[ SECRET POST #2186 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2186 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[QI]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Supernatural]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Haven (SyFy)]


__________________________________________________



05.
[The Boondocks]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Steve Rogers/Tony Stark]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Doctor Who]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Twilight]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Stephen Colbert and Audra McDonald]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Teen Wolf]


__________________________________________________



12.
[Calvin & Hobbes]


__________________________________________________



13.
[Blue Bloods]


__________________________________________________



14.
[BBC Sherlock]


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 017 secrets from Secret Submission Post #312.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

A spanking is not physical abuse. A spanking is a swat or two on the meatiest part of the butt that stings for half a minute, tops.

You're confusing spankings with beatings. Big diff.

[(Anonymous)]

I admit I don't really understand the logic of spanking a kid on the butt (outside of the deeply creepy "it's softer so you can hit harder and not bruise"). Swatting their extremities, I get, but butt-spanking is humiliation. You teach a kid that they have private areas of their bodies, and that if anyone touches them there in ways that make them uncomfortable, that it's wrong, and then you grab them by force and spank their asses (particularly their bare asses and/or in public) until they cry (or scream). I mean, seems like conflicting psychological messages to me.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

The butt's the most logical place to swat because it's nature's padding. It stings enough to reprimand, and lingers long enough that the kid has time to consider their wrong-doing, but doesn't cause lasting injury. The part of the butt you swat is just fat, and often a diaper or clothes are in between as well.

The point of a spanking is not to seriously hurt your child, but inflict a minor pain that they will remember and yes, fear, and so strive to avoid in the future by correcting their behavior. It could be humiliating, depending on the situation, but that's part of discipline. If you're acting up enough to get a spanking in public, you're supposed to be learning shame and humility and considering why your behavior was wrong.

And conventional, "appropriate" spanking is not to the genitals, or penetrative, or fondling, or sexual in the slightest. It's a succinct rap to the part you sit on every single day. Obviously some parents get too angry, or hit with objects, or use it as a gateway to serious abuse. I understand why it bothers people. But if you're doing it correctly and responsibly, it should be a straightforward method of teaching social behavior, not inflicting psychological horror.

[(Anonymous)]

If your kid is IN DIAPERS and you're hitting them, you don't deserve to be a parent, and Child Protective Services should be called immediately. IMMEDIATELY.

Children that young are incapable of telling right from wrong, or drawing conclusions as advanced as cause and effect, because THEIR BRAINS ARE NOT DEVELOPED TO THAT STAGE YET. Hitting a child under the age of two for ANY reason is essentially the same thing as hitting a dog; they don't know what they've done to deserve the pain, and the only thing that is going to make a lasting impression is the fear.

...is fear really the lasting impression you want your one-year-old infant to have as their formative experience, anon? Because if it is, you're not abusive...you're just another in a long list of terrible parents.

[(Anonymous)]

THANK YOU.

(da of course)

[(Anonymous)]

It's for the very reason their thought processes are simple that spanking is appropriate. A two year old cannot reason or converse about why it's dangerous to stick something in an outlet (just as an example) but if they learn that trying to do it gets them a spanking, they'll not do it. And in that case, swatting them is sure a lot better than being killed. It's clear-cut negative reinforcement. Temporary, minor pain for the sake of long-term learning.

Dogs are also capable of learning from negative reinforcement, so long as you apply it immediately at the time they misbehave. Of course you should balance rewards with punishment in both cases, but again: a disciplinary swat is not the same as a beating. It is not abuse when done correctly.

[(Anonymous)]

Wow, you're a day late and a dollar short to this conversation, aren't you?

People keep raising this mythical "what if your kid sticks a fork in a wall socket" example, which can easily be taken care of WITHOUT corporal punishment; one example would be by using outlet protectors.

If a child is in danger, isn't your first response going to be REMOVE THE CHILD FROM DANGER? Instead, all I see ITT is "swat the kid to teach them a lesson." How about NO. Remove the danger (as much as possible) in the first place, and keep an eye on your kid. How difficult is that? Apparently, too difficult f9r a few anons in this thread.

[(Anonymous)]

Wow, you're a day late and a dollar short to this conversation, aren't you?

People keep raising this mythical "what if your kid sticks a fork in a wall socket" example, which can easily be taken care of WITHOUT corporal punishment; one example would be by using outlet protectors.

If a child is in danger, isn't your first response going to be REMOVE THE CHILD FROM DANGER? Instead, all I see ITT is "swat the kid to teach them a lesson." How about NO. Remove the danger (as much as possible) in the first place, and keep an eye on your kid. How difficult is that? Apparently, too difficult for a few anons in this thread.

[(Anonymous)]

1) Outlet protectors aren't available everywhere in the world.

2) Outlet protectors can be removed by determined kids.

3) You have no control over power outlets in public spaces or in other people's homes.

You can do all you can to minimize dangers in your own home but you can never remove them everywhere. You still need to teach the kids what kind of situations are dangerous and make sure they will never do it, even when you're not there.

For some children, disappointing their parents is enough incentive to not do things their parents forbid them to do. For others, reasoning, eventual rewards, chores or taking away entertainment work. There are some children where none of the above work, but pain or humiliation work. Every child is different and it is the parents' job to find what works and what doesn't work for their child. So, if a swat on the butt stops a kid from doing dangerous things when nothing else works? Fine by me.

Also, it is impossible to keep an eye on a child all the time. How much experience do you have little children and older kids? You sound like someone with the book smarts but no hands-on experience.