dragonwolf
Well-Known Member
I do not understand and have never understood corporeal punishment, that's like saying "I can't win the argument on its merits and I'm not going to teach you now so I'll hit you instead to make you quiet. Because I can." Not something I'd want to teach a child, and not something I taught my child. Timeouts worked just fine, although occasionally I also took the power cord as well.
Not all children respond to lesser punishments, and not all punishments are about following arbitrary rules. There are circumstances when you need to convey something that can't really be conveyed in words. I'd much rather teach my child to not stick their finger in an outlet, or not run out into the road with a swat on the behind that stings for a little bit, than have them learn the hard way after a hospital visit (if they're lucky enough to survive). In those cases, the child associates something with some pain, but not nearly the severity that would be inflicted if the natural consequence were allowed to run its course.
Properly executed spanking should not cause lasting injury, and should be accompanied by an explanation for why the punishment was doled out (this can include observations that lesser punishments were ineffective).
In my childhood I was consumed in acting on my inner fantasies or just spoke the truth I saw (which considered 'rude') - and I did not understand why I was being hit by my parents.
I was taught this way to be silent and to sit on the spot as much as possible.
And I was afraid of my parents till their death.
Concerning a lecture - I would have prefered that over beating - at least if a person specified what they wanted and expected of me it's much easier to consider.
The scary 'lecturer' that AsheSkyler has mentioned is an abuser who talked just for stating theit control and feeling their power. This behaviour is not about punishment for certain actions, so I doubt that one beating would have stopped this verbal abusing - but if a person strikes someone once, they may feel more at ease to strike again.
I'm the exact opposite with this, because at least beatings would eventually leave marks, allowing for the opportunity for other people to step in and help. Verbal and emotional abuse, though? Doesn't leave visible marks, so when you try to get help, you're met with such responses like "grow a thicker skin" or "it's not really that bad, you're just overreacting," because the damage from verbal and emotional abuse doesn't come from one incident, but the aggregation of many over years. The individual incidents are often looked at in isolation from one another, and no one understands what the big deal is. There were times growing up that I wished he'd have just beaten me, because then I would have had marks to show that I was in a situation that I needed help getting out of (even without marks, a child telling a teacher "my mom's boyfriend hit me" gets taken a lot more seriously).
An abuser is an abuser, no matter what the weapon is (the abuse is about power, not about correction of wrong-doings). If your parents lectured instead of beaten, I have little doubt that they'd have been just as abusive toward you. It would have just been verbal abuse and emotional manipulation, instead. I do wish none of us had to live through abuse in any form, though.