|
Erections during a spanking
My son gets tight pants during an over the knee spanking. What should
I do? Jennie |
Jennie wrote: My son gets tight pants during an over the knee spanking. What should I do? Go to a website or Usenet group more in keeping with your perverions. Jennie Thanks for asking, and have a nice day. |
George Orwell wrote: you are looking at the pictures and reading the accounts of exactly how children particularly boys were always disciplined. The only difference is children traditionally were never actually injured when being spanked and disciplined. Nonsense, boys were never disciplined by being savaged by dogs. The level of pain in my spankings is about right, although I do own a set of canes and use them from time to time. I posted about the erections he gets during a spanking. Jennie |
Spanking is done by about 90% of all parents, so it is socially accepted.
Yet, keep in mind that even Frued said spanking is sex. If someone is spanking another beyond puberty, there may be a sexual stimulation associated with the spanking. Probably a good reason why spanking is not for children. |
PaulBrozon wrote: Spanking is done by about 90% of all parents, so it is socially accepted. Yet, keep in mind that even Frued said spanking is sex. If someone is spanking another beyond puberty, there may be a sexual stimulation associated with the spanking. Or it's assault. Probably a good reason why spanking is not for children. Yah mean to tell us yah think chilerin are "sexchual?" Who'd a thunk. 0;- |
PaulBrozon wrote: Spanking is done by about 90% of all parents, so it is socially accepted. The percentage is declining, but yes, by the majority of parents in the US, spanking remains socially acceptable. This doesn't make spanking children right -- there was a time when slavery was socially acceptable, as well as a denial of women's rights. Even though it was at a time "socially acceptable" -- things changed. Yet, keep in mind that even Frued said spanking is sex. If someone is spanking another beyond puberty, there may be a sexual stimulation associated with the spanking.Probably a good reason why spanking is not for children. I'd say the best reason why spanking is not for children is because children should not be legally assaultable. Children are not legally able to provide consent, as are adults. An adult spanking without mutual consent would also be legally defined as assault. LaVonne |
|
He is approaching puberty. I've upgraded his spankings from hand to
wooden hairbrush, which might take some of the excitement out of it for him. Jennie |
I'd say the best reason why spanking is not for children is because
children should not be legally assaultable. Children are not legally able to provide consent, as are adults. Your first sentence just generalises a bit. Instead of showing that spanking is not for children, you now have to prove that children should not be legally assaultable, which is going to be harder to prove because it is less specific. Otherwise you have to answer the question, "Why shouldn't children be assaultable?" Your second sentence also contributes little: consent is not an issue in this argument: children are spanked without their consent; that's part of the definition of a spanking. Therefore it doesn't really matter whether they are able to give consent or not. Jennie |
Jennie wrote: I'd say the best reason why spanking is not for children is because children should not be legally assaultable. Children are not legally able to provide consent, as are adults. Your first sentence just generalises a bit. "generalises?" [sic] There is nothing "general" about the concept that children are in this county, and not in some other, allowed to be assaulted and that act not just allowing but in fact protected by law. The writer opined, as in "I'd say," so that sets the framework as a generality, but that is all it does. From "the best reason" on it is quite specific and clear. In fact, Jennie, the comment ending in "a bit," is itself vague and "general." Instead of showing that spanking is not for children, It isn't just for children. Adults do it to each other, sans battery, with consent. You are being deliberately obtuse and evasive. you now have to prove that children should not be legally assaultable, "Prove" a moral concept? I'll prove it for you: http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/stats/index.cfm http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/NDACAN...S_General.html http://www.preventchildabuse.org/lea...t_analysis.pdf Want to argue these facts above, from the data offered on abuse and fatalities represent in the majority NOT parental "discipline attempts," but abuse? Well, that is the point. No one can say for sure quite where that line of demarcation is between the one and the other. Can you? Apparently those that can think, and fortunatly ACT, as some of our legislators can and will in the future to outlaw this barbarity, understand how very easy it is to slide into abuse and injury...still thinking one has only been disciplining a child. According to the Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse, "85% of all cases of physical abuse results from some form of over-discipline through the use of corporal punishment". According to testimony submitted to the House of Representatives (E1032--Congressional Record) March 21, 1991 by Major R. Owens of NY: "In most cases, fortunately, the physical injuries children experience are relatively minor -- some redness and soreness of the skin -- and do not require medical treatment. But the vulnerability of young children's bodies is such that the potential for causing more severe injuries is great, including hematomas, ruptured blood vessels, massive fat emboli, sciatic nerve damage, muscle damage, and brain hemorrhage. Every year we hear of children across the United States who are seriously injured and even permanently disabled as a result of corporal punishment. As Prof. John R. Cryan of the Association for Childhood Education International noted in a 1987 article: 'Adults plainly underestimate the amount of force they are capable of producing. Sometimes children are injured during even the mildest punishment when they jerk away and the blow lands off target, or when they fall against the sharp edge of some object. Eyes, ears and brains may be permanently damaged as a result of paddling. Whiplash injuries may result from shaking. Injuries from blows to the chest and abdomen are life threatening. Bones are easily fractured and even the slightest whack may produce a jolt to the brain through the bony spinal column and spinal cord, resulting in significant swelling or bleeding." http://www.nospank.net/dutton.htm which is going to be harder to prove because it is less specific. Most all moral concepts, though based on visible unwanted and socially unacceptable acts, are not "provable" in the sense you are trying to claim. The fact that something is less specific is of no relevance. A broken bone is a broken bone. How badly and where in the body matters little to the victim or society that cares for those victims, and untimately will likely have to carry that person and pay the price for some vicious ignorant twit that believed in or supported spanking. Otherwise you have to answer the question, "Why shouldn't children be assaultable?" I have a better one for you. Why are you being so stupid? The answer to your question, pervert, lies in the answer to this question...already answered by society: "Why shouldn't *people* be assaultable?" So much for your BS. Your second sentence also contributes little: consent is not an issue in this argument: Of course it is. One classification of human can be hit, legally, if they give consent. Another can't because they are as yet not capable of giving INFORMED consent. Not legally. Except for the present immoral laws that allow it. Just as LAWS once disenfranchised women, and blacks. children are spanked without their consent; Obviously. Your point does not support your next argument. that's part of the definition of a spanking. No, it is decidedly not. Spanking is defined by the action, not the lack or presence of consent. If someone gives another permission to spank them, spanking itself is of no difference if that spanking is given without consent. Except of course, for adult on adult spanking without consent it is battery, and for an adult upon a child, "discipline." Therefore it doesn't really matter whether they are able to give consent or not. Yes, it very much matters. Just as all the things we do to children with out their consent matters. Some are humane, caring, and necessary for the child's health and safety. Battery of a child by legal sanction is still hitting, as in spanking is hitting. One cannot spank without a hitting action. The only thing standing between spanking being battery is the lack of a law banning it -- or making the current laws on assault and battery inclusive of children, exclusive of age considerations. It's coming. Get used to it. Folks with your filthy minded sickness are insuring it must come. Just as surely as apologists and slave owners brought about emancipation. Jennie Knowing that you give your child an erection by spanking (this is obviously a perv troll attempt by you...you get off being taken seriously) and continuing it is itself punishable NOW by law. It is child abuse. Sexual abuse in fact, and if there is justice your child will beat you senseless one day, and have you charged with sexual abuse, and you'll end up in jail getting your jollies from your fellow inmates raping you. 0:- |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:29 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com