Is hot sauce and cold showers discipline or abuse?

There are, of course, a lot of things that would be crimes if you did them to some random adult, but are not if you do them to your own children. More than that, it is a crime to not do certain things to your own children, that would be crimes if done to some random adult (forcing them to spend weekdays sitting in classrooms, for example).

Which is to say that if you're interested in using legal reasoning to address the topic, the place to start would be the considerable body of legal reasoning and precedent on the above distinction, particularly as it pertains to discipline and punishment.

But more to the point, pretty much any act of parental punishment, no matter how measured and legitimate, would qualify as a crime if done to some random adult. So unless you're committed to the position that all punishment is abuse, that isn't a useful razor for telling the one from the other. To that, I'd suggest that the salient feature of abuse is that it's more about the parent's issues (be it frustration, resentment, guilt, or whatever) than any legitimate consideration (even, a flawed one) of the child's upbringing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sodomy involves something the child wouldn't normally partake in.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm pretty sure he eats and showers of his own accord, and sometimes the food will be hot and the water cold.
Prison is also imposed upon people involuntarily, but is done so to punish them for actions contrary to law. You discipline children(sparingly and lightly) for much the same reasons, because they do not inherently know right from wrong and sometimes talking doesn't work.

 

See above, punishment is never voluntary, but it exists for good reason. It is unacceptable for adults to break laws and do whatever they want, so why do people here believe kids should be afforded such a privilege? Of course the answer is they don't, they just disagree with the punishment, but any punishment will still require something to occur against the childs will - hence it will be deemed "abuse". The best thing that can be done is to keep the punishment light but firm.

See above, anything you do beyond a talk would be "abuse" (according to the definitions here).

Ah of course, all kids are darling angels that sit and listen while you talk, obey your every request, and allow you to correct their behaviour in the most reasonable way possible. Works every time right?
Your idealistic world doesn't exist, as much as we'd all love it to. As I said above, her tirade is far more concerning to me, but not the punishment as she evidently feels a punishment is required, and in some cases it can be.

:roflmao:
Stop it! You're killing me!
Kids run around, they misbehave, they're playful and mischievious and inquisitive, that's a huge part of what makes them children. They're also terrible at listening and retaining the information provided when something more fun is going on. Essentially they don't always do as they're asked.
Most people DO talk to their kids as a first option, and rarely does anyone take some delight in hurting their child in any way.
The question James is what do you do when talking fails, and the fact that failure will occur is a certainty.
No doubt you'll suggest it is followed up with removal of privileges, toys, games, special foods etc as this is the usual course of action. This however does not always improve the situation.
That usually leads to punishment as being the only remaining option, so most reasonable parents will pick the least harmful choice.

There is a difference between "abuse" and "punishment". I am far from suggesting we beat children for every misdemeanor(or even at all), but your idealistic world of kids always doing what they're told is not what happens in the real world.
Do you believe all adults that commit crimes come from such backgrounds? And all those who don't commit crimes must never have been punished?
It isn't so black and white James.
Even a grounding, the deprival of freedom, is essentially abusive, and is much like how the prison system works.

 

In response to James' post:

The thrashings I endured did have some deterrent effect, but mostly they made me rebellious and contemptuous of authority in general. There is a world of difference between a clip round the ear and a sound thrashing I think. Later in life I found myself behaving like my parent, and it took a good deal of willpower to modify my behaviour. This is an emotive issue, but I think dicipline has a role to play - but an angry parent is liable to overreact, so is probably the worst person to judge what is appropriate at the time.

 

The murderers should be put to death. Violent criminals should be locked up for decades at least.

Drug possession shouldn't even be illegal. I'd consider caning for more mild crimes like petty theft.

Nice construction there. Either parents are abusers or sociopaths with no emotion whatsoever. I don't see physical punishment as any different from non-physical and it engenders no more emotion in me (typically, disappointment and sadness that punishment is necessary). If I am angry with the child, I would never administer physical punishment for fear I might go overboard.

Exactly.

It would be a much stronger deterent than a fine. I've had more speeding tickets than I can count. If the punishment was being stripped naked and publically caned/whipped; I'd have slowed down long ago.

Having a few spankings does not constitute "a violent upbringing">

I do agree that the use of the hot sauce combined with the cold shower was a bit excessive and the child was clearly pretty upset (I still wouldn't call it abuse). But I'd also say that I've seen children react just as strongly to being told to stop playing with a certain toy.

Please. My father would met out whatever punishment I hated the most. If I asked for the spanking, I 'd be sure to get grounded.

Untrue. You seem to have this image of all corporal punishment as this random act of violence commited by drunken louts. Children (and people in general) will respect you if you are fair and reasonable. If they know in advance that a given action will result in a certain punishment, they'll respect you more for following thru than for backing down.

Once again you create a scenario in which any opinion but yours is abhorrent.

It depends upon the situation. If the choice was be punched in the face or be publically humiliated by some authority figure in front of a crowd, I'd go for the punch in the face.

When I was a child, we ate what we were given. Liver. Spinach. Cabbage. Whatever. I resent that far more than any spanking I was ever given.

I think Quad said it very well:

Abuse is not done for the benefit of the child, but as catharsis for the parent. Indeed, even a lack of discipline can be abuse and is often done because the parent wants to be his child's friend. It takes strength to discipline your child, it's far easier to just give them what they want.

 

When corporal punishment is necessary

Before I had kids (and even when I only had one kid), I was one of those people who thought that corporal punishment on children was a sign that parenting had failed. My wife and I smugly patted ourselves on the back that we had never and WOULD never spank any of our children.

And then my second son came along.

As anyone who is a parent knows, little toddlers often do dangerous things (like wandering into the road, putting things - including body parts - into electrical outlets, trying to touch a hot stove... really the list could go on forever). They do this because they are inquisitive.

Because of the inherent danger in such activities, my wife and I discovered with our first son that getting close to our son and loudly saying "DANGER" would frighten him enough that he would not repeat the dangerous activity. Essentially, simply being startled was sufficient as a deterrent.

The first time we tried this on my second son (at approximately the age of two), his response was to turn toward us, put on his most winning smile... and laugh. It started to become a game for him.

We tried everything - time outs, removing him from the situation without making a big deal of it, redirecting his attention, but he would not be deterred. We worried about it a lot, and eventually determined that we would need to give him a swat when he did something dangerous. And you know what? It works. For him, that brief moment of physical discomfort is enough to deter him from doing actions that we know (but he doesn't) could lead to serious bodily injury or death.

He is mischievous by nature, and he really enjoys getting a rise out of his parents. When his mischief is of no immediate danger to him, he still gets the more "conventional" punishments like time out, but when he does something truly dangerous, it is my DUTY as a parent to discipline him in a way that will keep him safe. And for him, that means a swat.

 

I'm not against a swat, especially to toddlers that are clueless, pain can solidify a lesson, but that's not what happened here.

 

I have to admit that this case is right on the line for me.

On the one hand, it is clear that the child knows and understands what the punishment is going to be beforehand. The mother has clearly communicated where the line is, and what will happen when the child crosses the line. The child is not surprised by what the punishment is going to be, and (at least until the cold shower) he doesn't seem particularly upset about the punishment that is being meted out.

When he gets the cold shower, both he and the mom kind of lose it a bit. She changes from firm disciplinarian to slightly-out-of-control tyrant. She is no longer speaking in measured (if elevated) tones, but is full-on yelling. For his part, he clearly does not enjoy the cold shower and is having a complete meltdown.

If I had to guess, it is this scene that draws the most visceral reaction from viewers. Hearing that child scream as though he were dying while seeing the mother continue to rail against him is tough to watch.

But I'd caution all of us here to take that with a grain of salt. I'm here to tell you that my own children have put up even more impassioned and pathetic pleas when I have done nothing more than put them in time out. In fact, I often tell my wife (only half-jokingly) that, "if they're not crying, the discipline isn't working."

Anyone who judges the harshness of the method of discipline by the volume of the protests has a thing or two to learn about discipline, and kids for that matter.

All that being said. I personally can't think of a situation where I'd subject my kid to a cold shower. But I'm hesitant to call it abuse for a couple of reasons. First, it really doesn't harm the child physically. Heck, one of the first thing my kids want to do come April or May is go swimming in our pool. I think it's way too cold, so I usually refuse, but they love it - teeth-chattering and all. Second, see my previous point about "if they're not crying, it ain't working." Just because a child hates a particular method of discipline doesn't make it abuse.... it only means its effective.

 

This was well after the fact. The lesson will not stick, all he will remember is that his mom is a total bitch.

 

It seems to me that corporal punishment / abuse is just a matter of degree. But there will always be people that think any kind of dicipline is out of order. Can anybody really say there is no alternative? who is to say what is acceptable and what is not? Is it really the job of the government to instruct on this topic? Surely every case has to be judged in its individual merits.
Like any tool, corporal punishment is open to abuse, excess. But it is just one tool in the toolbox. The prevailing direction is away from corporal punishment, but is it right to start criminalizing the parents of unruly children?

 

Maybe, but what do you suggest? The 7 year old acted up at school and then lied about it to his mom. Does she let it slide cause it's too long after the fact? In fact, that may be a good argument in favor of the mom's actions. The only way to make it "stick" is to have it be memorable, which means she had to go extreme. I can guarantee you that kid will think twice about throwing pens at classmates.

Another problem is that we don't get to see the follow up to what happened. After administering the punishment, did the mom sit down with him, hold him close, and tell him how much she loved him and reaffirm to him her confidence that he would make better choices in the future. For me, that's one of the most important parts of discipline.

If all the mom did was leave the poor wretch dripping icicles in the bathroom all by himself, then yeah, she was a heartless bitch. But if she took some time to reinforce to him that she loved him, etc.... I'm inclined to cut her some slack on this one.

 

Maybe find out why he's acting up? Maybe sit in his class for a day? Kids and pets often act out for a reason. And come on, is throwing a pen really cause for such punishment? His mom wasn't thinking of him, she was thinking of her own ego which was bruised.

 

How do you know that?

 

Because with young kids (and pets) the correction has to be immediate. That's just psychology.

 

This raises an important question. Where's the balance of:
#1 -- isolating a child from dangers (playpen, etc), or "sanitizing" their environment (ie, removing dangers),
#2 -- providing enough supervision regardless of the environment (house, yard, school, etc), and
#3 -- allowing a child to explore and grow up.

Because, certainly, one solution to the original problem was to say: "Our son does not behave in school, so we'll keep him home this year, etc." But all this bureaucracy and laws require children to attend school.

An extreme example about learning is staying away from electrical outlets. There they are, at exactly the wrong location for little kids and some look like faces (two eyes and a mouth), but the grownups insist on having them in the house. There's no example for children to learn by, it's all belief in the parents' warnings about them. You can't say, see what happens when Fido licks/pees on the electrical outlet Bzzaapp!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

oops now he's dead, so don't play with them or you'll die too. Hot stoves are different because we can feel the heat from a distance, and touching them won't kill us.

Behaving in school is different from outlets. Goofing off doesn't hurt anyone -- its "wrongness" is not intuitively obvious -- it's just that the grownups *don't want* kids to do it. So, kids are told that it's "bad" to goof off in school, and they're expected to obey. And the idea that, hours from now and miles from here, Mom will punish the boy for what he does in class -- but it's not obvious at the time of the goofing off. Maybe if Mom appeared a couple times in his classroom unannounced, he'd connect his Mom with school. But, truly, when does a child ever see either parent in their classroom?? Maybe kids catch on that "Mom's and Dad's *aren't allowed* in classrooms" because they never see them there.

 

With infants or toddlers, but this boy was neither. He was in Elementary school. He knew what he did wrong, he knew when he did it and why he was in trouble. According to him, he got in trouble several times at school and then he lied about it later. So he must have remembered what he did in order to lie about it at a later time and he was aware that he had lied because he admitted it and knew the punishment for lying. The fact that she made him say it before his punishment and during should drive it home even more. He knew why he was being punished.

 

Nothing he could do at that age would warrant such a response. Maybe if he stabbed another kid in the eye on purpose.

 

Beside the obvious question of how you know what the mom was thinking of while she was disciplining her son, I have to question the notion that understanding "why" a child acts out is some kind of magic bullet for curing the behavior.

For the record, people (not just kids) ALWAYS act (not just act out) for a reason. Did you mean to say that kids (and pets... why this discussion of pets?! I think we can agree that pets and children are sufficiently different to make the comparison less than instructive) often act out for a justifiable reason? for a rational reason? for an addressable reason? If one of the latter, I would counter that people often act WITHOUT a rational, or justifiable, or addressable reason.

I agree that having the mom sit in the kid's classroom would have likely have an impact on his behavior, but what are you going to do with the other five kids? Do they come along too? Maybe as added social pressure?

The problem with this video and people's reactions to it is that it doesn't tell the whole story, and people have filled in the rest of the story roughly along these lines: Here we have a mom who doesn't love her adopted son as much as she loves her other kids, who is arbitrarily and capriciously using overly-harsh discipline methods to force him to comply to some unattainable standard, and who doesn't even show the child one iota of love or affection.

As a parent who has disciplined children who are occasionally disobedient, I would NEVER want people to judge my skills as a parent (or my love for my children) on two minutes of film where I am actually meting out a punishment that have been edited to show only the moments where my child is crying and screaming. Sheesh... none of us could live up to that standard.

You'll notice that the topic of this thread is "Is hot sauce and cold showers discipline or abuse?" To that, I'd respond: neither. Hot sauce is a yummy condiment that makes lots of otherwise inedible food palatable and cold showers are very useful for teenage boys... and even more grown up ones.

In this context, I'd say that, while I never intend to use either as a method of discipline, I can't call either one abuse.