What It's Like To Be Switched

[brashchick]

You are all very courageous to post what happened to you. I honestly can't post about this part of my childhood and it was not as bad as what many of you experienced. I am so sorry.

[Kitchen Princess]

There is no difference between these beatings described and "spanking". It's all violence against your own flesh-and-blood.

I lived in a house where spanking was always a possibility, but I mostly escaped it because my brother was so bad he got all the whippings. He really did misbehave when doing the right thing would have been easier. He wasn't spanked that much actually, because my parents knew it just didn't have any bearing on his behavior. But a couple of times my dad lost his patience and had a few wall-throwing incidents.

I remember exactly two spankings in my childhood, both of them within 6 months. One of them was because I followed my brother when we went somewhere we shouldn't have. My dad spanked me with the belt a few licks, but my brother got the most. He had warned us he would spank us if we did the thing, and we did it anyway. I guess my brother thought he wouldn't figure it out.

The second time was on the first day of school in Arkansas (having moved from Illinois in 5th grade). I had gum. The principal saw me chewing it, called me over, and told me to spit it out. I said okay, and went out to recess. He saw me still chewing it on the playground and called me in and gave me "licks". I'm stubborn and didn't react, but I thought it was an abomination to spank a kid in school if you're not the parent. It just wasn't an option in Illinois.

My mother slapped me in the face once when I was about 18. I came home with a hickey on my neck and she called me a slut and slapped my face. I have never once forgiven her, and I showed her: I got pregnant the next year to get away from her. A little self-destructive, that, but I learned from the best.

I don't want my relationship with my kids to be on the continuum of violence. Therefore, I don't spank. I hope no one else does, either.

[JesusFightClub]

What horrible, horrible stories. Those of you who went through that are so brave and I'm so glad you don't have to put up with it any more.

[roddma]

There is no difference between these beatings described and "spanking". It's all violence against your own flesh-and-blood.

An open-hand a couple of times on a bottom isn't abuse. Where I draw the line is belts and plumbing lines and bruises. I think sometimes human services can't distinguish between discipline and abuse which is what makes kids the way they are. Many parents have been falsely accused of abuse. You can't do anything to kids these days not even yell and the kids know it. Teachers can stand up to them in schools because they are afraid of kids and parents. But I do believe spanking should only be used as a last resort and not overused. I do not believe young kids should be blanket trained. They would have to do something really bad and Im not sure if i would use spanking since it ha a bad rep. there are better books than the Pearls like "Discipline without Tears".

[bicyclecat]

I can really identify with this thread. I don't really want to go into details, as I still haven't really come to peace with them, even after all these years, but when my parents were drinking, they were brutal monsters. All of my siblings and I have both physical and emotional scars from what they did to us. After what our parents put us through, those of us who seerved in the military felt that bootcamp was pretty laid back and easy.

My mother somewhat repented, when she quit drinking. I do tend to go easier on her, because my father was beating her as badly as he beat us and often worse. I remember many occasions where it was so bad that she couldn't even get up afterward. My father never did and he died with all of our resentment on him. I love him, as my father, but I hate the person he became. Vehemently. A couple of my brothers have lingering physical problems with their backs, hips and knees and two of them have had to have surgery. At this point, I'm probably going to have to have some reconstructive surgery myself, as I get older and the damage becomes more painful.

I can't even say that this is just the way it was done where I'm from, because this wasn't discipline. It was abuse, pure and simple. In contrast, my MIL ruled her home with a velvet glove. She never beat her children, spankings were infrequent and only for the severest offenses and the most she'd really do is yell at them or take things away. Being in her home, I felt the difference. There is a love and respect in his family that I never thought possible. It's because they're loving, caring and respectful people and it shows through all of their actions. His father beat all of the children and there's a reason why nobody really knows or cares whether Papa is alive. They think he may have died a year or so ago. Nobody knows. Nobody is interested in finding out.

I believe that the only time that physical punishment is okay is when the child is about to do something extremely dangerous and poses a danger to themself or someone else. If there's no other way to get their attention, so that appropriate verbal correction can be given, one or two pats, either on the hand or the fleshy part of the bottom is okay. Just enough for the child to realize that something just happened, but not hard enough that it hurts.

When I was really little, I was always wanting to put my fingers in things. Noses, mouths and, when I discovered electric sockets, those too. My grandfather saw me reaching for one, so he took me around the house to every socket, put my hand near it, tapped me on the back of the hand with his fingertips and said "Don't touch that." I don't remember it hurting at all, but I remember the electric socket and "don't touch that." He then sat me in his lap and told me how much he loves me, how much he cares about me and that he wants me to be safe, so I can grow up and make him proud of me. As far as I'm concerned, he did it the right way, becaue I remember the love, the genuine concern, not the fact that he smacked me on the hand.

[deelaem]

An open-hand a couple of times on a bottom isn't abuse. Where I draw the line is belts and plumbing lines and bruises. I think sometimes human services can't distinguish between discipline and abuse which is what makes kids the way they are. Many parents have been falsely accused of abuse. You can't do anything to kids these days not even yell and the kids know it. Teachers can stand up to them in schools because they are afraid of kids and parents. But I do believe spanking should only be used as a last resort and not overused. I do not believe young kids should be blanket trained. They would have to do something really bad and Im not sure if i would use spanking since it ha a bad rep. there are better books than the Pearls like "Discipline without Tears".

First of all, to answer your above post, I did not say the entire South was this way. If you'd read it carefully, you'd see I specified redneck culture. And I stand by that.

Compared to the number of children who live in abuse with no help, the number of parents falsely accused of abuse is very small. Not to mention when a long time abuse case is exposed, people always rush to call out police and social work for not detecting it sooner. Well, you can't have it both ways. It's better to run the risk of a false abuse claim than to allow a child to continue to suffer.

And sorry, spanking is hitting, and hitting is abuse. Spanking teaches kids that big people hurt you to get you to behave. A child learns to "behave" when external controls are in place, rather than learning the reasons for doing the right thing through natural consequences. Some people think that a kid that isn't spanked is automatically spoiled and ill-behaved. That simply isn't true. A child tends to behave according to the way he/she is treated in the home.

Here's the in my opinion part - spanking kids is lazy. If you spank you are showing you simply don't care to take the time or make the effort to find other ways of guiding your children.

[Koala]

While there are certainly varying degrees of abuse, I would argue that ANY hitting IS indeed abuse.

There is no acceptable reason to hit a child.

[Austin]

Here's the in my opinion part - spanking kids is lazy. If you spank you are showing you simply don't care to take the time or make the effort to find other ways of guiding your children.

+1

[FaustianSlip]

Jesus, these stories are awful. I'm so sorry you guys went through that.

I was spanked a few times as a kid, but it was very rare- rare enough that only one or two incidents of it stand out in my memory. My parents generally favored things like grounding, no dessert, sending us to our rooms, et cetera. I do vaguely remember having my mouth washed out with soap once, I think because I repeated a swear word I'd heard an older kid say. As a rule, though, my parents didn't go the corporal punishment route, and on the occasions they did, it was usually a few swats with an open hand- nothing like what people are describing here. Personally, I don't think of what I experienced as abusive at all, probably because it happened so rarely and is far outweighed by memories of other punishments like time outs and things of that nature. And maybe because I can understand how a parent completely at the end of their tether, with a kid pitching a tantrum or running into traffic or something, might cave to an urge to do that. But that's heat of the moment stuff, not calculatingly telling a little kid to go get a switch and whipping them with it until it breaks.

I can't really imagine myself spanking my kids, should I have any, not least because I think there are more effective punishments out there that are likely to leave a much stronger impression that don't require inflicting bodily harm on someone. And as others have mentioned, some of the worst behaved kids I knew growing up were the ones whose parents had a paddle hanging up in the kitchen or were spanked with regularity when they misbehaved. It didn't seem to work especially well in terms of curbing their behavior problems. I can't begin to imagine spending a day thrashing a little kid as some of the blogs I've read describe, and I honestly don't know what those parents think they're teaching their children, acting that way. Nothing good, at any rate.

[thoughtful]

I don't personally understand the idea that one kind of hitting is different from another. To me, it's a screaming case of cognitive dissonance.

I freely admit that there is an emotional component to that reaction -- I don't think adults should hit kids. But there is also logic and experience behind my opinion.

The stories here, of innocent children being beaten without mercy, and the crap from the Pearls and Kelly, are, of course, awful. It may seem like a whole other category of reaction to just give a little smack on the bottom or the back of the hand.

But it carries many of the same problems, and it really can be avoided.

Pain is like many other reactions in the body that point out how varied humans are -- nobody really knows what someone else feels.

When you go to have your hearing or vision tested, you must participate -- even with all of the latest research behind them, even the best doctors can't know what you are seeing or hearing just by looking at the body parts involved.

Well, pain is like that. It varies, and we cannot determine how someone else experiences it. What one person considers a light tap, another may feel as real pain.

That's why doctors will ask how bad your pain is on a scale of 1-10, have a chart to describe those levels, and still have to take your word for it.

And that's not even getting into the emotional effect, which also varies tremendously from person to person.

As for the idea that there is no need for spanking . . . I have to bring dog training into it again -- sorry! :D

I've worked with people whose dog has them at the end of their patience. Some are incredulous when I ask them not to hit, yank on a leash or yell. I guess, to some, it sounds like that means there will be no consequences.

I am always sympathetic to their feelings. I tell them I understand that they are angry that the dog ate the couch -- I'd be livid! But I point out that we want results, not revenge. There really are more effective, efficient ways to get what we want than using pain or intimidation.

Another comparison -- dog trainers who use pain will say "It guarantees 100% compliance." There's no such thing -- anything with a central nervous system can behave in ways we don't want.

In fact, suppression of behavior with pain is often temporary -- like holding a beach ball underwater. Using it may lead to a return of the unwanted behavior (or some odd offshoot, like aggression or fear), can take more work and repetition of the pain than gentler methods, and it teaches no replacement, preferred behavior.

Another comparison -- when discussing shock collars and choke chains, trainers will say "It doesn't hurt, it just gets their attention." But they also claim it stops unwanted behavior. Well, if it changes behavior via "positive punishment," it must, by definition, be aversive -- painful.

Same with some parents who seem horrified that the Pearls say the whipping must cause pain -- well, any hitting that is supposed to decrease behavior has to cause pain. The Pearls are disgusting, but they are honest about that.

If all you want is the dog's attention, make a noise, or call his name -- that works just as well. Unlike spanking, it even works at a distance. Same with a child.

So, if we can never know how badly something hurts someone else, if pain doesn't guarantee compliance, if there are better ways to get both quick attention and long-term behavior changes, why the hell would anyone want to use pain?

[bicyclecat]

If I were in a situation where my child was going to do something unbelievably stupid/ dangerous and they weren't responding to verbal correction, I would consider a pat on the hand or the bottom. If it gets their attention away from doing something unbelievably stupid/ dangerous, I can live with that. I'd rather they be mad at me for some temporary discomfort than to be hit by a car, severely burned, electrocuted or something like that.

For less critical behavioral correction, I much prefer to find out the reasons behind the behavior, discuss better ways to accomplish the goals of the bad behavior and encourage the child to make amends, rather than to have them behave, only because they fear the physical consequences. I'm a fan of writing exercises, helping to repair any damage done, grounding and things like that. It teaches the concept that, if you do something wrong, there are consequences of losing things, restrictions and other unpleasant things, which is more useful in adult life. My landlord isn't going to spank me, if I don't pay my rent, so I fail to see how having a spanking as the ultimate punishment is going to teach a child about real life consequences of adulthood.

The result of the spanking advocated by the Pearls and their ilk is compliance through fear of both pain and humiliation. The notion that a child has to go out and get their own spanking implement only serves to prolong the fear and terror of a beating. The nudity not only increases the pain, but also puts the child in a vunerable and humiliating position. Really, the end result of using this method is pure degradation and the dehumanization of the child.

I see no value in degrading a child. Rather, I want to build my children up and instill a sense of self worth, self respect and value. At the same time, I also want them to live long enough to enjoy it, which is why I'd smack a hand, when it's reaching for an electric socket.

[Burris]

I would say it's humiliating. The pain I could live with; in fact, breezily blowing it off was a good way to regain some of the power I'd lost.

My parents never read the Pearls or listened to Dobson. They were openly contemptuous of people who read books about parenting because, "Who needs a damned book about that?"

They were also really inconsistent in their disciple, hitting in anger - and not necessarily in anger at me. There were a couple of times they knew, and even later admitted, they were pissed off at someone else and so they waited for some piddly infraction from me - or sometimes not - to let out their frustration. Or they simply ignored me for long periods - for example, the three months when I had lice and complained to them about it. They didn't believe me until the lice proliferated to the point whether their heads itched. Or that seven-year period where, despite headaches and the fact I'm legally blind, they didn't bother taking me to the eye doctor because they didn't see a need. They ignored me to the point I could go out or stay in and they'd be hard-pressed to notice.

Of course I keep saying "they," when I really mean "my father." But truth be told, there's enough blame for them both.

Now that we're all older, adults, we sort of worked out out and we're on speaking terms. I don't hate my parents. Most of the time I'm not even angry at them. They started out so young - a bad match from dysfunctional families. Maybe if my father had gotten the psychological help he so desperately needed...but he didn't.

My brother and I went on to form stable, loving families - time-tested. So my parents must have done something right in their more lucid moments.

The screaming and hitting and threats and the lack of basic necessities, though - those things my brother and I could have definitely done without.

I think about those poor fundie kids facing some of the same problems - except that their parents don't even give them the freedom I had. They're trapped in that toxic soup all day, every day. They don't go to school. They don't have friends. Their lives suck, and their parents are doing this to them not out of ignorance or because of illness, but fucking deliberately for the sake of some warped religious doctrine.

[Sprocket]

My husband talks a lot about being "switched". He informs me that the limbs of a fruit tree are more painful than any other kind of tree. It makes me truly sad that he knows this -- that's how often he was "switched".

And btw, I really thought this thread was going to be about being switched at birth or maybe switching sexual preferences.

[bicyclecat]

My husband talks a lot about being "switched". He informs me that the limbs of a fruit tree are more painful than any other kind of tree. It makes me truly sad that he knows this -- that's how often he was "switched".

And btw, I really thought this thread was going to be about being switched at birth or maybe switching sexual preferences.

There are weeds in Eastern Europe that grow to about a meter high and have an acid on the outside of the stalks and leaves, so it burns if you touch it. I'm not sure if it grows here or what it'd be called. Getting whipped so hard with one of those that your skin breaks and gets all of that acid inside will make the pain last for days, or until it was bath day and one of us managed to sneak some vinegar from the kitchen.

Yeah, childhood sure was fun.

[Kitty]

I would say it's humiliating. The pain I could live with; in fact, breezily blowing it off was a good way to regain some of the power I'd lost.

^why frequent spanking is ineffective. Getting past the cruelty, the kids figure out that physical pain doesn't last long, and if that's all they're going to do...

I know kids who were spanked constantly. Infrequent spankings don't leave scars and don't fuck kids up. Frequent spankings either turn the kids into fearful robots, until they figure out that they can fight back and win. That's usually when spanking stops in redneck families...around 13 or 14. After that it's just outright fighting, if the parent even bothers trying to hit their kid anymore.

I think when a lot of parents whine about their teenagers being able to call CPS on them for "trying to give them a spanking," it's generally beyond the point of spanking and turned into beating or fighting.

[LIzzieB]

I'm so sorry to hear what some of you went through. It's horrific.

I remember being spanked occasionally as a small child, but by the time I was six or seven, my parents started using "time out" as an alternative. The length of time you were sent there depended on your age (maybe only a minute for an under six), and the attitude you had when sent there. If you argued back, you got an extra minute. The more you argued, the more minutes you got. The humiliation came from having to set your "sentence" on the kitchen timer yourself. Time outs took place in the bathroom, so that there was absolutely nothing apart from reading the back of shampoo bottles to occupy the time.

I have a strong sense of justice, so often argued back if I thought I was really in the right, so sometimes I used to be there for AGES. There was always a moment where you would balance in your head whether the principle was worth the time. I think one of the last time outs I had was at about 12 or 13, when I spent over half an hour there. I think my mother realised that it was starting to lose it's effectiveness and that my debating skills and logic were improving!