all the people I listed that have used violence. If you meant, from the start, to say people are chosing violence when there are still other alternatives, you have a problem with basic syntax and grammar. Or you are just doing an _ad hoc_ rescue after having it so clearly pointed out even to you, that you had to admit your error.

So let us clarify. You are saying violence can be an answer, but only people you deem "smart" use it when necessary, people you disapprove of are "stupid" and use it when they should not?

Cheers


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

It's got nothing to do with my approval or disapproval. Or yours. Each of us makes the decision as to when physical violence is necessary. The point I'm making is, stupid people usually reach this conclusion prematurely. And history has already proven Bush's invasion of Iraq was both premature and catastrophic.

Look, this line of discussion started when a poster commented that few Marine officer candidates in a class had been in physical brawls. And my response was, that's likely because they were intelligent enough to find other, better, non-violent ways to resolve their past conflicts. That's all.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> It's got nothing to do with my approval or disapproval. Or yours. Each of us makes the decision as to when physical violence is necessary. The point I'm making is, stupid people usually reach this conclusion prematurely. And history has already proven Bush's invasion of Iraq was both premature and catastrophic.


As most likely the only way to come to this conclusion would be retrospectively, I am suspect of biased people doing the classification. I assume you feel dropping the bomb on Japan (twice) was stupid?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I meant exactly what I said. *Stupid people resort to violence because they believe it to be a last resort, when in fact it is not.*





FrankDC said:


> Oh good grief, is the concept that hard for you to grasp?
> 
> *1.* *My point is, stupid people resort to physical violence prematurely to solve problems.*
> 
> ...


What?? I'm confused.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> What?? I'm confused.


Shhhh, the lad has Bush Derangement Syndrome, as I spotted two pages ago. I just got him calmed down!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> As most likely the only way to come to this conclusion would be retrospectively, I am suspect of biased people doing the classification. I assume you feel dropping the bomb on Japan (twice) was stupid?


Yet another straw man argument.

But I will say, by that logic, if Hussein did possess WMD as Bush claimed he did, he would have been completely justified using them not only against our troops, but lobbing them into the U.S. As it is, we're still the only nation in the history of the world to ever use nuclear bombs on civilian populations.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Yet another straw man argument.
> 
> But I will say, by that logic, if Hussein did possess WMD as Bush claimed he did, he would have been completely justified using them not only against our troops, but lobbing them into the U.S. As it is, we're still the only nation in the history of the world to ever use nuclear bombs on civilian populations.


Seriously, do you know what a "straw man argument" is? Please explain to me exactly how my point that the only way to tell if an action were "premature" would be retrospectively (do you even know what that word means?).

Yes, the US is the only nation to have used nukes on civilians. Now answer my question, was Truman "stupid" for having done this?

Edit: And by what logic would Hussein be justified using WMD on the US population?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Saddam WOULD NOT have been justified in using WMDs bc his regime never had any moral legitimacy. Self defense must be construed as defending something which is morally legitimate. You may not agree in corporal punishment but you are subjecting yourself to an intellectual thrashing on all fronts.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> Saddam WOULD NOT have been justified in using WMDs bc his regime never had any moral legitimacy. Self defense must be construed as defending something which is morally legitimate. You may not agree in corporal punishment but you are subjecting yourself to an intellectual thrashing on all fronts.
> 
> Karl


Moral legitimacy is relative. And the only cheering we've seen on the streets of Iraq since our invasion has been when a crowd thought they had spotted Saddam Hussein.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Moral legitimacy is relative.


Folks, we have a winner!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Jut following orders and all that jazz? Sorry but that excuse doesn't fly - not at Nuremburg, not at The Hague and not on this forum. Moral legitimacy is not relative.

Karl


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Moral legitimacy is relative. And the only cheering we've seen on the streets of Iraq since our invasion has been when a crowd thought they had spotted Saddam Hussein.


How do you know this? Have you been on all the streets in Iraq? I have several friends that are serving in the Army, and are in Iraq right now. They have all said that they have been cheered by Iraqis in some areas.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

The idea of bestowing "moral legitimacy" on some governments while denying it (and the presumptive right of self-defense) to others seems kind of an odd one. Pretty much every government is ultimately the result of a land grab and was established by brute force. 

The United States was established as a result of armed insurrection against their lawful sovereign and expanded mostly as a result of land grabs at the expense of the indigenous population.

The current British monarch descends from William the Conqueror, who with his Normans subjugated the Saxons, who had grabbed most of Britain from Celto-Romans after the Romans had subjugated the Celts who had conquered it from the indigenous peoples before them, whoever they might have been.

France is the result of the Frankish conquest of Roman Gaul, which in turn had been annexed with much violence by mighty Caesar. As in the case of Britain, the Celts had overrun whoever had been previously living there.

And so it goes....

If I were a supporter of the Administration, I'd be cautious about citing Nuremburg as precedent-setting. I seem to recall they made "planning and waging a war of aggression" a hanging offense.

I think logically one must either repudiate Nuremburg as an unprecedented, vindictive, bloodthirsty kangaroo court or start building a gallows for Dubya, Cheney, Rummy, Condi and the rest of the gang. A friend of mine, a former Air Force JAG colonel, when I posed that question, said we ought to seriously rethink Nuremburg.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> Jut following orders and all that jazz? Sorry but that excuse doesn't fly - not at Nuremburg, not at The Hague and not on this forum. Moral legitimacy is not relative.
> 
> Karl


Sure it is. You think Adolf Hitler wasn't loved by most Germans prior to WWII? You suppose Japan had some other motive for bombing Pearl Harbor, other than the "preventive strike" nonsense embraced by Mr. Bush? You suppose the fact that 85% of Iraqis see the U.S. as an invader and not a liberator is some wild coincidence?

Face fact: We flushed the lives of 58,000+ American kids right down the toilet in Vietnam, and we're making the same mistake all over again in Iraq.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

Hmmm, I think we've gotten completely off topic but I am glad my post generated such a discussion.

FrankDC: I don't know where to begin so I think i'll let sleeping dogs lie. So much more goes into a young person's decision to resort to physical violence than their being "stupid" as you put it. 

MrR

Franks posts remind me of the ghost of JLPogey.....reincarnation perhaps?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So Frank, not going to explain the "straw man" basis to me? Figures.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So Frank, not going to explain the "straw man" basis to me? Figures.


A straw man argument is 'a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position'. E.g.

Point: Stupid people tend to resort to physical violence prematurely.

CounterPoint: Churchill, nuclear bombs dropped on Japan etc.

The latter points have absolutely nothing to do with the former. I would never claim there _aren't_ cases where physical violence is in fact a last resort. I'm merely saying stupid people often can't see any other option to resolve their conflicts, when more intelligent people can and usually do find better, non-violent ways to resolve the exact same conflicts.


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

Back to task, I don't have children yet, so I'm not sure of exactly where I will fall on this topic once I do.

I will say that I was hit as a kid, and I don't think it affected me negatively at all. As a child, I responded better to a sharp whack than I did to a calculated, reasoned argument. For a two year old, I'd say that's normal.

I was thinking about violence and schoolyard fistfights the other day. How many of us here were either taught how to box by our parents, or at least saw a father figure on television show his son how to 'stand up for himself' with a good punch.

I know the 'common knowledge' today is that violence solves nothing and that you should never get into a fight. However, I think that violence CAN solve problems, and fighting, while certainly a last resort, can save much grief in the long-term.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> A straw man argument is 'a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position'. E.g.
> 
> *Point: Stupid people tend to resort to physical violence prematurely. *
> 
> ...


See, now that is an _ad hoc_ rescue. That is not what you said in your original formulation.

Cheers


----------



## Earthmover (Jan 3, 2005)

I will chime in as well, on topic... 

I was administerd CP as a kid. Alternatively, I received other punishments like keeping your arms up in the air for 15+ minutes, which I believe people would categorize as equivalent. I am a firm believer that I am quite a well-adjusted functioning member of society. I'm a believer in CP, although only in certain instances (and relatedly, with certain types of kids who possess certain demeanor), and certainly not as a reason for a parent to "blow off steam". 

Especially as a boy/man, I think it's important to learn boundaries and realize that there are and can be serious consequences to their actions. There are certainly many kids who will appreciate and understand that concept without being subjected to CP as a kid, but certainly not all of them. I think there are enough instances where CP is really the only way to get through to the kid that what they did was inappropriate. 

To use a grossly unscientific anecdotal story, I have a "friend" who is very much a jerk. Especially when out at bars and drinking, he has a tendency to say offensive things and do obnoxious things like knock down other people's (friends and strangers alike) to see how much he can get a rise out of people. He is also about 5'8" and about 140pounds. While I can't catalog all his bad behavior, they include extremely offensive statements regarding race, antisemitism, religion, personal relationships, etc. Again, truly classless human being. As you may have guessed, the reason I am telling this story is that he has never ever been hit or beaten up by anyone in his life. Now, I see this as a classic case of someone really deserving a beating, since there's no amount of logic or verbal or other punishment that can really get someone like this to stop. I mean, in all seriousness, how do you stop someone from acting badly when they feel that there are no consequences that matter? I think CP does fill this role (again, I'd like to emphasize that it is not to be used casually) in certain situations. 


As for why boys no longer fight, I think the basic reason is that the consequences are much higher than it used to be. This operates on two prongs: (1) punishment from the school regarding suspension/expulsion and (2) consequences of the opponent (or more likely, the opponent's "crew") having a knife, gun or having his friends "jump" their adversary at a later time. At least when I was in high school, there was much less of what was an "honorable" fight between two people. There were always threats of their friends coming back to jump him, or brandishing weapons. Aside from everything, it really did make things more dangerous to have a fight. No more honorable scuffles anymore.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jeansguy said:


> Back to task, I don't have children yet, so I'm not sure of exactly where I will fall on this topic once I do.
> 
> I will say that I was hit as a kid, and I don't think it affected me negatively at all. As a child, I responded better to a sharp whack than I did to a calculated, reasoned argument. For a two year old, I'd say that's normal.
> 
> ...


My dad taught my brother and I how to box and wrestle.

Ever see the Edward Burns movie _She's the One?_ Mr. Fitzpatrick (John Mahoney) has his two sons Franny and Mickey put on the gloves and box in the back yard to solve an argument (Francis slept with Mickey's ex). Mickey drops Franny with a right cross. His dad puts his arm around Mickey and says, "Nice punch son, you always did have a great right." I love that scene.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

cp is an important lesson in life. Somethings are not worth the trouble and cp makes that very clear. Like return jail birds, they don't get it! If they had gotten proper cp some wouldn't be in jail. I think without a doubt that children under 10 who end up before a judge getting a decent whipping would save this country billions of $, and those children would actually get control of their lives.

If you ever been around jail birds you will probably find three types- no cp, to much cp, or wrong kind of cp.

Fist fights that include broken teeth should never happen.

JL- you been cp'ed to much.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> My dad taught my brother and I how to box and wrestle.
> 
> Ever see the Edward Burns movie _She's the One?_ Mr. Fitzpatrick (John Mahoney) has his two sons Franny and Mickey put on the gloves and box in the back yard to solve an argument (Francis slept with Mickey's ex). Mickey drops Franny with a right cross. His dad puts his arm around Mickey and says, "Nice punch son, you always did have a great right." I love that scene.


I love that movie! "Let's go Nancy" to Franny.

One of my favorite lines of all times is where John Mahoney says belief in god has nothing to do with being a good Catholic.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Reading this thread and my drive to work this morning made me think of something. Has anyone else noticed how overly aggressive and rude young female drivers are these days? It is like they feel they have no consequences to any of their actions on the road. I have a theory about this which relates to CP.

One thing all men learn in life is that no matter how big, how bad, how tough you are, at any given time if you step out of line, someone bigger, badder and tougher might happen along and render some physical consequences. These young females lack that inhibition and feel they can drive like maniacs and then flip you the bird if you should DARE to honk at them when they cut you off so hard they almost take off your front bumper. I think if they had the social expectation that they too could get thumped for their actions, they might be a bit less reckless and a bit more polite.

Just a thought.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Excellent point, Wayfarer. I think it extends far beyond the matter of driving. I have long thought the reason women are so often so much more bitchy, contentious, disputatious and generally foul natured than we are is that they never learned the lesson we males did to the effect that behavior of that sort is likely to garner you a knuckle sandwich.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> My dad taught my brother and I how to box and wrestle.


Much more useful skills for a lad than correct grammar, to be sure!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Much more useful skills for a lad than correct grammar, to be sure!


Dammit. I always screw that rule up. _My dad taught my brother and me how to box and wrestle. _


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Sorry, I know that was kind of snarky of me, but sometimes the editor in me can't resist it!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*wrong case*

It is when my youngest son (20 and a college student) starts a sentence by saying: "Me and my friends did ....," that I begin to rethink my position on CP. Perhaps I could try the canine throat grab and take down.

Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*sounds ok to me*



JLibourel said:


> I never "clubbed" him, never would have. On the first occasion, he was lying on my bed. When I started to lie down beside him, he growled nastily. I jumped up and roared, "No." He growled again. I picked up a belt, doubled it and whacked the bed beside him. He growled yet again. With that I laid into him with the belt and chased him into his crate and confined him there. I didn't allow him back on my bed until he had been good for about a week. I gave him a lot of rigorous obedience work in the interim.
> 
> The second time was a few years later. He was lurking under the stairs with the remains of a toy he had demolished scattered in front of him. I started cleaning up the mess and got another nasty growl. Again I gave him a verbal reprimand, again he growled. This time I got a broom and whacked him upside the head with the brush end a couple of times until he got the message this was unacceptable behavior.


Jan,
What you describe sounds more or less like what I might have done in similar situations. It took me a lot of work to get to the point where I could distinguish between the somewhat tough handling some dogs sometimes require and hurting them the way some cowardly individuals do who inflict pain on animals to "make them behave." (Same thing applies to horses as Kav describes below.) I used to get looks, you know the kind, when I would jerk my dog's leash to get her attention and reinforce a direction.

I do, however, still maintain that in light of what we now know about child psychology and development, CP is inappropriate for children.

Rerards,
Gurdon


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

interesting....

1. I received the occasional CP as a child. made me a better man, although it wasn't that common, or that much. 

2. in principle, I am not against it with my children, I just haven't had occasion to use it more than twice. my son is exeptionally well behaved and respectful of me and other elders, as well as peaceful to an extreme with his peers. 

3. I have a system, sort of developed from something that somebody told me about, but I don't remember who he was, or the exact details. it is good for boys, administered by the father - it is an alpha male issue thing: my son had a major tantrum once (maybe one of 5 since he could walk). we were in a mall at christmas time, he was on my shoulders, and he wacked me on the head, hard enough and surpising enough to have me almost drop him. he wouldn't calm down, so I pinned him to the ground with one hand, and poked his forhead with a finger, once, pretty hard. it took a little time, but I let him realize that I could hold him down for as long as I wanted, and he couldn't do anything about it. and that my little figner could hurt him. I said "see, do you really want to hit somebody? see how much stronger I am than you? there is always somebody stronger, you need to work things out without resorting to violence, and you espectially need not to disrespect me". he calmed down. a few months later, he had a tantrum, and I gently pocked his forhead. he remembered and calmed down. that was it. the normal punishment that I have is that I take toys away from him.

4. the very idea of using violence is very alien to my son. when I was his age I played with toy guns and gi joes, he doens't. I am not sure if that will change

5. just recently, we had a discussion about killing - he had told my mother in law that he wanted to kill her (hey, I can't really blame him, I have told her that myself) and I wanted to talk through the issue of killing with him, a five year old boy. we discussed it, but I also couldn't tell him that we never kill - I had to make it clear that there were some times when we might have to, but that we never wanted to. dificcult conversation.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Real charming gentlemen &#8230; from corporal punishment to women bashing? 

Any thoughts as to what you will be buying for your &#8230; er 'loved ones' this er still 'very merry season' if such a thing still exists amidst all those pent up emotions?

EDIT: Frankly, I don't give a damn, it says more about your relationships with women than anything else. That said, I'm going to ignore a number of knuckleheaded comments. Without your mum going through labor, you wouldn't be here typing this crap out.



JLibourel said:


> "A woman, a dog and a walnut tree:
> The more you beat them, the better they be."





Wayfarer said:


> Reading this thread and my drive to work this morning made me think of something. Has anyone else noticed how overly aggressive and rude young female drivers are these days? It is like they feel they have no consequences to any of their actions on the road. I have a theory about this which relates to CP.
> 
> One thing all men learn in life is that no matter how big, how bad, how tough you are, at any given time if you step out of line, someone bigger, badder and tougher might happen along and render some physical consequences. These young females lack that inhibition and feel they can drive like maniacs and then flip you the bird if you should DARE to honk at them when they cut you off so hard they almost take off your front bumper. I think if they had the social expectation that they too could get thumped for their actions, they might be a bit less reckless and a bit more polite.
> 
> Just a thought.





JLibourel said:


> Excellent point, Wayfarer. I think it extends far beyond the matter of driving. I have long thought the reason women are so often so much more bitchy, contentious, disputatious and generally foul natured than we are is that they never learned the lesson we males did to the effect that behavior of that sort is likely to garner you a knuckle sandwich.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't think anyone is recommending the beating of women. This is just a hypothesis for how some women feel they can say or do whatever they want because they will probably not be hit no matter what they do.

I'm not saying that I totally agree. I had not thought of this before. Maybe there is something to it, though.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hedonist:

I do not see where I was "women bashing". At the very, very worst, I was bashing a highly specific segment of females, namely the young hyper-aggressive female driver. How you extrapolate that to "all women" is beyond me, but then again, this is the Interchange.

Further, I do not see my statements as bashing even them. I merely pondered why they feel so entitled and so totally devoid from tying their actions to possible consequences, such as basically killing another driver due to their unthinking and overtly aggressive actions behind the wheel. I pondered what social mechanisms were lacking to prevent this highly dangerous and anti-social behavior. I fail to see how pondering this calls into questions my relationships with all women, my wife, or my mother, as you have alluded too. I think once again Hedonist, we have a case where what you have to say about me, actually says much more about you.

Regards


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

^Tsk tsk … temper, temper

Assuming all young women drive like maniacs is a sweeping statement. So all young men drive in a civilized manner? How about saying instead, ‘Most young adults drive like maniacs’.

Btw, I don’t have problems with men, if I do, I wouldn’t be here. As a matter of fact, most of my colleagues are men. I only object when sweeping statements are made about certain groups of people.

EDIT: That said, carry on with the circus show, it’s no sweat off my back.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> ^Tsk tsk &#8230; temper, temper


Sorry, you have lost me right there. Could you please show me where I have displayed a fit of temper in my reply and warranted such a supercilious and condescending statement from you?



Hedonist said:


> Assuming all young women drive like maniacs is a sweeping statement. So all young men drive in a civilized manner? How about saying instead, 'Most young adults drive like maniacs'.


Not so much with the reading comprehension I see. Where did I assume "all young women drive like maniacs"? I rarely use universals, in fact, notice even here I will not say, "I *never* use universals." Please, quote that statement from me. You, of course, will not be able to because that is in not what I said; you must have read a universal qualifier into my initial statement. I do not think I could have gotten more specific about the sub-class I was referencing unless I provided names and addresses.

Next, when did I say all young men drive in a civilized manner? Again, I did not. By your logic if I said "some men are tall" you would have it that I am inferring "all women are short". Logic appears not to be a personal strong point with you.



Hedonist said:


> Btw, I don't have problems with men, if I do, I wouldn't be here.


Please research the term "logical necessity". Once you grasp that concept, please show me the logical necessity of your above premise. And to paraphrase the Bard, I think you doth protest too much.



Hedonist said:


> I only object when sweeping statements are made about certain groups of people.


Then you should have no objections here. Interesting too that you only protest when you feel "certain groups of people" are being maligned. Could I inquire as to what groups of people you feel it is acceptable to make sweeping statements about?



Hedonist said:


> EDIT: That said, carry on with the circus show, it's no sweat off my back.


I think the only performance being given is by you. This is your second sign off indicating you are too aloof to reply, yet you keep replying. Interesting.

Cheers


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

^Sigh … certain groups as in ‘categorizing’ everyone into stereotypes, clichés. Anyway, you can twist it any way you like. My original statement stands about making sweeping statements. While I do agree with you on many of your other interchange posts, not all young women are reckless, as you have posted above. And yes, my many posts are only to correct your assumptions. Rest assured, I’ll leave you to your circus despite how twisted you wish to make of my statements. So go nuts, give it your best shot.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> ^Sigh &#8230; certain groups as in 'categorizing' everyone into stereotypes, clichés. Anyway, you can twist it any way you like. My original statement stands about making sweeping statements. While I do agree with you on many of your other interchange posts, not all young women are reckless, as you have posted above. And yes, my many posts are only to correct your assumptions. Rest assured, I'll leave you to your circus despite how twisted you wish to make of my statements. So go nuts, give it your best shot.


*tsk tsk* Such a fit of pique!

You have in no way offered corrections to me, I am afraid I have to say that in fact, I have offered you several. Whether or not you have the ability and/or desire to realize this is unknown to me. You have not corrected me in any way and to say you have is grossly in error. Further, you did not directly answer to any of my many points regarding your incorrect allegations of my "women bashing". The only twisting being done was by you of my statements.

And yet another reply when you give an intimation you will offer no further reply. Interesting.....

Cheers


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Perhaps we could have a special AAAC meeting where Hedonist and Wayfarer give each other spankings!


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

^LOL!

I've already PMed his lovely wife. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Perhaps we could have a special AAAC meeting where Hedonist and Wayfarer give each other spankings!


I'm seeing a pay per view event, the likes Don King would not want any part of =)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Please gents, I am surprised I am not getting further accusations of misogyny over your suggestions!


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I don't think anyone is recommending the beating of women. This is just a hypothesis for how some women feel they can say or do whatever they want because they will probably not be hit no matter what they do.
> 
> I'm not saying that I totally agree. I had not thought of this before. Maybe there is something to it, though.


Maybe they're armed.

Seriously, I'm a young(well, -ish) woman and I don't do stupid things behind the wheel because I have a realistic fear of ending up dead in a car accident.

Young men, on the other hand, watch NASCAR and play so many video games where one can obtain additional "lives" by getting to the next level, they have no sense of their own mortality.

Okay, that theory is just as silly. Hmm.

My parents never hit me, aside from the very necessary smack while reaching for a hot stove or running towards the road when I was too young for logical explanations about danger. The only beating I ever took was from a psychotic boy in 8th grade, who gave me a black eye, and I never said a word. Perhaps I "looked at him funny", which is another reason fights start.

You lookin' at me? Huh?

I don't believe in hitting children once they're old enough to be reasoned with, and anyone who has ever been silently guilt-tripped by my mother would agree.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

It just seemed appropriate to settle a dispute that way in a Corporal Punishment thread. Are you sure you haven't been a bad boy, now? 

Hedonist seems to take some amusement, actually.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I will stick by my guns, Hedonist and anyone else, who accuses me of "women bashing." I think a major reason women feel they can get away with being so disagreeable is because, at least if they are moving in the company of decent men, they have a reasonable certainty they will not be "bashed," though they often as not deserve to be. Haven't you ever heard the old joke to the effect that if women didn't have their pudenda, there would be a bounty on them?

As to what I am getting my spouse for Xmas, all I can say that I am increasingly coming to the conclusion the reason there is all this talk about a "White Christmas" has nothing to do with snow. It is because if you are going to play the role of a dutiful, loving, munificent paterfamilias at this time of year, you will positively be bled white by ruinous expenditure! I think of all the great clothes could be buying with that money and almost weep!


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

"I think a major reason women feel they can get away with being so disagreeable is because, at least if they are moving in the company of decent men, they have a reasonable certainty they will not be "bashed," though they often as not deserve to be." 

If the above statement is correct, then we should expect to find mild-mannered, pleasant, reasonable women in the company of motorcycle gangs, criminals, pimps, and others who have no moral objections to striking women.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I will stick by my guns, Hedonist and anyone else, who accuses me of "women bashing." I think a major reason women feel they can get away with being so disagreeable is because, at least if they are moving in the company of decent men, they have a reasonable certainty they will not be "bashed," though they often as not deserve to be. Haven't you ever heard the old joke to the effect that if women didn't have their pudenda, there would be a bounty on them?


JL,

I am behind you on this one. Women do get away with more because we men were raised to treat women differently. This carries over into adulthood and for a large portion of women they use this to their advantage. I am not saying all women, but the majority will hide behind being a woman when it is convenient to them.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Gong Tao Jai said:


> "I think a major reason women feel they can get away with being so disagreeable is because, at least if they are moving in the company of decent men, they have a reasonable certainty they will not be "bashed," though they often as not deserve to be."
> 
> If the above statement is correct, then we should expect to find mild-mannered, pleasant, reasonable women in the company of motorcycle gangs, criminals, pimps, and others who have no moral objections to striking women.


Since I don't move in such circles, it's hard for me to comment on the deportment of such women. There may be a certain Darwinian selection in favor of tractability among such women since those who make themselves too disagreeable are likely to end up dead!


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

In a macho society, women's disagreeable behaviour is not threatening to men, so it doesn't matter - it's a woman's privilege to be disagreeable so long as she stays in her place. However, things are changing...


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Rich: Being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable is not a desirable trait to have, man or woman. 

JL: Seriously, having such views puts you on the defensive everytime you are with a female. Kinda detracts the fun and enjoyment of being with the opposite sex … while I can only guess that such negativity comes from bad experiences, one can only hope that in the not too distant future, perhaps more positive experiences will perhaps persuade you to change some of your views. 

Wayfarer: While there is an element of truth in your post, there are also lots of good kids (young men/women) around so take it easy on your friend’s daughters.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> Wayfarer: While there is an element of truth in your post, there are also lots of good kids (young men/women) around so take it easy on your friend's daughters.


Just can not help yourself misrepresenting what I said can you? And still replying after signing off numerous times. Still interesting.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

^Haha … as I’m going on a 3 week break soon with my family, with lots of skiing (yeah right) and après skiing :icon_cheers: … I guess I better throw in a couple more posts for you … wrt answering your other more nuttier questions, I’m sorry to say that I’ve ran out of bananas to hand out to monkeys and nuts to elephants. :icon_jokercolor:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> ^Haha &#8230; as I'm going on a 3 week break soon with my family, with lots of skiing (yeah right) and après skiing :icon_cheers: &#8230; I guess I better throw in a couple more posts for you &#8230; wrt answering your other more nuttier questions, I'm sorry to say that I've ran out of bananas to hand out to monkeys and nuts to elephants. :icon_jokercolor:


Ah, now with the _ad homs_. You go girl!

Just for shytes and giggles, could you directly quote one of my "nuttier question"?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Hedonist said:


> JL: Seriously, having such views puts you on the defensive everytime you are with a female. Kinda detracts the fun and enjoyment of being with the opposite sex &#8230; while I can only guess that such negativity comes from bad experiences, one can only hope that in the not too distant future, perhaps more positive experiences will perhaps persuade you to change some of your views.


Any man who isn't on the defensive around women is a bloody fool. Actually, my life would have been a good deal more pleasant and prosperous, I am sure, had been more wary and distrusting of women in my younger days.

These days, with "sexual harrassment" laws having made the workplace a veritable minefield for male employees, any man who is more than superficially cordial with his female coworkers is just asking to lose his livelihood. Many's the woman who will dress provocatively, engage a man in sexy and flirtatious banter and then report him for harrassment when he replies in kind, just out of sheer malevolence and devilment. I think a woman-free workplace would be like paradise!

Our society and culture since the 19th century has idealized women to a ridiculous degree. They are overwhelmingly portrayed as the "good guy" of the sexes. We men are conditioned to regard women as life's ultimate prizes. We go through life (most of us) in the belief that being bonded to a woman makes life much more pleasant than being womanless. We tend to think of women in general as very much nicer people than we are. And with the sad wisdom of old age, I now realize it's a cr*p mythology!


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Hedonist said:


> Rich: Being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable is not a desirable trait to have, man or woman.
> 
> .


True, but the disagreeable women we're talking about are probably not like that most of the time, so it's not really a trait - and when they are disagreeable it's not for the sake of it. It's just that they don't need to control their behaviour so much as men, because more is forgiven them - tantrums, hysterics, mood swings, irrational outbursts, unpredictable reactions, all these things are allowed in women but not in men. But as I said, the times they are a-chaaaangin....


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Actually, my life would have been a good deal more pleasant and prosperous, I am sure, had been more wary and distrusting of women in my younger days.


That might just be worth a poll... How many of you think the same, I wonder?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Gentlemen???*

I don't think I've ever been in a gathering in which so many people have felt so free to display such an ugly strain of mysogyny. Maybe this forum should rename itself the He-Man Woman Haters Club.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't think I've ever been in a gathering in which so many people have felt so free to display such an ugly strain of mysogyny. Maybe this forum should rename itself the He-Man Woman Haters Club.


Much like premature support for Obama is a demonstration of the soft bigotry of low expectations, this post seems very much to demonstrate the soft sexism of low behavioral expectations.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

If anyone tries to call me a mysogynist they are incorrect. I hold women as equals, my wife as my equal and life partner, and generally have great relations with women. Anyone that calls me a mysogynist is bringing their own baggage to the conversation and *clearly* not reading what I have to say. I only feel this needs to be said because so many poor reading skills, emotional outbursts, and general logical fallacies are being put forward in this thread. I am sorry I posted my musings on the anti-social behavior of a small group in the general population.

As equals, they should expect equal treatment. If one drives in a fashion that endangers others and displays extreme hyper-aggression, one should expect consequences. If one acts in a fashion that is anti-social, rude, and shows blatant disregard for social expectations and mores, one should expect consequences. To ponder social mechanisms that will provide the negative feedback and consequences needed to curb this behavior is hardly scandalous and anyone that cannot take my musings for what they were needs to seek therapy.

I specifically laid down the fact that a young man exhibiting such behavior should (and having been one not too long ago, I can safely say, "does") expect that at some point he may face immediate physical consequences from someone bigger and stronger than him. I think if we take a poll, most men will answer that they would expect there is a good chance of a physical confrontation if they drive like dangerous idiots in heavy traffic. Oddly enough, *not one comment or accusation of mysandrogeny* was leveled at me for pointing out this social mechanism!! Why is that? I would deem it was sexism.

Ergo, *equal treatment* would dictate the same social expectations for the opposite sex, would it not? I am not advocating men go about beating women (or vice versa for that matter) but was pondering what mechanism is present in young men that seems to be lacking in this small and precisely defined group of females.

Regards


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You may not be able to win, here. I'll admit it's unfair, but I think everyone is pretty well dug in to their opinions.

I certainly don't think you hate women or anything, for what it's worth. 

(You, like many others here, may invite some of the stuff you get back with the way you state things that some may find objectionable, though.)

I think a lot of overreacting goes on in the Interchange. I admire your willingness to continue to express yourself. (Although a lot of you could use lessons in tact.) 

I hold back my opinions because I am a centrist who leans just a bit to the right and have few who post here who agree with me, and also because I don't like defending myself from flames.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> If anyone tries to call me a mysogynist they are incorrect. I hold women as equals, my wife as my equal and life partner, and generally have great relations with women. Anyone that calls me a mysogynist is bringing their own baggage to the conversation and *clearly* not reading what I have to say. I only feel this needs to be said because so many poor reading skills, emotional outbursts, and general logical fallacies are being put forward in this thread. I am sorry I posted my musings on the anti-social behavior of a small group in the general population.
> 
> As equals, they should expect equal treatment. If one drives in a fashion that endangers others and displays extreme hyper-aggression, one should expect consequences. If one acts in a fashion that is anti-social, rude, and shows blatant disregard for social expectations and mores, one should expect consequences. To ponder social mechanisms that will provide the negative feedback and consequences needed to curb this behavior is hardly scandalous and anyone that cannot take my musings for what they were needs to seek therapy.
> 
> ...


*Woman hating Canadian spy!* :devil:


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I love and hate women with almost equal intensity.

I think anybody passionate about the opposite sex feels this ferocious ambivalence.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JL,

Your view of women is very Manichean - St. Augustine would not be amused! One wonders if you dable in any other Fourth century heresies. You don't strike me as a Donatist (though there is a striking Donatist tendency in modern society.)

Karl


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

Is anyone else as puzzled as I am by the tone of some of these posts? There is nothing in my experience to suggest that more than a tiny minority of women are irrational, troublesome, temperamental, manipulative, etc. Nor have I ever found women as a group puzzling or confounding, or felt the need to wonder exactly what it is that women want. Is this so unusual? I completely fail to understand what Jan Libouriel, for example, is so unhappy about. 

In the interests of maintaining the original topic: I do not hit my kids, but I don't think a little corporal punishment, dispassionately applied, does any harm. neither is it a cure-all: its use is almost universal among the socioeconomic groups that fill our prisons. The main lesson I have learned from raising kids is that dogmatic approaches to child-rearing are absurd.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Big difference between a little slap and beating a child. Those who can't draw that distinction should refrain from corporal punishment entirely, better yet refrain from having children and pets.

Perhaps boys fight less at school than we did. But they shoot each other more often. At my boarding school in the 1970s, not exactly a touchy-feely place, in fact an extremely athletic place, the first-offense penalty for fistfighting was expulsion. Of course it still happened, but infrequently and not in public. The old-school headmaster my first three years had served since 1954, and his rule was grounded not in political correctness -- if the term had been coined then, we never heard it -- but in teaching us to resolve differences like educated people.

I disagree that women drive more aggressively than men, at least not here, where almost everyone drives like a mental patient, including sometimes me. Men these days seem to operate under the same no-penalty assumption as women, given that violence these days culminates less in fisticuffs and more in shootings, and the wise person understands that the other party might well be packing.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> JL,
> 
> Your view of women is very Manichean - St. Augustine would not be amused! One wonders if you dable in any other Fourth century heresies. You don't strike me as a Donatist (though there is a striking Donatist tendency in modern society.)
> 
> Karl


I think that if I had a "Manichean" view of women, it would be more akin to the old "madonna-prostitute" complex--that women were either angels or devils. I think my view is entirely the opposite: Even the nicest women are royal pains in the posterior much of the time, and even (or perhaps especially) bad and crazy women can be a lot of fun in limited doses. Back in my wilder, younger days, an on-and-off girlfriend of mine quipped that instead of having a madonna-prostitute complex, I had a "prostitute-prostitute" complex: "Shall I pick up this prostitute or that prostitute?" Those days are far behind me, however.

I think the Donatists are generally regarded more as schismatics than true heretics. I recall that Cardinal Newman is supposed to have stated that, prior to his going over to Rome, he would look in the mirror and see a Donatist. The Donatists were a bit too rigorous for my taste, especially if Felix of Aptunga was telling the truth when he said he had handed over heretical books, not the Scriptures, to the persecutors. I always liked the battle cry of the Donatist circumcelliones, "Deo Laudes!"


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Oddly enough, *not one comment or accusation of mysandrogeny* was leveled at me for pointing out this social mechanism!! Why is that? I would deem it was sexism.


What does "mysandrogeny" mean? I am not familiar with this word. I could understand "misandrogyny" meaning dislike of effeminate, epicene men, transsexuals and maybe masculine women, but I don't think that's what you mean. Unfortunately, the word "misanthropy" usually means a generalized dislike of all humanity. I would surmise that the word for specific antipathy to human males would be "misandry," although I have never encountered it, even though it is a common enough attitude, especially in feminist circles.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Yup Jan, I should have looked up the exact term. Is it "misandry". Here's the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

Thanks for the editing.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Personally, I have always regarded the Asian martial arts as somewhat overrated vis-a-vis the "western" disciplines of boxing and wrestling.


That's because generally their aims were different.

Boxing and wrestling are generally competitve sports and were always that way--a way for young men to "lock horns" in a (relatively) safe setting with rules and such.

Certain "Asian" Martial Arts were much more military training, and are HIGHLY effective outside the ring, when taught properly. Many arts are crippled when the goal is to leave your opponent more or less health--for instance in Budo Taijitsu the "transmittal" form of a particular kata calls for a throw at the end, but the "real" form at that point has you using leverage to break your opponents elbow.

Judo was a specific narrowing and abstraction *intended* as a soft sport. Akido was specifically designed NOT to be deadly unless you REALLY wanted it to.

Violence isn't the last refuge of the incompetent, it's a tool for survival in a world where there really is evil.

When some would-be socialist with an predelection for South American flava presents you with the option of "your money or your life" calling a blue ribbon panel of washed up has-been politicans and Useless Nitwits isn't going to get you anywhere. And if you don't have enough cash on you, or you don't move fast enough he's going to cut you anyway. You hit him hard, fast, and you don't stop until he can't move. Preferably you render him incapable of ever doing such a thing again.

When you catch a young left winger crawling into your bedroom window at 2 in the morning you don't invite him to a round table discussion on the causes of drug abuse in modern suburbia.

I mean, if you want to be all post-modern and stuff you can offer to help him tie your wife up so he can have his way with her. I'm sure she'll understand that violence was a resort for incompetents and you'll be a GOOD witness in court against him.

I'll probably wind up in court too, but for very different reasons.

As to the topic at hand (as it were), Corporal Punishment, properly administered, is NOT a beating. It is NOT random violence visited upon a hapless young man. It is physical pain in hopes that a lesson will be driven home when either other methods have failed, or the infraction was so extreme as to warrant skipping intermediate steps.

I was spanked no more than a half-dozen times in my life. In all cases the scenario was that I was caught doing something I shouldn't (lying generally, or avoiding an entire semister of homework while lying about it), then my father announced that what the punishment would be, an hour or so discussion (lecture and pleading) would follow, then the pain would be administered in a fairly abrupt and clinical fashion. After it was done it was *over*, and my father made it fairly clear that he regreted the necessity, but that nothing else was working (even without a genetic link stubbornness runs in our family) and I really had brought it upoin myself.

Which is entirely true. My father *never* beat me for some spur of the moment infraction. It was always clear *even before being caught* that I was doing something that would arouse his ire and that I was doing something seriously wrong.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

petro said:


> I was spanked no more than a half-dozen times in my life. In all cases the scenario was that I was caught doing something I shouldn't (lying generally, or avoiding an entire semister of homework while lying about it), then my father announced that what the punishment would be, an hour or so discussion (lecture and pleading) would follow, then the pain would be administered in a fairly abrupt and clinical fashion. After it was done it was *over*, and my father made it fairly clear that he regreted the necessity, but that nothing else was working (even without a genetic link stubbornness runs in our family) and I really had brought it upoin myself.
> 
> Which is entirely true. My father *never* beat me for some spur of the moment infraction. It was always clear *even before being caught* that I was doing something that would arouse his ire and that I was doing something seriously wrong.


I've never much liked the cold-blooded trial-sentence-appeal-punishment procedure. I prefer an immediate reaction - it somehow seems more sincere, more close to the heart. Whether or not it's more effective I don't know. I've often heard it said that you should never strike in anger, but the very protestant guilt-inducing method you describe has always seemed a bit sadistic to me. Personally I could never punish my kids coldly - I had to be in a rage. They learned to see it coming and got out of the way.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Yup Jan, I should have looked up the exact term. Is it "misandry". Here's the link:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry
> 
> Thanks for the editing.


Anybody who thinks we're being misogynistic ought to look at the quotes in the site. Makes anything we've said look utterly tepid in comparison.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

Rich said:


> I've never much liked the cold-blooded trial-sentence-appeal-punishment procedure. I prefer an immediate reaction - it somehow seems more sincere, more close to the heart. Whether or not it's more effective I don't know. I've often heard it said that you should never strike in anger, but the very protestant guilt-inducing method you describe has always seemed a bit sadistic to me. Personally I could never punish my kids coldly - I had to be in a rage. They learned to see it coming and got out of the way.


It makes the lesson more painful without having to use as much force making the event both less damaging and more memorable.

Also I believe the method was to make sure that I fully understood why I was being punished.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

petro said:


> It makes the lesson more painful without having to use as much force making the event both less damaging and more memorable.
> 
> Also I believe the method was to make sure that I fully understood why I was being punished.


Yes, I can see that. A suppose an act of justice has to be seen to be fair and objective.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Rich said:


> I've never much liked the cold-blooded trial-sentence-appeal-punishment procedure. I prefer an immediate reaction - it somehow seems more sincere, more close to the heart. Whether or not it's more effective I don't know. I've often heard it said that you should never strike in anger, but the very protestant guilt-inducing method you describe has always seemed a bit sadistic to me. Personally I could never punish my kids coldly - I had to be in a rage. They learned to see it coming and got out of the way.


I would hope never to hit anyone, let alone my children, in anger.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> I would hope never to hit anyone, let alone my children, in anger.


If I wasn't angry, and took the time to simmer down, I think I would find excuses for not punishing them at all! I wouldn't make a good executioner. When a child sees you are very angry and liable to strike he will usually get out of the way very fast.

Incidentally, and I value your opinion on this, do you think that a degree of anger and aggressivity are useful (or maybe necessary) in sports like fencing, boxing, tennis (chess even)? Not to the extent of losing control, obviously. But they do give you lot of energy and motivation, and they put fear into your opponent.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> That might just be worth a poll... How many of you think the same, I wonder?


A poll as to the many bad choices you've made when you were younger? Yeah sure, I'm always bid for a laugh.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> These days, with "sexual harrassment" laws having made the workplace a veritable minefield for male employees, any man who is more than superficially cordial with his female coworkers is just asking to lose his livelihood. Many's the woman who will dress provocatively, engage a man in sexy and flirtatious banter and then report him for harrassment when he replies in kind, just out of sheer malevolence and devilment. I think a woman-free workplace would be like paradise!


Rose: My mother has a saying. Do you want to hear it? 
Perry: Sure. 
Rose: Don't sh1t where you eat.
(quote from movie 'Moonstruck')



JLibourel said:


> Our society and culture since the 19th century has idealized women to a ridiculous degree. They are overwhelmingly portrayed as the "good guy" of the sexes. We men are conditioned to regard women as life's ultimate prizes. We go through life (most of us) in the belief that being bonded to a woman makes life much more pleasant than being womanless. We tend to think of women in general as very much nicer people than we are. And with the sad wisdom of old age, I now realize it's a cr*p mythology!


Trust and respect are 2 things that need to be earned, not granted and that goes for both sexes.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Back in my wilder, younger days, an on-and-off girlfriend of mine quipped that instead of having a madonna-prostitute complex, I had a "prostitute-prostitute" complex: "Shall I pick up this prostitute or that prostitute?" Those days are far behind me, however.


Sorry, you're hanging out with the wrong crowd.

To quote my mum:
'&#8230; for while there may be a few juvenile delinquents in the best of families, there are even fewer gentlemen among the sons of gangsters and ladies among the daughters of prostitutes.'


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I will stick by my guns, Hedonist and anyone else, who accuses me of "women bashing." I think a major reason women feel they can get away with being so disagreeable is because, at least if they are moving in the company of decent men, they have a reasonable certainty they will not be "bashed," though they often as not deserve to be.


Aren't you doing the exact same thing here &#8230; so, in lieu of that fact, I'm going to have to ask you to &#8230;
Loretta Castorini: [slaps him twice] Snap out of it!
(^Moonstruck)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> Aren't you doing the exact same thing here &#8230; so, in lieu of that fact, I'm going to have to ask you to &#8230;
> Loretta Castorini:* [slaps him twice]* Snap out of it!
> (^Moonstruck)


All this talk then a display of violence? *tsk tsk* Misandryst.

At least you are not acting like you're not going to reply and try for the last word anymore. Progress!


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

^Hey, it's a quote from the movie ... not exactly right to take it out ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hedonist said:


> ^Hey, it's a quote from the movie ... not exactly right to take it out ...


You picked the quote, and one violent towards men at that. By chosing it like that, endorsement is obviously inferred. Do not back away from it, you wish you could slap Jan.


----------



## dah328 (Sep 27, 2003)

petro said:


> As to the topic at hand (as it were), Corporal Punishment, properly administered, is NOT a beating. It is NOT random violence visited upon a hapless young man. It is physical pain in hopes that a lesson will be driven home when either other methods have failed, or the infraction was so extreme as to warrant skipping intermediate steps.
> 
> I was spanked no more than a half-dozen times in my life. In all cases the scenario was that I was caught doing something I shouldn't (lying generally, or avoiding an entire semister of homework while lying about it), then my father announced that what the punishment would be, an hour or so discussion (lecture and pleading) would follow, then the pain would be administered in a fairly abrupt and clinical fashion. After it was done it was *over*, and my father made it fairly clear that he regreted the necessity, but that nothing else was working (even without a genetic link stubbornness runs in our family) and I really had brought it upoin myself.
> 
> Which is entirely true. My father *never* beat me for some spur of the moment infraction. It was always clear *even before being caught* that I was doing something that would arouse his ire and that I was doing something seriously wrong.


That's the best explanation I've seen on this thread so far. Using "corporal punishment" and "beating" interchangeably is like using "surgery" and "stabbing" interchangeably. Both involve the use of sharp-edged instruments to cut flesh, causing pain and possible death. The intent of the former is that the infliction of temporary and recoverable trauma will remove the patient's deeper pathology that could not be treated by less invasive means. Kids are perfectly aware of the difference between properly-administered corporal punishment and a beating just as no surgical patient mistakes the procedure for aggravated assault.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Hedonist said:


> Sorry, you're hanging out with the wrong crowd.
> 
> To quote my mum:
> '&#8230; for while there may be a few juvenile delinquents in the best of families, there are even fewer gentlemen among the sons of gangsters and ladies among the daughters of prostitutes.'


That should be in the past tense these days. Of course, you are right, but I did have a lot of fun with the bad girls back in my lusty younger days. In fact, I can think of very few friends of mine who haven't consorted with the bad girls to some extent or another.


----------



## drrobert (Sep 24, 2006)

Most loving parents discipline their children because they love them, not because they are trying to inflict long-lasting psychological trauma that will cause their children permanent harm. One could certainly argue that if you spank a child to modify behavior your are in essence implicitly saying to that child : I can use violence to get you to change your ways even though I am against you striking your brothers and/or sisters or friends and will be angry if you do so. Certainly an element of hypocripsy is evident in such behavior.Furthermore, there is too much gratuitous violence in this society for my own choosing and probably for many of you as well.However, I do not believe that young children are capable of seeing the apparently flawed logic in parents using corporal punishment to achieve a noble goal of making that child know the difference between right and wrong. 

I suspect that many of you ,like me , were spanked as a child when we did something wrong. Although those times were very few and far between in my upbringing, I know my parents were trying to teach me important life lessons concerning the fact that: stealing is wrong, cheating is wrong, not sharing with your sisters is wrong, lying is wrong, breaking the law is wrong, being mean to other human beings is wrong,etc... . After each spanking, which never hurt that much , I felt shame in that I had not lived up to my parents' expectations. That shame bothered me more than the spanking did. My behavior usually changed after each one of those incidents and undeniably for the better. My father, who mainly spanked me , cared enough about me to try to teach me right from wrong and as every parent knows , those spankings hurt the parent far more than the child .


Today, I see children who have apparently not been spanked and I do not view them as having the self-discipline and the knowledge of right from wrong that most of us were taught. Despite the corporal punishment inveighed against me by my parents , I think I turned out to be a pretty good human being and that's entirely attributable to the love and yes occasional spankings that I received from my parents.


But oh how things have changed. When my daughter was 15 years old I told her she could not go out with this a certain guy who I felt was not the right type of individual for her. As any 15 year old is want to do, she became very lippy and sarcastic to me when she could not get her way. The argument reached the point where she said to me" **** you Dad" whereupon I immediately slapped her face. My ex-wife immediately called the police on me and they interviewed me as said that I had done nothing wrong. By the way my daughter was not hurt in any manner at all. Had I used that language to my father or mother when I was growing up ,I know I would have been down 2-3 pints of blood as a result. Ten years later my daughter apologized to me for her inappropriate language and admitted that I had been right to do what I did. However, the embarassment of having the police come to the house and seeing the neighbors look over at our house like something major was going on left me with the notion that maybe what I did was wrong.

My present wife told me she would have done the same thing to any of her children had they used that type of language to her and most people who I tell this incident to agree they would have done the same. I would like to know what any of you would have done had your daughter used such vile and repulsive language in the manner which I have outlined here. I do not believe my daughter at that time would have responsded to words like"please don't use language like that in front of your father". If results count, after that incident she never repeated that foul language in any of our subsequent encounters that occasionally became heated. I did not enjoy slapping my precious daughter, yet she had to learn that that type of response to her father or mother was never acceptable under any circumstances. I leave it to all of you to tell me if you think I was right or wrong in what I did. drrobert


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Pretty Woman & Moonstruck...*



Hedonist said:


> To quote my mum:
> '&#8230; for while there may be a few juvenile delinquents in the best of families, *there are even fewer gentlemen among the sons of gangsters and ladies among the daughters of prostitutes.'*


The movies "Pretty Woman" and "Moonstruck" are among my favorites.

humm... but Martha Stewart was in jail and other top CEOs.

The world is full of surprises... I can only wonder.:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:

...from paris


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

lovemeparis said:


> The movies "Pretty Woman" and "Moonstruck" are among my favorites.
> 
> humm... but Martha Stewart was in jail and other top CEOs.
> 
> ...


Martha Stewart is neither a gangster nor a prostitute. I fail to see your point.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

_Hasn't anyone taught you to punch out for the day?_ :deadhorse-a:



Wayfarer said:


> slap Jan.


_Absolutely not._ 
_If you have a problem with the movie quote, take it up with the screenwriter. You're barking up the wrong tree here. Btw, Cher won an Oscar for that role, she's absolutely hilarious._



Wayfarer said:


> These young females lack that inhibition and feel they can drive like maniacs and then flip you the bird if you should DARE to honk at them when they cut you off so hard they almost take off your front bumper.





Wayfarer said:


> what mechanism is present in young men that seems to be lacking in this small and precisely defined group of females.


_As it is improbable that you've met all the young women in the world, therefore, your statement is illogical. Btw, all this protesting from you is making me think that you like my mum's crow pie. You can try as hard as you want, buddy, I've an uncanny ability for never losing my head. I prefer to keep it on my shoulders, know what I mean &#8230; it allows me to think clearly &#8230; brains can't do much when it's lying on the ground._

EDIT: _Have fun over the holidays ... see you later, alligator._


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hedonist:

You can keep misquoting me until the end of time but you know what? It will still be a misquote and wrong. I did not use a universal qualifier, hence I do not need first hand (empirical) knowledge of each young female that drives in the US. I only need enough knowledge to define the sub-set that I did. Can you understand that logic (no need to answer, you have demonstrated for several days now you are incapable of logical thought (talk about a stereo-type!), it was purely rhetorical). If you call this "clear thinking" I would certainly hate to see the tripe you'd post if befuddled!

As for the movie quote, blame the screen writer? No, you quoted it to make your point, the quote gave your intent. You condoned anti-male violence through the quote. Either you quoted it to convey your message or it was a total non-sequitor. Pick which it was, either way the result is egg on your face.

Cheers

P.S. And another sign off indicating you will no longer reply? LOL, I think you have demonstrated how likely that is too. "Fickleness, thy name is woman." Hey, don't blame me, it was just a quote! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Martha and the Crooked Executives*



Laxplayer said:


> Martha Stewart is neither a gangster nor a prostitute. I fail to see your point.


I think the point, with which I agree, is to group Martha and the crooked executives in the same category as prostitutes and gangsters.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Rich said:


> If I wasn't angry, and took the time to simmer down, I think I would find excuses for not punishing them at all! I wouldn't make a good executioner. When a child sees you are very angry and liable to strike he will usually get out of the way very fast.
> 
> Incidentally, and I value your opinion on this, do you think that a degree of anger and aggressivity are useful (or maybe necessary) in sports like fencing, boxing, tennis (chess even)? Not to the extent of losing control, obviously. But they do give you lot of energy and motivation, and they put fear into your opponent.


I, myself, seperate aggressivity and anger - I would say that the last time I hit somebody in anger I was probrably 10 or so, but I can generate a huge amount of agressivity, as needed, and that is a powerful tool. I also fake anger pretty well - but again, I do that as a tool, while keeping calm. I, myself, think that emotions should be kept seperate from violence.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> I, myself, seperate aggressivity and anger - I would say that the last time I hit somebody in anger I was probrably 10 or so, but I can generate a huge amount of agressivity, as needed, and that is a powerful tool. I also fake anger pretty well - but again, I do that as a tool, while keeping calm. I, myself, think that emotions should be kept seperate from violence.


Is generating aggressivity, while keeping calm, something that comes with training? And do you think emotions should be kept separate from violence because the violence is then better controlled and so more efficient?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Rich said:


> Is generating aggressivity, while keeping calm, something that comes with training?


yes, and probrably psychopaths have it too- I would like to think that i got it from training. a lot of military training, for people who actually fight in close combat, is based around giving people the ability to switch on and off some type of "fighting spirit" - agresivity or what not.



> And do you think emotions should be kept separate from violence because the violence is then better controlled and so more efficient?


1. I think it is much more effective

2. there is always the danger of getting to like violence, or using it to frequently. the best people at using violence don't enjoy it, they do it because it is part of their "job". this doen'st get you distracted, or make you lose focus.

jsut last week, I was in a reseteraunt with a guy who is about 5 years older than I am, and maybe 6 inches taller than I am. somebody was, very slightly, rude to me. I had walked in to the resteraunt, and approache dthe Matre D', this guy came up to me and said, in quite a rude way "there's line, and all these people are in front of you". I gave him a slight smile, and turned to the Matre D', told him my name and that I had a reservation, and was seated. the rude guy (who didn't have a reservation, and apperently didn't realize that I did) was left standing there. as far as I was concerned, everything was over - and more than that, the rude guy spent the next few minutes watching me be seated on the balcony while he waited.

the guy I was with was huffing and puffing "I hate people like that, I would have clocked him for talking to me like that" etc.

I didn't worry about it, it didn't bother me, and I got what I wanted. nobody got hurt. if the rude guy had decided, for what ever stupid reason, to use violence, he would have been hurt, but I saw no reason to get involved in a yelling match or a show of who has bigger balls, which my dinning companion would have done.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> 2. there is always the danger of getting to like violence, or using it to frequently. the best people at using violence don't enjoy it, they do it because it is part of their "job". this doen'st get you distracted, or make you lose focus.


There is a very good 50s movie on this theme - you may know it: 
On Dangerous Ground, by Nicholas Ray, with Robert Ryan. Some nice tailoring in it too.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> the guy I was with was huffing and puffing "I hate people like that, I would have clocked him for talking to me like that" etc.
> 
> I didn't worry about it, it didn't bother me, and I got what I wanted. nobody got hurt. if the rude guy had decided, for what ever stupid reason, to use violence, he would have been hurt, but I saw no reason to get involved in a yelling match or a show of who has bigger balls, which my dinning companion would have done.


That is my view now that I am getting old and fat. Your goal was to be seated and avoid the line, you reached your goal. When I was 20 I would have probably issued a verbal challenge to that guy but pushing 40, just seat me for dinner, words cannot hurt me.

There is much to be said about the old samuri axiom of drawing one's sword is to be viewed as a lost fight somehow. Unless you are Chuck Norris (of course), no matter how big, strong, and well trained you are, there is someone bigger, stronger, or better trained out there somewhere, just waiting to come across you. Also, it is hard to tell who is armed today and who is not. If physical violence is needed, pull out all the stops immediately, but unless directly physically challenged, just ignore the idiots.


----------

