The Library of Spanking Fiction: Wellred Weekly


Wellred Weekly
Volume 1, Number 3 : December 10, 2011
 
Articles
Items of interest regarding all things spanking

The Psychology of Spankings - Part 2 (cont)
by Grace Brackenridge

By studying a small sample, by excluding hard spankings as abuse, and by including painless pats to the bottom, Baumrind manipulates her research design to reach an untenable conclusion. Spanking, after all, is violence at the hand of a trusted love one. One wonders what Dr. Baumrind is trying to accomplish.

Robert Larzelere
Other scholars who carry the pro-spanking flag are suspect for both ideological and methodological reasons. Dr. Robert Larzelere at Oklahoma State University is a spanking advocate in search of evidence. The Oklahoma State University website states that "Dr. Larzelere is concerned about the trend to adopt increasingly extreme anti-spanking bans throughout the world, bans that have no sound scientific basis." Why would a ban on spanking be a matter for "concern?" Dr. Larzelere's position is that a spanking, in conjunction with other techniques, works well with toddlers and has no negative effects. However, his focus is largely on issues of short-term consequences. Like Baumrind, he specifies "normative" spankings: two open-handed swats to the child's behind, never given in anger.

Both Dr. Baumrind and Dr. Larzelere are pursuing odd agendas. One might speculate that they see some value in challenging the body of scientific literature on the harmful effects of spankings on children. The "spankings" they describe, however, are highly idealized, like the kind of fictional spankings that Paris Annette Morreau describes so poetically in her short stories. Perhaps Dr. Baumrind and Dr. Larzelere should try their hands at fiction, too, since the "normative" spankings they define simply do not describe how the vast majority angry or angered parents spank their children.

A relative newcomer to the pro-spanking camp is Dr. Marjorie Gunnoe, a psychologist at Calvin College. This is a Christian college; Dr. Gunnoe's research reflects the institutional agenda of such a Christian college. In a 1997 study, Gunnoe argues that spanking children under 6 caused no harm, although spanking children over 6 showed increased aggression. Nevertheless, she concludes her abstract by asserting that "for most children, claims that spanking teaches aggression seem unfounded." Her 2006 study provided some support for her hypothesis that fathers that practiced authoritarian parenting (e.g., spanking dads) in conservative Christian families did not harm their teenage children as such parenting does in non-Christian families.

In her most recent study in 2009, Dr. Gunnoe asked 179 teenagers to self-report memories of spankings growing up and a series of questions presumed to be positive and negative outcomes of corporal punishment. Her sample is small, the survey cross-sectional, and the data entirely self-reports of events (spankings) that happened long ago and outcomes that are likely to be idealized in the teen's self report. Her findings of no harm from spankings are inconsistent with the bulk of the scientific literature.

Marjorie Gunnoe
Despite the flaws in her research, Dr. Gunnoe achieves the conservative Christian objective of framing the media debate over spanking as between two, equally sound theoretical arguments and supporting evidence. For example, the Grand Rapids News headlined its story about her most recent research as follows: "Is Spanking Children OK? Calvin College Professor's Research Shows Adults Who Remember Being Spanked Are More Well-Adjusted." In the article, Dr. Gunnoe declares that her flawed study "is a red light for people who want to legally limit how parents choose to discipline their children. I don't promote spanking, but there's not the evidence to outlaw it." Nevertheless, Dr. Gunnoe is, in fact, promoting spanking by generating counter-arguments to the larger body of evidence that shows the long-term harm of spanking children.

Dr. Gunnoe's research reflects the organizational agenda of a conservative Christian college. Regard her work with the same skepticism that you would apply to tobacco research conducted by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. For conservative Christians, the harmful effects of spankings must be repudiated with the same tenacity that tobacco companies try to underplay the harmful effects of smoking tobacco.

Putting "Normative" Spankings and Claims of No Harm in Context
In the final analysis, some children who are spanked are not necessarily harmed by the experience. However, a large body of scientific evidence shows long-term harmful consequences of spankings as they are administered in the real world. The critics of this research use small samples, restrict data to "normative" spankings that may not be painful at all, and/or use measures of short-term consequences to bolster a weak case against the preponderance of existing scientific literature.

Some people who smoke tobacco live to a ripe old age and eventually are crushed to death by an 18-wheeler on the interstate. Nevertheless, study after study documents the harmful effects of tobacco use on health. The parallels between tobacco's harm and the harm of spankings are striking. Likewise, the so-called scientific "debate" over the harm of tobacco and spankings offers similar parallels.

Spankos Who Spank Children in Fact and Fiction
A spankophile or spanko is somebody who likes to spank or be spanked. I am a spanko. My biography is relevant here, but I promise to keep it short.

I was fascinated with corporal punishment as a child. My triggering event was an abusive spanking from my grandmother when I was 4. I began masturbating to spanking fantasies in my early teen years. During my marriage, my spouse (who was severely spanked as a child) would threaten to spank our daughter, but never did. After the divorce (my daughter was 2), I spanked her on about a half dozen occasions (open palm to the bottom) over a period of 2-3 years. I exercised great discipline, always spanking when I wasn't angry. In truth, the anger was only repressed, not absent. I stopped when my daughter was 5-6 years old.

In retrospect, I achieved nothing good with spankings. In retrospect, I should have known that I was wrong to spank my child, because it's poor parenting in general and because, in particular, I have a spanking fetish. Of all people, spankophiles know there's a link between spanking and sexual arousal. More than anyone else, we ought to know that the disciplinary spanking of children carries enormous sexual import.

There is a line between fact and fiction. There also is a line between consenting adults and non-consenting children. We ought to respect both lines. I have had some heated (but not very illuminating) exchanges with spankophiles who insist that the real-world, non-consensual spanking of children is appropriate, helpful, etc., etc. Having been in that headspace myself, I confess to being somewhat intolerant of folks who refuse to take a hard look at their position, their behavior, and their fetish.

The roots of our fetish may be biological or experiential. Some of us feel we were "born with the kink." Others of us feel that our childhood experiences activated something that might have remained dormant without adverse childhood experiences to bring our fetish to the fore. Some of us feel that our childhood spanking experiences imposed a kink on us that would not otherwise exist. We do know that children who are spanked more frequently, and who are spanked at an older age, are more likely to engage in sadomasochistic sex as teens and adults.

The point is, if adverse childhood experiences with spankings force even some children to develop this fetish, then such punishments of children is unconscionable. Then consider the other scientifically documented, long-term negative consequences of spankings on children. A reasonable person can reach only one conclusion: reserve spankings for fiction and consenting adults.

The Harmful Effects of Spanking Fiction
The beauty of spanking fiction is that we can explore the eroticism of our kink without hurting anybody else. As writers and readers of spanking fiction, we can explore the darkest spaces of our sadomasochistic schemas, imagining ourselves in the dominant role, the submissive role, or both. Sublimated eroticism operates as a subtext to seeming prosaic spanking experiences, involving adults, teens, and children.

My favorite theme is the precocious girl who explores her "itch" for spankings, either consciously or unconsciously. She devises numerous schemes to get herself spanked by different people for different reasons and in different social and historical settings. You probably have your own favorites.

Some say that writing fiction about spanking children (especially extremely hard spankings) will encourage the unstable to do something that they might not otherwise do (i.e., spank their children severely). Perhaps. But if that's the case, then the Greek tragedies (I can't believe I killed my dad and screwed my mom), Shakespeare, and the Holy Bible need to be recalled immediately as a threat to public safety. I have a standard disclaimer that I used when posting elsewhere: The author does not in any way endorse the spanking of real children in real life.

Closet Spankos?
Now let's return to Drs. Baumrind, Larzelere, and Gunnoe. What's up with these researchers? One can safely assume that all three were spanked as children. After all, they grew up in the United States, where 90% of 3 and 4 year olds in 1985 were subjected to spankings, as documented in one study. For the "Silent" generation (born 1925-1945) and the "Baby Boomer" generation (born 1946-1964), spanking percentages were even higher. Given the fact that a spanking is a sexually arousing act even for a child, one can speculate as to how their spankings may have affected the schemas and lovemaps of Drs. Baumrind, Larzelere, and Gunnoe.

One possibility is that these researchers are emotionally shut down. Perhaps their childhood spanking experiences caused them to simply "drop out" emotionally. Their implicit advocacy of spankings may cause great pain for many children, as well as long-term negative outcomes. These emotional implications may simply not register with Drs. Baumrind, Larzelere, and Gunnoe.

This shutting down has a parallel to incest and child molestation. I treated one client who was sexually molested by her mother, her father, and several other relatives. She described spankings from her father as follows: he would simply "flip" her over after a spanking to sexually molest her. She, in turn, married a man who molested her children. Her son, a molest victim as a child, was arrested for molesting an underage teenage boy. Spankings and molestations are embedded family practices that are amazingly impervious to external social norms or scientific evidence of harm. The victims of molest want to be molesters. The spankee wants to be the spanker. All that's required is a lack of empathy. All that's needed to replicate the abuse generation after generation is to be emotionally shut down.

The other possibility, of course, is that Drs. Baumrind, Larzelere, and Gunnoe may be closet spankos. Why this passionate interest in justifying corporal punishment? Perhaps Drs. Baumrind, Larzelere, and Gunnoe would like to post their comments here. Perhaps they would like to write fictional spanking stories, rather than questionable scientific studies that end up implicitly advocating the non-consensual, sadomasochistic spanking of children. If Drs. Baumrind, Larzelere, and Gunnoe would stick to pure fiction, nobody would get hurt.  
30 comments:
Goodgulf said...
There is a reason that soft science is qualified by the label "soft". Not that I want to reopen the science wars here, but I agree that a 30+ year experiment would go a long way to ending this debate.

Of course such an experiment will never happen, but history has and we can look at that. Throughout the early, mid, and some of the late 20th century, the bulk of the political leaders of Britain were males who had public school educations - and thus had grown up under the shadow of the cane. Having been subject to instutionalised corporal punishment they went on with their lives - and in some cases reached high office. Churchill was caned to the point that blood ran down his legs - yet he did not grow up to be a criminal or a nar-do-well as today's research would suggest that he would.

Perhaps the most telling part of this of this well reasoned article is "The difficulty of scientific research on spanking is inherent in the nature of empiricism" - which is true.

That said, I'm not encouraging people to spank children or saying that people haven't been scarred by childhood trauma, but merely stating that I don't believe that spankings cause lasting harm in all cases. Every child is different, every family is different, and the decision about corporal punishment is merely a small part of a child's formative years.

Goodgulf
9 December 2011 21:10
canadianspankee said...
Well at least this article quits speaking of parents who spank as “the spanking adult and spanked child form a dyad where sadomasochistic role-playing is a predominant theme.” I appreciate that the writer also refrains from writing “Texas is a slave state” and misusing statistics like “in 2008, teachers and principals in Texas paddled 49,197 children or 22%.”

One can also note the fact that she quits from inferring parents who spank their child with “personality traits in synch with authoritarian social orders, such as Nazi Germany.” I would hope such refraining is after realizing such comments are only going to incite others to anger, insults all the parents who spank their children and leads to nowhere in any debate over whether one should spank their children or not.

I am also glad to see the writer finally admits to facts and states, “there is no such thing as a "proven" theory” along with the statement “Spanking is an especially difficult subject area to study.” In reading the first part of this article in WW #2 one would not have thought the writer came anywhere near those conclusions. Perhaps she realized it after finding out that not everyone was going to take her word as law on the subject, or perhaps she just knew this site is mostly about fantasy stories so why not keep in the theme of things and write more fantasy. Either way I don’t know and don’t care; it is nice to see the facts recognized in this area.

I still shiver when I read phrases in this article like “Perhaps hampered by limited literacy and cognitive resources, unthinking fundamentalist Christian parents take as gospel the phrase, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." I don’t really know if such a phrase is in the bible, that I guess could depend on which translation one uses out of thousands available in any bookstore. However, to assume Christian parents are hampered by limited literacy and cognitive resources are a statements based on nothing and is pure conjecture on the writer’s part. There are many Christian’s who are educated people, and I have no doubt some of them have more university qualifications to their name then the writer of this article lays claim too.

There are many things about this article are still in my view Grace’s opinions backed up by some of those in the field so study. She is allowed to have such opinions and can write them if she wants too. Whether people believe them or not is up to each individual, and hopefully ones who read them on this site do not have limited literacy and cognitive resources whether they agree with Grace’s opinions or not.

Since the writer chooses to surmise why certain Professionals in the field state what they do and that their studies are likely flawed, with little consideration to the fact that some of the studies she quotes were not flawed in some way, perhaps I can surmise as to why Grace chooses to write articles like this. Mine you, I am not a professional, just someone who thinks he is capable of surmising about why Grace is the way she is, just as she does about others in the article.

My premise is this. One has often heard the expression, “We Are What We Eat.” Let us take the expression and change it a little, to “We Are What We Write.” I will be the first to admit that my stories reflect my inner desires to be spanked by strong dominant women, in case any of the readers have not read my stories. I have seen comments by others on site that reflects this view of their own stories, the stories reflect what they either do or wish they could do. Many who write M/F stories are male who would like and desire to spank women, pure and simple, where as others who write F/F stories differ slightly in that they reflect women who would like and desire to spank other women. Now in some cases of course we run into extreme examples in the stories written but most authors would claim they would never go that far and I believe them. Extreme examples like the judge in Texas or R. Lessin’s book prove only that they should not be used to prove anything beyond one’s ability to write with flair.

If we take my premise to its logical conclusion I submit, unprofessionally of course, that Grace’s stories also reflect what she likes and desires to do. Whether Grace is willing to admit this even to herself is in serious doubt but then this is only a premise just like the one she writes about other Professional who happen to disagree with her. My premise is just as valid as the one’s at the end of the article about others who Grace has likely never met or knows enough about personally to meet her statements about their personal lives.

The spanking issue is far from dead as Grace admits and likely will never be resolved. It is up to each individual parent whether to spank their children and no one has the right to state or infer that those parents who do so are any less an effective parent then those who chose not to spank. In conclusion, I still refer people to the following web sites:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=206350532743425

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191825-2,00.html

One may have to copy and paste these addresses in their browsers, as I am not sure they will link by themselves. I have always stated I am not for or against parents spanking their child but I am for the parent having the freedom to choose and for governments and agencies to bud out where they are not needed or wanted.

10 December 2011 04:25
AlanBarr said...
Thanks, Grace, for a really detailed and thought provoking article. There is a remarkable tension between your professional opinions and your private fantasy world, but it means you are uniquely placed to see the issue from both sides of the fence, and you do so with great honesty and no trace of hypocricy. I can well believe that some pro-spanking campaigners have a secret spankophile agenda, as you suggest, maybe even a subconscious one. When you look at sites such as "spank with love" it's hard to believe that the writers didn't get a certain spanko kick from describing all the spanking techniques in such detail!

For my own part, I feel a certain reluctance to accept the research findings. I would prefer to believe that moderate spanking from a loving parent was not harmful, but I have to question whether I'm capable of being objective on this issue. If even a minority of children were harmed by it, that would be sufficient reason not to. All things considered, the library's collective policy of not endorsing the spanking of children is absolutely sensible and correct.

I do sometimes wonder, as the urge to spank is so prevalent, might it not serve some useful purpose in the evolutionary scheme of things. There might be a parallel with breast feeding, which must cause a mild degree of sexual arousal in many women - just nature's way of providing an incentive to do what is beneficial. In the case of spanking, the benefit might be to defuse an angry situation with a "safe" form of violence rather than a less safe form, such as a blow to a child's head. Just idle speculation. No doubt research will prove me wrong (or already has!)
10 December 2011 13:34
DrGrace said...
For the record, Parts 1 and 2 were written at the same time and submitted to the Library at the same time. Nothing in Part 2 was changed, based on the extensive commentary for Part 1.
10 December 2011 18:40
blimp said...
Whether fundamentalist Christian parents have degrees or not has little bearing on their ability to think for themselves, CS. Being a fundamentalist Christian means you have probably given up thinking for yourself altogether. I don't think you can present such people as rational. Why do you suppose a God supposedly of love would want you to beat your children? Or are you seriously telling us they only do it in a loving spirit?

Another point I would make is about Texas. Perhaps it is or isn't a slave state but unquestionably it executes a large number of people every year, some without proper trials, sometimes after 20 years or more on Death Row. That is not justice, it is state sponsored murder.

You are right about one thing CS. Spare the rod and spoil the child is not in the bible. However He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes is certainly in it! As is Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." Along with Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. All these OT sayings must be of great comfort to all those deep thinking fundamentalist Christians!! Isn't it wonderful what we inflict on each other in the name of religion! Makes me so glad I am a Fundamentalist Agnostic Relapsed Catholic!!

And finally, we are what we write? Surely a moments reflection CS will allow you to see that your comments about why Grace writes child spanking stories are misguided. You don't know anything about her so you can't begin to understand what motivates her. With human beings things are rarely "pure and simple" as you put it that is for sure!
11 December 2011 12:55
Tavaril62 said...
I, too, found the blatant stereotyping of parents who spank as illiterate, fundamentalist Christian, and Nazi and slavery supporters offensive. I am a college-educated card-carrying liberal atheist, and I was spanked and have spanked without any of the angst that is suggested in this article.

This idea also bothered me: "The point is, if adverse childhood experiences with spankings force even some children to develop this fetish, then such punishments of children is unconscionable."

Is there something wrong with having a fetish, spanking or otherwise? Should we be ashamed? I'm not. Nor can I say with any certainty whether my interest in spanking is learned or inherent, or why some people who have never been spanked are fascinated with the subject. I did ask my son last night if he had any interest in the subject, and I got the typical "parents are so weird" look that nineteen-year-olds are known for and a: "No, that's not my thing." And, yes, he does know that it is his mother's thing.

To put this all in perspective, I'd like to remind everyone of the "refrigerator mothers" of the 1950s and 1960s who were blamed for their children's autism and schizophrenia. Those obviously cold and uncaring women caused their sons and daughters to withdraw emotionally. Of course we now know that autism and schizophrenia are biomedical conditions, and that what those parents suffered in the name of psychiatry by being labeled the cause of their children's illness was truly unconscionable, not to mention horrific.

Opinions change. In the words of Jean-Paul Sartre: "Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you." So whether you were born with a taste for the belt, or you learned to appreciate the cane whilst draped over the headmaster's desk, keep dreaming those dreams and writing those wonderful stories. Here's to having a fetish.
11 December 2011 22:41
mati said...
A very interesting and informative article. It gave a good insight into a debate, from which I thought it was already closed a half century ago.
12 December 2011 20:21
Sebastian said...
I just had to answer Tavaril62. Lets talk about fetish. A fetish can be formed by our own observation or by others who have had an influence upon us. There is nothing wrong with a fetish, as long as we develop this fetish OURSELVES, and not given this fetish from others. One should not be ashamed of a fetish, but many people are ashamed due to our so called moral society. A fetish could be developed during a pre-adolescence or early teen years and probably not from our very young ages.These fetishes change our so-called "lovemap. Better for us to change it ourselves then for others to change it for us.
Our mothers certainly should not be blamed for these autism's but how they treat their children is something else. A child who might have a chronic case of anxiety or depression caused possibly by birth or environment and then treated by a mother (or father), whoever, like as if these children were no good, This will have a great influence upon the children.
When CP is given, it should be very moderate, at a young age and should be given AND SHOWN with love. Does this always happen??
One more thought. The state DOES have the right to protect a child from their parents, guardians, etc.,from possible excessive abuse. Parents do not own these children.
13 December 2011 03:15
TheEnglishMaster said...
I thoroughly enjoyed this article - especially the moments where you allow yourself to become a little less academic and let rip! I thought the comparison with the harmful effects of tobacco was a telling one, and I liked your insight into the way the Christian Right attempt to frame the 'debate' (for the media, and the self-justification of their own audience) as if there were still anything to debate.

I read your description of the kind of study needed to truly establish the 'facts' with a growing sense of incredulity. I even thought you'd invented Dr Baumrind. I was reminded of Swift's 'A Modest Proposal', in which, with impeccable logic and reasoned argument, he suggests as the solution to the poverty of Ireland circa 1725 the selling by the poorest families of their babies as a 'very fine dish whether served cold or in a fricassee' to the families of quality. The way you blithely discussed the possibility of graduate researchers turning the spanking of their children on and off for research purposes was as chillingly hilarious.

I also valued the honesty of your brief biography, especially about your spanking your own child, and your subsequent realisation of the line you'd mistakenly crossed. We see ourselves in others so easily and in so many ways.

For what it's worth, my own guess as to what's up with Drs. B, L and G (though I dare say, in fact, they each have different bugs up their asses) is that they're in frantic denial of the sexual import, as you put it, of their own experiences of spanking as kids (sexuality and guilt being such powerful bedfellows in the Christian Right cosmology).

I have to say this must be the most elevated and thought-provoking text in the Library or its environs to date, and likely to remain so until the RL spanking of children is finally relegated to the anals of history along with witch-burning, slavery and smoking on aeroplanes.
Your best snippet yet. Thank you.
13 December 2011 22:38
islandcarol said...
My mind is reeling from the density and complexity of the research you review because of the flaws in the studies and the impossibility of both sides ever reaching a consensus.
This is a sensitive issue for many of us. I appreciate your frank personal comments; many of us grew up in similiar situations. We baby boomers carry a heavy load of baggage stiil packed with painful memories. Your article belongs in a scientific journal - a sort of popular psychology with a wide readership. The Christian Conservative trends regarding the prevalence of spanking are beyond alarming. Every week it seems to be a more prominent topic in the literature and the media..
Your elegantly stated effects of childhood spanking may be enough to upset the balance of critical mass and make spanking viewed an unnessary, shameful, and thoughtless act.
Raising thoughtful. responsible children should not be a recipe that includes belts, paddles and leather slippers. I agree heartily and applaud your efforts.
islandcarol
14 December 2011 18:57
barretthunter said...
Blimp, I share your dislike of religious fundamentalism, but think you're using the word "rational" irrationally. All sorts of belief and values systems are based on something not rational, including atheist and humanist systems. It is irrational for Richard Dawkins (and before him, Haldane) to believe that because they have identified biological mechanisms that lead us often to make certain choices, that therefore we OUGHT to make those choices and deciding otherwise is "a mistake". It is irrational for Marx to conclude that a middle-class intellectual like himself with every prospect of being comfortably off should support the working class - still less that a successful industrialist and socialiser with the coutry set like Engels should do so. At the root of any belief system is a choice that cannot be demonstrated by logic to be right.

Now for the spanking. I agree with Grace's conclusion, though I've seen enough of verbal violence to wonder whether a single slap may not sometimes be a lesser evil.

Doesn't she mean a "hot bottom" issue, not "hot button"? And I regret to say that of the people illustrated, only Marjorie Gunnoe looks spankable.
15 December 2011 10:38
blimp said...
Just take one example of irrationality. They beat their children because it says in several places in the bible you should do so. Instead of deciding for themselves about what is right and what is wrong they rely on a book written three thousand years ago. That is hardly rational? Being rational is to apply logic.The term fundamentalism indicates an unquestioning attachment to a set of beliefs. Rational thought has little place in such peoples lives. You must always question things I feel.

I have nothing at all against Christians but I do hate blind unquestioning stupidity. I know we are guilty of being irrational at times. You should see me when I am watching football!
15 December 2011 17:15
barretthunter said...
Thanks, blimp. What a civilised argument!

I agree with you, except that I see no reason why we should be "guilty" for being irrational at times. Being irrational, or at least a-rational, is fine in its place.My point is that rationality is a system and method, not a starting point. To Haldane and Dawkins, for example, it is RIGHT to calculate which choice maximises the chances of your genes surviving and so taking big risks with your life to try to save a stranger is a "mistake". I've actually heard that asserted by an academic. To me this is not only wrong, but an illogical, irrational extension from an observed biological phenomenon to a moral recommendation. You might as well say that because I tend to scratch insect bites, therefore I should do it. There have been attempts, for example by the French Logical Positivists, Marx and Haldane, to argue that values can be derived from rational analysis, but none of them add up. At the root of the decision to value human life, for example, or the survival of your genes, or the elimination of conflict and exploitation in society, is a choice which cannot be proved or disproved to be right.

Christian fundamentalists make certain choices which I disagree with - for example, to dismiss other religions except Judaism as worthless. Of course some of their reasoning is based on misunderstandings - for example, interpretations of the Bible which can be shown with reasonable confidence to be misreadings - but that is an evidence fault rather than irrationality, similar to the mistake made by some English-speaking historians in interpreting and quoting the statement by a member of the German High Command in 1914 "Wir rechneten unbedingt mit England als Fremd" ("We took it for granted that England would be our enemy") as "We considered it unthinkable (unbedingt) that England would be our enemy"!

I'd be inclined to describe some fundamentalist practices as cruel, unfeeling, intolerant rather than irrational.
16 December 2011 16:19
tiptopper said...
It is obvious that Grace has a conflict between what she writes in this article and the pro-spanking stories that she writes. And her stories are pro-spanking as her fictional Grace is always looking to be spanked and when she gets it the outcome is always good.

I laugh when I read where she writes that children who were spanked are more likely to get into a bdsm lifestyle and that if spanking causes children to like spanking when they grow up that it is "wrong". I don't think that most of us spankos would change if we could. It is a great source of pleasure for us. That is like saying that we should never take children to museums as they might grow up liking art.

I have a mainstream video where one young woman who is into bdsm says, "I like receiving pain and giving pain. How could you not? It is so much fun!"

For most of us, whether we are tops, bottoms or switches, we will agree with that young woman, "It is so much fun!"

As I wrote in an earlier comment, there are good parents and there are bad parents and that, plus genetics, is what will determine how their children turn out. The type of discipline that they use will have a very minor effect.

By the way, for the record, I was rarely spanked as a child and then only mildly. I never thought about it at all until I began to masturbate and fantasize about various things.
17 December 2011 04:15
Sebastian said...
I have read a few forums on this subject but I must admit that Grace's is certainly quite complete. Very interesting and with so many comments.
On the previous comment by "Tiptopper", it was indicated that the type of discipline that they use will have a very minor affect. Whether it is good or bad or whatever the person feels about how they turned out, the effect is definitely not very minor. Not even close. It has a definite effect, good or bad, enjoyable or not enjoyable. As I mentioned before, the type of discipline and the love behind this discipline will have a major effect.. The love must be present. If a parent or parents are cold, the effect will be major.
17 December 2011 07:28
tiptopper said...
Sebastian,

Perhaps I did not make my myself clear. Whether the parenting is good or bad is what makes the difference, a major difference. Good parents will use discipline in a constructive manner, bad parents will not. The exact type of discipline that they choose to employ is not the important factor; HOW it is employed is.

An additonal point; many spankos find corner time to be a turn on as shown by how often it is used in quite a number of stories in the Library. Does that mean that time outs, which is what corner time is, should never be used for children because they may get to like them as adults?
18 December 2011 01:03
Sebastian said...
But in the Library, corner time is used AFTER a spanking and not just being alone. Corner time should not be used after a spanking since it is the end result of that spanking. It could have an erotic effect, as well.
Good parents won't need spanking at all; only poor parents.
18 December 2011 05:50
tiptopper said...
I don't agree with the assumption that having an erotic effect or doing something that will cause a child to grow up with some sort of SSI (Specialized Sexual Interest) or fetish is inherently bad. Most kinky people enjoy their kink; it adds pleasure to their lives.

There is nothing wrong with loving baseball, soccer, chess, cooking, music, or non-vanilla sexual preferences. I really don't understand why many people, even some spankos, seem to think that they should shield others from birth from anything that is not vanilla. If there is nothing wrong with being kinky, in our case, liking spanking, then there is nothing wrong with wanting others to experience it. It's only if you feel guilty about your sexual preference that you would want to "save" others from it.

As far as the statement, "Good parents won't need spanking at all; only poor parents"; good parents don't "need" grounding, time outs, spanking, restriction of privileges, lecturing, etc. but they can all be useful when properly employed by loving parents.

19 December 2011 04:54
blackmarrow said...
Having two children of my own and also having grown up in a household that spanked, I am of the opinion that nothing good ever came out of spanking a child. My wife and I are both into spanking within our marriage but were very opposed to spanking as a form of discipline with our children. We always felt that children have to be taught to recognize, understand and accept the consequneces of thier behavior. We always sat down and had long discussions with our children when thier behavior was less than desirable and let them help in determining the punishment. Once they were old enough to write and rationalyze we would make them sit down and write out the behavior in question and then list as many reasons in detail as to what was both wrong with the behavior and whatever adverse effects could have resulted from the behavior. They also had to write out what steps they should take regarding thier thought process to avoid the same behavior in the future. They would then have to suggest what they thought would be an appropriate punishment. As they got older oftentimes they would suggest consequences more severe than me or my wife would have imposed. however none of the punishments involved CP. We firmly believe that the best and most long lasting discipline involves the child changing the way they think about thier actions. Fear and pain as an incentive is often short term until it is applied often enough to have a lasting impact and often seems to be associated with the specific behavior being addressed at the time. A change in mindset will have an impact on all behavior both as a child and as an adult. Any living creature will learn to avoid an action if enough pain can be associated with it, but it is a long, drawn out approach to overall behavior modification. As far as developing a kink that should be avoided as much as possible with a child, let them find it when they are rtional thinking idividuals. I didn't apply that belief just to CP but admittedly I was fond of of the ganja and still am. But I was always careful to shield my use from my children. If they were going to develop the habit then they were going to do it without my input. And yes I did make sure to educate my children regarding drug use and the pitfalls involved with its use. To this day neither of my children use drugs in any form nor do they smoke cigarettes, another of my bad habits. The bottom line is that i consider the use of CP to teach children to be a barbaric practice when with careful thought other methods can be used with better overall results.
10 January 2012 01:11
drkeate said...
I love this superb article for many reasons, not least that both it and some of the comments appended reveal that I am far from alone in having a fetish which leads to fantasies diametrically opposed to what I believe in. I well remember going into a charity shop & finding with excitement a slim yellow book with the word Spanking in black lettering on its spine, only to find a manual of 'Christian' child care.
I was only ever spanked once or twice, and I have no doubt whatsoever that it affected me, but more I think because my attachment to my mother was already disturbed. Certainly every time I read a story about 'loving firm parents' I can feel the mixed emotions starting to swirl, and one of them is desire for punishment that expresses love. While this fetish has certainly brought me immense pleasure--and grief--I have no desire for my children to seek love through punishment. Anybody else want that?
I'm certainly not saying that spanking alone will make that happen, it's more complex than that, but spanking has always been a key part of the authoritarian and/or emotionally abusive parenting that certainly will lead to emotional problems. Which is not to say that anyone who has ever spanked a child is authoritarian or abusive.
I disagree with tiptopper about timeout beiing like corner time. Timeout if used properly is not even a punishment. It's a firm way of withdrawing atention from a child for a very limited period, not a way of putting a child on display and making them think about their misdeeds. Really it's a way for parents to manage their own feelings!
5 June 2012 07:08
erniethefiend said...
I really like the idea of a university study of spanking, requiring single female graduate students to spank their children, over a period of years, for the purposes of a study. No doubt any of these students who is uncertain how to spank would get a sample lesson, on her own bottom, from one of the faculty advisers!

This idea could be the source for some wonderful spanking fiction. Grace?
19 October 2012 19:22
DarkRiver said...
This article (parts 1 and 2) reminds me of my Psychology 101 professor. That professor was quite open about her dislike of men. She'd go out of her way to show how if a girl behaved one way it was okay but if a guy did the same thing it was wrong. The author seems to do this but with those who spank and those who don't. If you don't spank (and agree with her) you're "good" if you do spank you're "bad".
19 February 2013 18:46
blueberrycadenza said...
Good article and interesting take on the psychological opinions on this subject. Grace is one of my favorite authors and I admire her writing a scholarly article like this.
19 February 2013 20:38
dougmorton said...
While I do find this article an interesting read, I also find a disturbing widespread use of “ad hominems,” in which arguments are rebutted by attacking the characters, motives, or other attributes of those making the argument, and not, or to a lesser extent, the substance of the arguments. Thus being a citizen of a slave state like Texas, a fundamentalist Christian, or a faculty member of a Christian college, is ample reason for dismissing the person's opinion or research finding. There is much in this article that is very well done, but the author too frequently paints with a very wide paintbrush. Thus, for instance, authoritarian-style parents are compared to Nazi Germans. I've been a committee member for many PhD dissertations, and I cannot imagine any member of such a committee considering this article satisfactory in its present form.
8 August 2017 09:29
jsanon said...
Since this article was originally posted Jillian Keenan, a brave spanko who has came out in the mainstream press, has written what seems to me the last word on this. She says that childhood spankings do not create the kink, but that the few people who have the kink can be traumatized by a childhood spanking. That's how I see it; it's just not worth the risk to a child to expose them to what may be sexual abuse, even though it may not be sexual, or abuse, to others. And her book "Sex With Shakespeare" includes what seems to me the best explanation of why spanking a child is inherently abusive: if you saw a teacher patting a child on the butt, would that be the same, to you, as a teacher patting a child anywhere else? Case closed.
2 September 2017 19:47
nowings said...
Hi GB & I love what jsanon just wrote on 9/2 - read Jillian's book & articles & rule of thumb - note to self etc. - except for the odd frustrated pat to keep them from being hit by a car - don't spank your children - case closed. I was spanked as a child and I have the fetish to be spanked by strong women but I do not give a damn about my spanking someone - really no interest. Many people have hitismfetish and were never spanked - go figure. Oh and guess what? It all started with my being spanked and then came sex - chicken and egg sorted out - WOW! Love the Greeks comment from GB & also the religious crap - a history of SM that makes spanking look like a skip through the park. Enjoy the fantasy & love one another - thanks GB - great work as always ....
10 September 2017 15:12
Jonathan54m said...
OK...coming to this discussion late, but in doing so happy to join dougmorton, jsanon and nowings. Perhaps this issue is one of the best examples of "better late than never." I support Grace's overall analysis. I also agree with dougmorton that the "ad hominems" act more to distract than elucidate. Life is rife with human complication and complexity calling more for empathy than finger pointing. Who among us can righteously cast the first stone? Worrisome, tribal allegiances and felt- grievances are reasserting their influence, further diminishing the distant hope that we can come together as nations, as people, as a human race. Let's judge folks for their actual behaviors not their affiliations. I'm a Catholic, but I'm definitively not a pedophile.

Anyway, on the matter of spanking children, jsanon and Jillian Keenon have it just right. As a spanko, I never allowed myself the possibility of including spanking in my parenting tool kit and convinced my wife (though she experienced the belt as a child) that we could be successful parents without resorting to that option. Through grace, good fortune and high expectations our children made the transition into successful adults.

Finally, I am perhaps in the minority here, but I wish I was never a spanko. Like many, my fascination was preadolescent. I don't believe my interest resulted from being spanked, which happened only once that I can recall. Spanking is too demanding of my attention and time and (since my wife is an affirmed vanilla) has interfered over decades of marriage with my ability to fully experience the richness of lovemaking. I simply would prefer not having to fantasize about spanking her or she spanking me in order to reach a satisfying climax.

Wow....that was a bit cathartic. Thanks Grace, et.al. for bringing it out.
13 September 2017 17:51
JessicaK said...
If we are what we write, Stephen King, John Ringo, and Agatha Christie should all have been jailed. Some people write what they wish they could do; some people write as catharsis, telling the stories they most fear or by which they were most damaged; some people write stories that have absolutely nothing to do with any reality they either desire or fear. (Game of Thrones, anyone?)
29 November 2017 16:23
BlooDenim said...
I can speak from both sides of the fence.
I wasn't spanked at home as a child, slapped occasionally with the threat of a "Good Hiding" if I misbehaved, but even at Nursery there was always the threat of slapping or in Primary school the strap, which I did get once and it was well-deserved and I thought no worse of the teacher issuing it.
Then came Preparatory School.
I was fascinated by the regime at first then came to fear, dread and despise the absolute authoritarian regime. I earned my first caning at age 9, and I did earn it. I wanted to experience this archaic punishment that I didn't really believe was still prevalent, but oh was I ever wrong. I was badly bullied by both boys and staff at said boarding school all the way up to age 16 and suffered actual psychological damage that took many years/decades to throw off. The canings at said school, particularly from our infamous housemaster, who earned a nickname for being so vicious and keen to use the cane, were brutal, not just a short sharp shock, and we were always left bruised for several weeks and sometimes bleeding. I saw and experienced how corporal punishment could and was used to bully and subdue. Did I think that corporal punishment should be banned? Certainly at times I wished it was because it was used so unfairly, but I did think it served as an ultimate deterrent.
My fascination with spanking and caning was submerged, nearly drowned completely and from play-caning with other similar-minded boy/s I buried it as a perversion, because I could see that our housemaster at least was definitely enjoying inflicting suffering.
Time passed, I matured and married and had a family.
Corporal punishment? We had several children and one I spanked twice, one never and two once at the same time for nearly losing their mother her job.
The threat was enough, because they all knew that I would if the occasion merited it, but it was not something that would be resorted to without extreme provocation.
So. Does spanking warp personalities?
Not in my opinion and experience.
Violence and bullying certainly do. There is a difference between punishing a child for a wrongdoing when they knew they were doing wrong and using violence to subdue them and/or prove one's dominance.
So, learn to accept and live with your predeliction. I really enjoy both spanking and being spanked. I will sometimes leave really juicy medals if that's what the person wants. Sometimes it's what I want too, but it is always consensual and pre-agreed, never forced. Yes role-play can "pretend" scenarios, but that's what they are. Real life is something else.
5 January 2018 08:47
Often123 said...
The dilemma seems to be, at least for us here is: Can we separate our own kink from using spanking as one of the tools in raising children? I can.
My own view, is that it should be possible. I wouldn't use spanking as some kind of perverse kick nor would I rule out smacking a bottom as needed. Moderation in anything is advisable.
A number of psychologists began arguing against the practice beginning in the 50's, if I'm not mistaken, yet there weren't always good alternatives. Time-outs, and withholding privileges don't always work.
My point being don't condemn people on either side of the debates, but don't brand parents who spank as fundamentalists or tyrants.
To be clear, I did receive a few as a child at home and in school, but didn't turn into some psycho who goes around hurting people.
There was an incident that I believe was one of the contributing factors in watering the seed, so to speak, but the ground was already there.
27 February 2018 07:50

You need to sign in if you wish to make a comment
    


  Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14