It is an argument they have made, though, Al, and one they have made well in that the statistics do show a provable decline in violent crime as a result. I, for one, think it is a commendable result.
I have yet to smack my kids for any purpose, but they have turned out all right, in my opinion. To me, that suggests that it is possible to foster children without smacking them. They do me proud every day.
Is it the only way? No idea. It is the only way I know of, and my kids are not worse off than kids that were smacked. They know the difference between right and wrong, and they listen to their parents. How does one measure such things?
And yes, by all means, make that argument about sexual abstinence. Provide the statistics and see if you can make a difference. See if there is legislation to be made, see if it leads somewhere. Me, I don't really believe in it because to me, it is you being a devil's advocate, but anything is possible. Although I remain so unconvinced that I don't think it really warrants a serious response.
My kids are not worse than kids who were never smacked and do me proud. They too know the difference of right and wrong. My style of parenting has seemed to pay off well too.
But then I have not once objected to parents NOT smacking their children or pointed this as a failing.
The problem with the argument is simply that it tries to draw parallels that I do not believe exist.
That is OK. Basically to me the statistics are always questionable and should be examined. When I hear things like smacking is hitting, Smacking alluded to being a violent act used to cause pain, Smacking and beating as being put in the same box as it were, then, I look at stats like this and think "I wonder, the person or group writing this statistical report, were they doing the same? What did they consider smacking? Were they showing kids who were smacked for being naughty, or kids who were smacked and beaten? Were they showing kids who were smacked on the bottom as a form of parenting (teaching aversion to wrong behaviours) or kids who were "smacked around" for sadistic thrill, nastiness, spite, due to anything else? If this is right, then what pool of kids are we working with and what percentage of the kids that were ONLY smacked on the bottom (as a parenting style of teaching aversion to bad behaviours) made up that portion of violent kids? How did that compare overall?
I am betting that this was kind of not bothered with or examined or even bought up because it did not matter in the big scheme of things. It was easier to lump them in. That is OK too. I do not agree with this, but I don't have to.
But in respect to the hypothetical. Yes this is not something I am remotely invested in. People get sexual gratification, great. Non-issue.
EXCEPT....it makes a point. If we say that rapists try to gratify themselves sexually, and that makes sexual gratification as a whole wrong , then we can say "Whoah wait up, not all sexuality is bad or wrong. Rapists are wrong. Being sexually active does not predispose you to be a rapist nor does it predispose the people you are sexually involved with becoming rape victims. Rapists do not deserve to be smearing this group and whatever claims you make against this group (people who get sexual gratification) ought not ride shotgun with rapists. It is unfair. One is not the other. It is agenda and value spinning and to an extent possibly more than a little biased if not dishonest"
Statistics? It would make no difference what stats I attached to this, even were I to research it enough to place relevant figures on. The point of course has nothing to do with Sexual Abstinence or its merits but rather making key assumptions and working from there is key. By working from the position of people seeking sexual gratification, who are we talking about? The rapist, the person having a wank, the porn actor/actress, the prostitute, the pedophile, the loving couple? all of them but none of them are the same, motives, methods, intent, types of sex, everything is up for grabs and inclusive. No excluding the couple away from the rapist because that would not further the ills of sexual gratification.
I question the stats and the general mindset that tries to say no smacking = good, smacking = bad, Smacking = Hitting = Beating = Assault = whatever. I have seen that here in the thread, i disagree with it. But then I tend to disagree with such cut n dried argument especially where it looks like their is an ideological position involved. I think it generally shows oversimplification and a skewing or bias of information to back a claim.
