Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Zyngaru
« on: April 24, 2025, 05:30:47 pm »

Quote from: Jack on April 24, 2025, 05:03:10 pm
Quote from: Zyngaru on April 24, 2025, 09:18:27 am
That does reflect current social norms.

Not particularly.  Look at the story of the prodigal son.  One has to consider a lot of factors when making a decision.  As a matter of fact, it seems to me we see less of that these days, what with zero tolerance rules and similar.

Unless I am misunderstanding the parable of the Prodigal son, he was well within his rights to take his inheritance and leave.  He did not break any rules.  When he returned, he did not beg to be reinstated into the family.  No, he took responsibility for his failure and begged to be allowed to return as a servant, a slave.  The father chose to show mercy.  He rejoiced at the return of his son.  What the father did not do, was replace his son's inheritance.

I do not believe in zero tolerance.  There is a difference between zero tolerance and accepting responsibility for your actions.  It is not one or the other.  There is grey in our lives.  Mercy, grace and forgiveness are all in play or should be with everyone.  At the same time there needs to be punishment for wrongdoing.  The same person who gave us the parable of the Prodigal son also gave us the parable of reaping and sowing.
Posted by: Zyngaru
« on: April 24, 2025, 05:15:59 pm »

Quote from: afinch on April 24, 2025, 03:14:16 pm
Let me ask you a question via a hypothetical, Z.  Boy is forbidden from riding his bike for a week.  He takes it anyway, and falls off while riding, breaking his arm.  That was direct, dangerous, deliberate disobedience.  Will spanking him when he gets home from having his arm set and put in a cast serve any purpose?

The answer to that question comes from a further hypothetical.  If he hadn't broken his arm, would being spanked for direct disobedience serve any purpose?

I personally believe that direct disobedience requires punishment.  It doesn't have to come in the form of a spanking, it could be grounding, restrictions, extra chores, and etc.  But to allow direct disobedience to prevail is undermining authority.

In the original hypothetical of a broken arm as possibly being punishment enough.  The idea of reaping what you sow, or consequences of actions in the broken arm as penalty of disobedient actions doesn't hold water.  It is true that if he hadn't disobeyed, he probably wouldn't have gotten his arm broke, but it in no way is punishment for the original disobedience.

A burglar robs your house, but on his way home he wrecks his car.  Should his theft be forgotten because he wrecked his car?  Does wrecking his car do anything to change his thieving behavior?

Does the boy breaking his arm do anything to change his disobedient behavior?  Or does it tell the boy he needs to learn how to ride his bike better?

I know there is great pain in breaking a bone.  I have never broken anything, but I have been around kids who have.  The pain is horrible for the short term and then it is replaced by what could be considered hero worship as every kid and many adults want to sign the cast.  The broken arm becomes the subject of tales of bravery and honor over time.

There are not many spankings for disobedience that become tales of bravery or honor.  Tales of warning maybe.  But not something a boy goes to school bragging about.

I am stopping here because I started off into the weeds.

Simple answer to your question.  The boy needs to be punished in some way that brings his disobedience into the forefront.  He needs to know disobedience is not allowed.  To allow his broken arm to erase his disobedience isn't teaching the boy anything, but that with the right circumstances he can get away with anything.

I know this is the way of thinking from the 50's and 60's and not of the new millennia, but I am a child of the 50's.
Posted by: Jack
« on: April 24, 2025, 05:03:10 pm »

Quote from: Zyngaru on April 24, 2025, 09:18:27 am
That does reflect current social norms.

Not particularly.  Look at the story of the prodigal son.  One has to consider a lot of factors when making a decision.  As a matter of fact, it seems to me we see less of that these days, what with zero tolerance rules and similar.
Posted by: afinch
« on: April 24, 2025, 03:14:16 pm »

Let me ask you a question via a hypothetical, Z.  Boy is forbidden from riding his bike for a week.  He takes it anyway, and falls off while riding, breaking his arm.  That was direct, dangerous, deliberate disobedience.  Will spanking him when he gets home from having his arm set and put in a cast serve any purpose? 
Posted by: Zyngaru
« on: April 24, 2025, 09:18:27 am »

Quote from: Jack on April 23, 2025, 05:04:56 pm
There's no right answer to this.  Each person will have their own belief, and for most of us, it will vary with the situation and even the boy involved. 

Spanking does not teach lessons.  To me, it stresses that bad actions have bad consequences.  I guess that means I come down more on the punishment side.  The thing is, I've caught boys shoplifting and they all swear that they learned their lesson.  Now, if I just say 'okay, as long as you learned', what's the reason lesson they learned?  I think spankings make an impression on a boy, but they're not as harsh as a long term grounding, and certainly not as bad as adults face (divorce, being fired, prison...). 

I think that the 'need' is a separate issue more often than not.  I have known boys and young men who need the catharsis of a spanking, sometimes from guilt, and sometimes just from anxiety and stress.

Since it seems this is a Jack agreement topic, then I am assuming that is why on BOTD's there is an inconsistency as to when and why boys are spanked.  Each one is an individual.  So, this one boy may be spanked for stealing and this other one will be lectured instead, and yet another one will be comforted because he shows remorse.  So, a crime doesn't always mean punishment.  That does reflect current social norms.  Thanks for your comments.
Posted by: David M. Katz
« on: April 24, 2025, 08:48:11 am »

I agree with Kier who agrees with Jack.
 
Each boy and circumstance has to be evaluated at the time.
Posted by: afinch
« on: April 23, 2025, 05:52:27 pm »

I agree with Jack that it depends on the boy.
Posted by: Jack
« on: April 23, 2025, 05:04:56 pm »

There's no right answer to this.  Each person will have their own belief, and for most of us, it will vary with the situation and even the boy involved. 

Spanking does not teach lessons.  To me, it stresses that bad actions have bad consequences.  I guess that means I come down more on the punishment side.  The thing is, I've caught boys shoplifting and they all swear that they learned their lesson.  Now, if I just say 'okay, as long as you learned', what's the reason lesson they learned?  I think spankings make an impression on a boy, but they're not as harsh as a long term grounding, and certainly not as bad as adults face (divorce, being fired, prison...). 

I think that the 'need' is a separate issue more often than not.  I have known boys and young men who need the catharsis of a spanking, sometimes from guilt, and sometimes just from anxiety and stress.
Posted by: Zyngaru
« on: April 23, 2025, 07:53:31 am »

Learn a lesson vs Need vs Punishment

I have noticed when reading answers to BOTD that some people lean towards one of these reasons more than another for reasons to spank.

I have read that the boy has already learned his lesson, so a spanking wouldn't do him any good.  Or.  The boy needs a spanking to clear his conscience.  Or.  This boy needs to be punished. He is getting a spanking.

So, my question is it proper when boy steals not to spank him as punishment, just because he feels so guilty for stealing?

When I read comments, it sounds like some have views where punishment spankings are not as important as a learning spanking or a need spanking.

So, I am curious as to how you decide what is important when deciding when a boy needs to be spanked vs, when a boy gets spanked to learn a lesson, or when a boy is spanked as punishment.  Why do you drop some reasons for spanking over others?

Look back at a few BOTD's and you will understand my confusion as to which reason if any hold prevalence over the others.  Should a boy not be punished if he shows remorse, because he has already learned his lesson by how he feels?

Just being curious.