wife hardens heart-6

[PatientMan]

So the brain is developing with the idea that those who love you can be violent with you and it's OK and expected.

Yes.

Are you stating you wouldn't physically intervene with your 3 year old who is about to run out into a busy street, and forcibly hold them back for their own good? Even if they fought you to get away?

I think not.

What about if your child was about to hit another person with a baseball bat? Would you resort to tackling him/her if in that split second it was the only means to prevent the attack?

Or if your child was holding a gun and said that he or she was going to kill themselves or another. Would you wrestle that firearm away from them if they didn't respond to talking them out of it?

My guess is your answer is "yes."

And I want to point out that I am not picking a fight...that what I'm doing is taking your point of "violence is violence" to its logical extreme in order to prove that it is fallacious at its core and enforce what I previously pointed out: each of us has his or her own line where "violence" or "physical intervention" is necessary and proper.

"Violence ISN'T violence."

Unless you're willing to let your toddler run into a busy street, your kid hit another with a baseball bat, or kill themselves or another with a loaded firearm. If you truly would not physically intervene, then your argument holds water and you've got me. I think that's kooky, but you've got me and we'll agree to disagree.

Couch it in whatever terms you like, physical violence is physical violence and it affects the one on the receiving end in only negative ways.

Incorrect (as previously debunked - there is a point when physical intervention is the "best" option), and I'm wondering if you have anything other than anecdotal evidence to support your theory.

Take the example of a hot stove. You can tell a child 1,000 times not to touch a hot stove, but it only takes that child one time of touching it for the lesson to be learned.

That is not an example of "violence" (the stove did not attack the child), but it is an example of different methods of learning lessons having very different results.

PM re the research on pre-pubescent boys, you'll see in my sig that I've raised 2 boys without physical violence and they're good people. I have read a lot of research.

I want to be very clear with the next few points:

I am NOT saying you are raising/have raised your boys wrong.

I am NOT saying you it is impossible to raise boys without physically punishing them.

I am NOT saying you are a bad mother if you don't use "physical violence."

I am NOT saying that children are better off with an abusive father than no father.

But I AM saying that all children are better off with a mother-figure and a father-figure (both healthy and stable and loving). Mothers set examples for their daughters and end up impressing upon a son what that son's future wife will be like. Fathers set examples for their sons and end up impressing upon a daughter what that daughter's future husband will be like.

So I mean no insult to single parents - male or female. I applaud the hard work that goes into that job and am in true awe of those who make it through and kick a$$ at raising kids. And I say that in total honesty - I don't know how single parents do it well and some of them are my personal heroes. I'm simply saying it isn't ideal. "Ideal" being what I believe every child truly deserves: a loving mother and father joined forever in unconditional love and mutual subjection that raises them in security and peace.

Changing gears:

I DID say "pubescent"- or adolescent - boys, not pre-pubescent (sorry for the confusion as I realize I was carelessly switching between age ranges there). I was speaking to the hormones that kick in at that age (teenage years) and the need for a father-type figure to remind a young man of where his place is. Adolescent boys WILL push boundaries and get away with as much as they can - they have a LOT of testosterone running through their veins and their minds haven't developed a sense of mortality (which is documented, and why 18-22 year-olds are the best to send off to fight wars), and a father-type figure to both set a good example (priority #1) and be physically superior to them is the best way to raise that young man successfully.

And I do not say "physically superior" to mean that the man constantly beats the teenager, I say it as it is entirely healthy/normal/typical for a teenage boy to be somewhat fearful of what will happen "if dad finds out", even if the father-figure never actually has to resort to "physical violence". It's the impression imposed by the man, not any action itself. It's why the best bouncers at clubs are giant men who look like they could squeeze the life out of a man if he chooses, not necessarily the ones who would win in an MMA octagon. It's the prevention of misbehavior that the father-figure provides that is the asset.

I challenge you to gather your own anecdotal evidence on this. Go around and ask well adjusted, grown men you know about their dads. I bet they were scared to death of him when they were teenagers (in a healthy way), and I'd even bet that as they became adults in their physical prime and their father aged out of his own prime, that those men still had a respect for their father and that "fear" (if we want to call it that) of dad.

Perhaps this reads off the page a lot differently than I intend it. Perhaps women aren't able to understand the dynamic between a father and a son - an adolescent boy and a grown man. Perhaps I'm the crazy one, but I don't think so on that last one - at least not for this reason.

labug, I truly have the utmost respect for you and value your insight greatly. If I have come across as combative or dismissive in any form or fashion, I sincerely apologize as that was and is not my intent at all.

We all have our own opinions, and I'm glad you're standing firm in your convictions that I see truly derive from love. The example of that is far more important than the decision of whether to pinch a child's leg ("violence") or make them stand in a corner("non-violence") as punishment/correction, and I have no doubts you have done an excellent job raising your sons.

Lastly, if I have misunderstood your perspective, my apologies.

This is Planet's thread and it's not a parenting forum so we should probably go back to the subject we're here to discuss, marriage.

Agreed.

Regarding planet's sitch, *I* would have trouble with OM physically disciplining my child. I have had some time to think about it, and maybe "caning" is like "paddling" over here in the U.S...I don't know. I remember the young American man who was caned as punishment for vandalism over in Singapore back in the 90's, and that seemed pretty severe. If parental caning is anything like that, then I think that's over the line no matter who does it.

But another man physically disciplining my child? Oh, I don't think so. My knee-jerk reaction is that I would strike him 10x for every 1 time he struck my child, and 10x as hard with each strike. This man is not even their stepfather!

But that's my initial reaction. Who knows, I may one day have to deal with allowing a step-dad to punish my own daughters. And while that will be difficult for me, I know I must back that stepfather up if he is in the right so that the parents present a united front.

If he hits them, however? My girls? 10x10.

planet, I know you are in a difficult spot because you can't seem to speak to your STBX rationally, so I'm not sure how to get the message across about discipline. I do know that you have a boundary that he will not be sleeping in the same bed as your children. If you STBX won't enforce that, I will only say that *I* would by making it clear to him that he really doesn't want to do that. And that's probably a good opportunity to go over what you - the father - will and won't allow as punishment/correction of your children. STBX doesn't need to know (though I suspect he will go whine to her about it anyway).

Just a thought.

-PM