The Bobcat Nation

It will be interesting to see how the public reaction for this one compares and contrasts to the Ray Rice situation.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... child.html

I assume there will likely be a certain segment of the population that will take the "he did nothing wrong/kids need to be hit/what's wrong with our society coddling these kids today" path.

Bay Area Cat wrote:It will be interesting to see how the public reaction for this one compares and contrasts to the Ray Rice situation.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... child.html

I assume there will likely be a certain segment of the population that will take the "he did nothing wrong/kids need to be hit/what's wrong with our society coddling these kids today" path.

i am on that path to a point. i am actually on the fence on this type of thing. i have three kids of my own and have never and will never lay a hand on them. or a switch as the case may be! we go the route of timeouts and now that they are older taking things away like xboxes, phones, ipads etc. but to be honest many times i think a good old fashioned spanking would work better. i got spanked when i was a kid. when i really messed up i got a belt. my parents weren't child abusers. they were good parents. god-fearing christian parents. i only recall getting the belt a couple times. my guess is whatever i did to warrant the belt i didn't do again!

i think common sense needs to come in play and in this case we need to learn a lot more. was this a one time thing? was it done as a discipline? or is AP a child abuser who views his kids as easy prey? i don't know enough. but in general i don't have a problem with parents who choose to use physicality as a form of punishment as long as it's not excessive. not sure if that makes me a bad person or not.

as far as comparing this to the ray rice situation again, i don't know enough. if this was done as a form of punishment and wasn't excessive i'd opine that they're not even in the same conversation. a man spitting and punching a grown woman is not the same as a father whipping his son as a punishment. if it turns out that peterson is a child abuser and uses excessive force with smal children all the time as a form of dominance rather than punishment....i'll agree it's the exact same.

This is 100% child abuse.

Look, there's a worthwhile and reasonable debate about child-rearing methods and corporal punishment. I'm honestly not sure where I fall on that debate. I was spanked as a child, although I'm sure it was only once or twice. After that the threat was enough for me. And I'm certainly not scarred from it in any way.

But whipping a 4-year old with a "switch" and causing actual injuries is not the same as a spank on the bottom with a flat hand. It crosses the line from making a point in a disciplinary way into outright violence.

AP issued a statement that when he disciplines his children he discusses what they did wrong, why they are getting punished, and then the discussion again after the punishment (e.g. the switch) is completed.

We had three kinds of spankings when I was a kid -- a regular old spanking, a spanking with a flat hand on your bare bum, and then "the stick," which was a piece of cut off molding. I can't remember ever getting the stick, but I do remember the threat alone was enough to whip me into shape.

It's funny everybody who says they were spanked cannot seem to articulate how they're worse off as an adult because of it and they all seem to remember an ass whooping as an effective deterrent.

Cledus wrote:It's funny everybody who says they were spanked cannot seem to articulate how they're worse off as an adult because of it and they all seem to remember an ass whooping as an effective deterrent.

I actually remember a few kids growing up that got "disciplined" by their parents in ways that left marks ... and they were pretty messed up emotionally as a result of it (and not because they were weak people, but rather because having an abusive parent messes kids up). A swat on the butt with a hand is one thing, but when you start drawing blood (from the scrotum, no less), that's probably something else.

I think if you looked around and did some reading on the topic, you'd find countless examples of people who are quite clear as to the fact that being beaten (by parents who were doing so as a punishment of some kind) as a child made them worse off as adults.

This whole topic got me thinking along different lines (I hadn't ever really thought of this before). Everybody seems to be unanimous in the idea that a guy shouldn't hit a woman (why we stop there, I'm not sure, but everybody is at least on board at that point). So if somebody took a stick and beat a woman to the degree where they drew blood and left marks all over her body, everybody would agree that they guy should be arrested, regardless of his reasons for doing so. So why would it be okay for a person to do that to a small child, a person who is obviously far weaker and less able to defend themselves than an adult woman?

If Adrian's child came into our clinic we would call child protective services. Legally would have to. That is abuse. His smile on his mug shot makes me sick. I don't care if he was beaten as a child, doesn't make it right. I was smacked as a kid, with a belt. Hurt like hell. Doesn't make that right either. I learned to fear my dad. Not love him until I was an adult.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Cledus wrote:It's funny everybody who says they were spanked cannot seem to articulate how they're worse off as an adult because of it and they all seem to remember an ass whooping as an effective deterrent.

I actually remember a few kids growing up that got "disciplined" by their parents in ways that left marks ... and they were pretty messed up emotionally as a result of it (and not because they were weak people, but rather because having an abusive parent messes kids up). A swat on the butt with a hand is one thing, but when you start drawing blood (from the scrotum, no less), that's probably something else.

I think if you looked around and did some reading on the topic, you'd find countless examples of people who are quite clear as to the fact that being beaten (by parents who were doing so as a punishment of some kind) as a child made them worse off as adults.

This whole topic got me thinking along different lines (I hadn't ever really thought of this before). Everybody seems to be unanimous in the idea that a guy shouldn't hit a woman (why we stop there, I'm not sure, but everybody is at least on board at that point). So if somebody took a stick and beat a woman to the degree where they drew blood and left marks all over her body, everybody would agree that they guy should be arrested, regardless of his reasons for doing so. So why would it be okay for a person to do that to a small child, a person who is obviously far weaker and less able to defend themselves than an adult woman?

I thought it was obvious that my use of the term ass kicking was not literal and not meant to be interpreted as a grown man using over powering and using intimidation against a child. It was a poor choice of words. Cledus regrets the error.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Cledus wrote:It's funny everybody who says they were spanked cannot seem to articulate how they're worse off as an adult because of it and they all seem to remember an ass whooping as an effective deterrent.

I actually remember a few kids growing up that got "disciplined" by their parents in ways that left marks ... and they were pretty messed up emotionally as a result of it (and not because they were weak people, but rather because having an abusive parent messes kids up). A swat on the butt with a hand is one thing, but when you start drawing blood (from the scrotum, no less), that's probably something else.

I think if you looked around and did some reading on the topic, you'd find countless examples of people who are quite clear as to the fact that being beaten (by parents who were doing so as a punishment of some kind) as a child made them worse off as adults.

This whole topic got me thinking along different lines (I hadn't ever really thought of this before). Everybody seems to be unanimous in the idea that a guy shouldn't hit a woman (why we stop there, I'm not sure, but everybody is at least on board at that point). So if somebody took a stick and beat a woman to the degree where they drew blood and left marks all over her body, everybody would agree that they guy should be arrested, regardless of his reasons for doing so. So why would it be okay for a person to do that to a small child, a person who is obviously far weaker and less able to defend themselves than an adult woman?

i agree to a point but it is different. i make my kids stand in a corner for about 30 minutes when i'm fed up with they're behavior too. if i tried that with my wife it think people would start asking questions...

i'm not defending his actions. it's just interesting to me how times have changed. you cite examples of kids who got the belt and were changed emotionally. i have personal examples of getting a whip and i like to think i had a pretty normal upbringing and am a normal guy now too.

i will say that if this is the stand we are going to take on this i am ok with it. but we better get serious. cause i'm betting that there are countless kids getting spanked, belted, whipped, and i guess switched (never heard of this before now) all the time. i'm fine with that action. i'm just not ready to blast every person who spanks their kids as child abusers just yet....although i concede that times are changing.

We had a willow tree in our backyard when I was a kid. I used to have to go out and cut a branch off and bring it back inside to get my "spanking." Every time I had it coming. I am not any worse for wear because of it either physically or emotionally. I dont use the same method on my kids but I have (hand) spanked them. Any adults that claim they are scarred by the discipline they received obviously were dealt with more harshly than I was......either that or they are just looking for an excuse for their self-pity and bad decisions.

That being said, my spankings with a switch always occured with my jeans on.....not sure in this case as the little boy obviously has physical injuries. The injuries seem like the "whooping" was excessive especially in light of the age of the kid. What could a 4-year old have done that was so bad to deserve that punishment? Long story short....I am in favor of spanking your kids when it is warranted. This was past spanking and excessive.

I think if there's evidence the day after the punishment is doled out in the form of bruises, cuts, marks, etc. then it's went too far.

tampa_griz wrote:I think if there's evidence the day after the punishment is doled out in the form of bruises, cuts, marks, etc. then it's went too far.

Agreed. Like some of the posters above, I had the belt or a switch used on me for the severest of punishments (2 or 3 times total). Other than that it was by the hand.

Never did I have a mark as a result of the spanking the day after.

I got spanked with one of those old orange hot wheel tracks on a bare ass for playing with matches. Left some good sized welts. You can bet your ass I never played with matches again. But, what Peterson did was way over the top. There's a big difference in a spank on the butt and beating the ****** out of a kid.

I got the wood spoon... until it broke over my a$$. The whoopins stopped after I took the next spoon out of their hand. That said, I earned every a$$ whoopin I ever got. I never had fear of my parents though. I was just as cantankerous then as I am now. I think I might have scared them when I took the spoon though. Our house was full of love though and I think knowing that makes the difference for not being "scarred for life."

My dad was a yeller. It would scare the hell out of me, I would feel about 6 inches tall. I probably only got a few spankings ever, with a belt. A belt is great, it does hurt but it sounds awful. For me the biggest thing I had was 2 parents who adapted their lives to their kids.

..... and now he gets
to walk away..........