Bryony,

I'm sorry to hear of your past physical abuse. Yes, damage done
physically does go deeper than skin and bones, as you so aptly describe.

I do take issue however with simple swats "to remind a three year old to
not do something, it is done to protect the child...."

I don't believe that hitting a child, however mild, is an appropriate
reminder to not do something, or a form of protection. Three year olds
cannot protect themselves, regardless of the type of parental
discipline. It is the role of the parents to protect the three year old.

Many "simple swats" at three years escalate into the type of beating you
apparently experienced. Children of any age can be parented without
resorting to hitting of any kind, regardless of how mild. And the
results are better for the child when the child is taught rather than hit.

Good luck to you, and thanks for posting.

LaVonne

RebekahGirl wrote:
wow, i loved that story..

i know that the damage done physically goes deeper than the skin and
blood.
i was beaten, badly, bruised badly and it affects the whole schemata of
identity and worth, and value,
if i am beat and LOOK ugly , (the wounds look UGLY), then the childs or
teens reasoning in my own experience is: I AM UGLY I DESERVE TO BE
UGLY I AM BAD.

a severe beating does that, it goes deeper deeper into the mind than a
swatt. there is a difference, but that difference also lies in the
REASONING being used in the one doing the hitting

if the action is a simply swatt, to remind a 3 year old to not do
something, it is done to protect the child -- protection of child is
REASONING used
if the action is violence and force to the point of severe physical
damage it has a few reasons, but from my personal slant i see a
REASONING of :
child is EVIL and evil must be BEATEN out of her/him
i.e. from where i come from , children were not seen as real persons,
with real viable feelings. that is why one can justify doing them
physical harm,


latr
Bryony
Roloff Cult Survivor