William Saletan looks at a new study arguing that spanking turns kids into sexual deviants and offers four explanations:
Theories: 1) Corporal punishment creates a psychological "fusion of love and violence." 2) It reduces "concern for the well-being of other people." 3) It teaches poor impulse control. 4) It makes your kids ignore your relationship advice.
He omits 5) It's garbage.
A propos of absolutely nothing, I offer this:
It's the only proper punishment for setting a light to the grail-shaped beacon. Followed by something I can't quite remember anymore...
Ah Megan, you are a classy dame. The Moffat's keep promising more episodes, but I've given up hoping.
Is THIS what you spent your time doing that year in London? Watching things like this?
Kinky alternative theory: Masochistic kids misbehave because they like to be spanked and grow up to be adults who like to be spanked. Ta da! It's just as reasonable an explanation!
Actually, they should just poll the kinky folks and find out how many of them were spanked a lot as kids. If it turns out they're a minority, then we could "logically" (heavy emphasis on the sarcasm quotes there) assume that not spanking kids turns them into perverts.
Agenda alert -- I went back to look at the original story and found this lovely quote from the man behind the study at the very end:
"For me, gentle, loving sex is the thing," he said. "I think the world would be better if there were more people who liked gentle, loving sex than (people who) linked even play-violence to sex."
This study is this guy trying to tell us what kind of sex to have. Lame.
We could always go for the personal insecurity explanation, and posit that these studies are performed by researchers who screwed up their own offspring with by believing pop psychology about the harmful effects of spanking, and now have to justify that little Johnnie's 10-15 for armed robbery wasn't really their fault.
remember, an open hand is abuse, a back hand is discipline.
Fair job of debunking.
Still I think some of the people who report being spanked "a lot" probably do have problems. I've certainly seen people whose version of "I was spanked alot" sounds like actual child abuse. Like in one case this classmate said he got berated and spanked hard for talking to a black girl. Others involve parents spanking for similarly stupid or arbitrary reasons. In another "spanked alot" meant they got spanked so hard or long they nearly lost consciousness. Or they ended up with injuries that bothered them for days or weeks or more. I guess those people called that "spanked alot" instead of "child abuse" to avoid family tension or maybe they just don't want to be pitied.
So I'd tend more to skepticism of the "spanked a little/some" group being worse than the "non-spanked." "Spanked alot" group probably does contain actual abused children and I believe that they do have more problems.
The "naked bottoms" monologue is my favorite piece of modern performance. It sits in a place of honor on my TIVO.
But that's probably because I was spanked as a child.
This is great. Megan the big time vegan--who would never want any type of harm done to any barnyard animal, not even the indignity of a dairy cow being milked--is urging her readers to beat the crap out of their kids because of some study she links to.
anony-mouse:
Do you really believe that? At least in my experience, the more abuse a person suffered as a child, the more screwed up they are as an adult.
Mortimer: Pointing out that a crap study is crap doesn't mean she supports ... oh, I'm responding to a troll, aren't I?
I think some kids may respond well to (non-abusive) corporal punishment and some may respond poorly, depending on their temperaments. The problem is we have no way of knowing in advance and we've all got our own experience biases in the matter. Believing that, I wouldn't spank a child, just because I don't think you can truly know the impact on their development one way or another until they've matured.
I can say though that I wasn't spanked much at all as a child and grew up to be one kinky pervert.
I think a categorical rejection of spanking is not warranted. My parents, who were pacifist social workers, used that tactic (with a wooden spoon no less) on those special occasions when I was very young they really wanted to put the fear of God in me -- e.g. if I ran into the street before I appreciated that cars could kill me. I don't think that's so bad.
What I despise most about these studies is the "one size fits all" mentality. Memo to social scientists: all kids are different! Some need to be spanked, some don't. The best people to judge whether a kid needs a spanking or not are the people who spend all day with them.
That so-called Mortimer Madler is an idiot. He doesn't know what he's talking about. I have five children and I beat them on a daily basis to toughen them up. And I will guarantee you, none of my kids is going to grow up to be a pervert, just like what Megan's study shows. Thanks for the link--I'm going to show it to the wife (who's sceptical). Megan is 100% right that it's okay to beat your children, and there is no way that any liberal commie government bureaucrat is going to stop me from disciplining my children the way I want--not even over my dead libertarian body.
You know it is possible to reject a study, or most anything, without it meaning you believe in the exact opposite of it.
If a flawed study concluded "90% of the time marriage makes a person happier" rejecting it would not mean accepting the idea "90% of the marriage makes a person less happy." Perhaps most people are happier married, but one disputes the percentage. Or perhaps 90% of people would be happier married, but only if they're marrying the right person.
Hey, Thomas R,
Say you're 90% retarded and you marry a woman who's 80% retarded. How retarded will your children be?
I agree with Thomas R. I think we see eye to eye. If he's 80% gay and I'm 100% gay, then how gay could we be together (if you know what I mean)?
I guess that analogy confused some of you or I omitted a necessary word. So I'll try this again.
It is possible to reject a study or statement without supporting its exact opposite. For a relevant example rejecting the statement "spanking is bad for kids" does not mean accepting "spanking is good for kids." A variety of other positions could amount to rejecting the assertion. Like
The statement is rejected for being vague as "spanking" and "kids" are left undefined.
The statement is rejected because the person feels it's making an assumption based in flawed or insufficient data.
The statement is rejected because the person sees spanking as having a mixed effect.
***
Other examples of statements that can be rejected without accepting the opposite include "There is a God." One could reject the statement "There is a God" without being an atheist. They could be an agnostic who rejects "There is a God" because they reject any assertion on the matter. Or they could be polytheistic and reject "There is a God" because they see it as implying monotheism.
I loved that series. So sorry it ended.
An endless source of cute quotations, too....this one's for you, Megan:
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
Jeez guys, how comes it's a bunch of libertaaaarian blogs that just haaaappen to endorse spanking, or rather join in a chorus criticizing someone who dares to put an end to what is categorically, CHILD-ABUSE! Well, go figure. Deep down all yous guys are just reactionary authoritarian crypto-fascists anyways.