mmmcheezy wrote:

Seth wrote:
This is not the case, and it is true that children need to be taught to obey without question as the default response to parental commands.

That's my favorite part
Because parents can never be wrong. Or crazy.

Parents are often wrong, but they are the parents, and therefore they are in charge, an indeed they are legally responsible for the behavior and safety of the child. A parent who fails to teach unquestioning obedience to a toddler is being criminally negligent if that child then runs out in front of a car because the parent refused to enforce obedience necessary for the child's safety.

Note that I said "default response." I was very deliberate in using that phrase precisely because I anticipated this response from you. The default must be obedience, without question. This does not mean that the parent will always require unquestioning obedience. It should be obvious that part of parenting is graduated liberty and instruction in making good judgments and personal responsibility. But one does not simply allow young children to run wild with no discipline and no boundaries. That is a guaranteed disaster for the child that can harm them and get them killed. Parents have a duty to protect their children until they have the knowledge and skills they need to make their own good judgments. Until then, obedience is required, necessary, and a legal obligation on the part of the parents.

Seth wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:I'd rather not teach children that they must obey without question. I want to teach them to be decent people, but the whole idea of wanting children to be submissive is fucking disturbing.

The idea that children must be submissive and obedient is a perfectly ordinary technique of parenting, but you seem to wish to extend this to some unwarranted suggestion that children must ALWAYS be submissive and obedient. This is not the case. Discipline is necessary to teach children that they are not in charge and that parents must be obeyed, but this is not intended to suggest that parents must be martinets about it, merely that the roles in a family need to be established and authority respected, for the peace, order and safety of the family, as well as for the future success of the child as an adult, where he will be living and working in a hierarchal society where obedience to authority is compulsory in many cases, and necessary in many others. Failing to teach children respect for authority (when it is necessary to do so) leaves them incapable of functioning properly in society. Teaching them to be self-actualizing and independent is equally important, but failing to set boundaries and enforce them for children leads to dysfunctional young adults who are unable to fit in.

If discipline and the ability to function in society is what you're talking about, I have already addressed that it can be achieved without corporal punishment.

Seth, I understand what you meant about unquestioned obedience now, but I suggest that you choose different words to get your point across.
The way you worded it can cause a bit of confusion.

Why not just say that a child needs discipline? It's much simpler, and there's no room for confusion.

Retracted by myself for contravening FUA

Mac_Guffin wrote:

Seth wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:I'd rather not teach children that they must obey without question. I want to teach them to be decent people, but the whole idea of wanting children to be submissive is fucking disturbing.

The idea that children must be submissive and obedient is a perfectly ordinary technique of parenting, but you seem to wish to extend this to some unwarranted suggestion that children must ALWAYS be submissive and obedient. This is not the case. Discipline is necessary to teach children that they are not in charge and that parents must be obeyed, but this is not intended to suggest that parents must be martinets about it, merely that the roles in a family need to be established and authority respected, for the peace, order and safety of the family, as well as for the future success of the child as an adult, where he will be living and working in a hierarchal society where obedience to authority is compulsory in many cases, and necessary in many others. Failing to teach children respect for authority (when it is necessary to do so) leaves them incapable of functioning properly in society. Teaching them to be self-actualizing and independent is equally important, but failing to set boundaries and enforce them for children leads to dysfunctional young adults who are unable to fit in.

If discipline and the ability to function in society is what you're talking about, I have already addressed that it can be achieved without corporal punishment.

Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't, sometimes corporal punishment is the best and most effective technique when used properly and judiciously. There are no hard and fast rules in child rearing other than to keep them alive and don't abuse them.

Mac_Guffin wrote:Seth, I understand what you meant about unquestioned obedience now, but I suggest that you choose different words to get your point across.
The way you worded it can cause a bit of confusion.

Why not just say that a child needs discipline? It's much simpler, and there's no room for confusion.

Because the context of the statement I was responding to required an explication of WHY it is necessary to instill (or attempt to instill) unquestioning obedience in young children, to distinguish a rational and reasonable need for safety from an atmosphere of totalitarian authoritarianism and abuse. The implication I was responding to was that I was suggesting beating obedience into kids for no good reason and I wanted to be specific and clear that this was not what I intended.

sennekuyl wrote:

epepke wrote:
[deleted by request]

Be very careful and circumspect about revealing such personal information in the forum. It's discouraged for various reasons.

Also, discussions of sexual practice are prohibited generally. Check the FUA for details.

Thanks Seth for the heads up, I've retracted my post; would you be so kind as to ellipses my quotation please?

Mac_Guffin wrote:I'd rather not teach children that they must obey without question. I want to teach them to be decent people, but the whole idea of wanting children to be submissive is fucking disturbing.

Indeed it is. Children are not slaves, parents do not own them. Teaching a child unquestioning obedience (as in, they can never question the action/words of the parent, no matter what) can be down right dangerous, and possibly even deadly for the child. (Abuse comes to mind)

Do they require discipline? Of course. But the use of violence (spanking) is counter-productive and can be harmful to them in the long run, as the study has shown. It sends mixed messages about the use of violence to get what one wants, and that a child is to never question a parent. That's not a good way to raise rational, logical thinking human beings.

If a child is determined too run out in front of a car, no amount of spanking is going to stop that child from doing so. A parent can try non-violent discipline, and if that does not work, may end up spanking, (spanking looses it's effectiveness the more it's used) but if the child really wants to run out in front of a car, there's literally nothing a parent can do about it. A parent doing all he/she can to discipline his/her child,(without spanking) and the child still does it anyways is not being criminally negligent however.

Sometimes, there are children who just don't care. Children die from doing stupid shit all the time, even when the parent(s) do proper discipline.
Unfortunate, but it happens. My inner cruel self feels that in those cases, it's just natural selection taking out the idiots from the population. And that sometimes means children getting killed because they were stupid.

Seth wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:

Seth wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:I'd rather not teach children that they must obey without question. I want to teach them to be decent people, but the whole idea of wanting children to be submissive is fucking disturbing.

The idea that children must be submissive and obedient is a perfectly ordinary technique of parenting, but you seem to wish to extend this to some unwarranted suggestion that children must ALWAYS be submissive and obedient. This is not the case. Discipline is necessary to teach children that they are not in charge and that parents must be obeyed, but this is not intended to suggest that parents must be martinets about it, merely that the roles in a family need to be established and authority respected, for the peace, order and safety of the family, as well as for the future success of the child as an adult, where he will be living and working in a hierarchal society where obedience to authority is compulsory in many cases, and necessary in many others. Failing to teach children respect for authority (when it is necessary to do so) leaves them incapable of functioning properly in society. Teaching them to be self-actualizing and independent is equally important, but failing to set boundaries and enforce them for children leads to dysfunctional young adults who are unable to fit in.

If discipline and the ability to function in society is what you're talking about, I have already addressed that it can be achieved without corporal punishment.

Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't, sometimes corporal punishment is the best and most effective technique when used properly and judiciously.

What is the basis for this opinion?

John

Regardless of how "effective" corporal punishment is, I find it leaves too much potential for psychological damage. I've seen far too many instances of spanking being used ineffectively to think it's useful. The likelihood of my having children is basically nil, but if it ever happened, spanking would most certainly not be on the disciplinary menu.
And certainly I do negatively judge those who spank--no matter how "rationally" it's being used--because in my opinion, it's just unnecessary.

Seth wrote: A parent who fails to teach unquestioning obedience to a toddler is being criminally negligent if that child then runs out in front of a car because the parent refused to enforce obedience necessary for the child's safety.

No, a parent with a toddler near a street who lets there be any chance of that happening in the first place is negligent. Anyone who knows anything about toddlers knows that they are impulsive and forgetful and you can't rely on a toddler to reliably respond to voice commands. The parent must make sure there is no opportunity for a child that young to run out in front of a car.

Have you ever raised a child from babyhood, Seth? I mean, hands-on raised one?

Julia wrote:

Seth wrote: A parent who fails to teach unquestioning obedience to a toddler is being criminally negligent if that child then runs out in front of a car because the parent refused to enforce obedience necessary for the child's safety.

No, a parent with a toddler near a street who lets there be any chance of that happening in the first place is negligent. Anyone who knows anything about toddlers knows that they are impulsive and forgetful and you can't rely on a toddler to reliably respond to voice commands. The parent must make sure there is no opportunity for a child that young to run out in front of a car.

Have you ever raised a child from babyhood, Seth? I mean, hands-on raised one?

Yeah, this was bothering me, too.

Obedience has nothing to do with that scenario. I see to it that such an action is an impossibility.

The_Metatron wrote:

Julia wrote:

Seth wrote: A parent who fails to teach unquestioning obedience to a toddler is being criminally negligent if that child then runs out in front of a car because the parent refused to enforce obedience necessary for the child's safety.

No, a parent with a toddler near a street who lets there be any chance of that happening in the first place is negligent. Anyone who knows anything about toddlers knows that they are impulsive and forgetful and you can't rely on a toddler to reliably respond to voice commands. The parent must make sure there is no opportunity for a child that young to run out in front of a car.

Have you ever raised a child from babyhood, Seth? I mean, hands-on raised one?

Yeah, this was bothering me, too.

Obedience has nothing to do with that scenario. I see to it that such an action is an impossibility.

Quite right, as do all responsible parents.

Julia wrote:

Seth wrote: A parent who fails to teach unquestioning obedience to a toddler is being criminally negligent if that child then runs out in front of a car because the parent refused to enforce obedience necessary for the child's safety.

No, a parent with a toddler near a street who lets there be any chance of that happening in the first place is negligent. Anyone who knows anything about toddlers knows that they are impulsive and forgetful and you can't rely on a toddler to reliably respond to voice commands. The parent must make sure there is no opportunity for a child that young to run out in front of a car.

This too is true, but that doesn't mean that instilling unquestioning obedience is still not necessary. It's instilled in the toddler so that the control is available for those times when a mistake is made, or when the child is older and has some liberty, but may still be prone to making mistakes in judgment that could lead to danger. It's simply another tool for controlling and protecting children, not a panacea or substitute.

The last thing any parent can afford when there's an emergency of some sort that threatens the safety of a child is an obstreperous, disobedient, willful child whose response to a parental command to STOP! is automatic backtalk and disobedience. I've seen this in other family members who have raised their children "liberally," and the results are disastrous and harmful to the child. There is nothing worse for society, the family, or the child than a fractious, undisciplined, uncontrollable child. They grow up to be fractious, undisciplined, uncontrollable adults, and they very often fail in life because they were not taught the necessary social skills as children, including most importantly self-control, which is instilled by discipline for misbehavior.

The number of potential situations where a child may be in danger through no fault of the parent's (I recall any number of situations that were self-created my parents never even knew about till long after the fact) are innumerable, and the fact remains that parents have a duty and an obligation to their children to instill discipline to the extent that they can, when necessary, command instant and unquestioning obedience from their children.

Have you ever raised a child from babyhood, Seth? I mean, hands-on raised one?

Yup. I'm on my fourth right now (the youngest is 10 months), and the two teenagers were quite young when I came into their lives, so that makes six, total. All good kids, all generally well-disciplined, all instantly responsive to command voice, and every one of them has been spanked at least once, but rarely more than a few times in their lives, varying from a pat on the bottom or a finger flick on the hand for the toddlers to a very formal family-attended spanking of one of the teenagers for egregious misbehavior and deliberate defiance that was a self-selected punishment as an alternative for massive grounding, loss of property and revocation of privileges.

Large families make unquestioning obedience all the more imperative.

z8000783 wrote:

Seth wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:

Seth wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:I'd rather not teach children that they must obey without question. I want to teach them to be decent people, but the whole idea of wanting children to be submissive is fucking disturbing.

The idea that children must be submissive and obedient is a perfectly ordinary technique of parenting, but you seem to wish to extend this to some unwarranted suggestion that children must ALWAYS be submissive and obedient. This is not the case. Discipline is necessary to teach children that they are not in charge and that parents must be obeyed, but this is not intended to suggest that parents must be martinets about it, merely that the roles in a family need to be established and authority respected, for the peace, order and safety of the family, as well as for the future success of the child as an adult, where he will be living and working in a hierarchal society where obedience to authority is compulsory in many cases, and necessary in many others. Failing to teach children respect for authority (when it is necessary to do so) leaves them incapable of functioning properly in society. Teaching them to be self-actualizing and independent is equally important, but failing to set boundaries and enforce them for children leads to dysfunctional young adults who are unable to fit in.

If discipline and the ability to function in society is what you're talking about, I have already addressed that it can be achieved without corporal punishment.

Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't, sometimes corporal punishment is the best and most effective technique when used properly and judiciously.

What is the basis for this opinion?

John

Experience and education.

Seth wrote:

z8000783 wrote:

Seth wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:

Seth wrote:

The idea that children must be submissive and obedient is a perfectly ordinary technique of parenting, but you seem to wish to extend this to some unwarranted suggestion that children must ALWAYS be submissive and obedient. This is not the case. Discipline is necessary to teach children that they are not in charge and that parents must be obeyed, but this is not intended to suggest that parents must be martinets about it, merely that the roles in a family need to be established and authority respected, for the peace, order and safety of the family, as well as for the future success of the child as an adult, where he will be living and working in a hierarchal society where obedience to authority is compulsory in many cases, and necessary in many others. Failing to teach children respect for authority (when it is necessary to do so) leaves them incapable of functioning properly in society. Teaching them to be self-actualizing and independent is equally important, but failing to set boundaries and enforce them for children leads to dysfunctional young adults who are unable to fit in.

If discipline and the ability to function in society is what you're talking about, I have already addressed that it can be achieved without corporal punishment.

Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't, sometimes corporal punishment is the best and most effective technique when used properly and judiciously.

What is the basis for this opinion?

John

Experience and education.

Same as the rest of us then.

John

Seth wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:

Seth wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:I'd rather not teach children that they must obey without question. I want to teach them to be decent people, but the whole idea of wanting children to be submissive is fucking disturbing.

The idea that children must be submissive and obedient is a perfectly ordinary technique of parenting, but you seem to wish to extend this to some unwarranted suggestion that children must ALWAYS be submissive and obedient. This is not the case. Discipline is necessary to teach children that they are not in charge and that parents must be obeyed, but this is not intended to suggest that parents must be martinets about it, merely that the roles in a family need to be established and authority respected, for the peace, order and safety of the family, as well as for the future success of the child as an adult, where he will be living and working in a hierarchal society where obedience to authority is compulsory in many cases, and necessary in many others. Failing to teach children respect for authority (when it is necessary to do so) leaves them incapable of functioning properly in society. Teaching them to be self-actualizing and independent is equally important, but failing to set boundaries and enforce them for children leads to dysfunctional young adults who are unable to fit in.

If discipline and the ability to function in society is what you're talking about, I have already addressed that it can be achieved without corporal punishment.

Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't, sometimes corporal punishment is the best and most effective technique when used properly and judiciously. There are no hard and fast rules in child rearing other than to keep them alive and don't abuse them.

Give me one situation where violent parenting is required.

Seth wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:Seth, I understand what you meant about unquestioned obedience now, but I suggest that you choose different words to get your point across.
The way you worded it can cause a bit of confusion.

Why not just say that a child needs discipline? It's much simpler, and there's no room for confusion.

Because the context of the statement I was responding to required an explication of WHY it is necessary to instill (or attempt to instill) unquestioning obedience in young children, to distinguish a rational and reasonable need for safety from an atmosphere of totalitarian authoritarianism and abuse. The implication I was responding to was that I was suggesting beating obedience into kids for no good reason and I wanted to be specific and clear that this was not what I intended.

... But why the unquestioning part? Why is it wrong for your parenting to be questioned? Shouldn't we teach our children to be critical thinkers and to require explanation?

Of course, a young child who's incapable of understanding communication won't understand your reasons, but you don't have to worry about them asking either.

mmmcheezy wrote:Regardless of how "effective" corporal punishment is, I find it leaves too much potential for psychological damage. I've seen far too many instances of spanking being used ineffectively to think it's useful. The likelihood of my having children is basically nil, but if it ever happened, spanking would most certainly not be on the disciplinary menu.
And certainly I do negatively judge those who spank--no matter how "rationally" it's being used--because in my opinion, it's just unnecessary.

The slippery slope between mild spanking and abuse is just too risky. The former may not be so harmful, but there are also no good reasons to do it.