Spanking and Asperger Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

I was rarely spanked. I was born on the spectrum, not spanked into it...

Should this be moved to the Adult Discussion?

Sounds good. What's the safety word?

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

There are plenty of ways of disciplining a child without being violent. Self entitlement has become common in some of today's kids, but I don't think it's because they didn't get their butt's whacked. I see it as stemming from parents being too permissive with their children, and not taking an authoritative role (wanting to be buddies). On a personal note, all spanking left me was a huge chip on my shoulder, and the ability to take a belt. Still autistic though...

I was spanked all the time growing up, and I never felt abused in any way. My parents never left a mark on me, and I always understood it as a negative consequence to a wrong action. One could argue that my parents spanked me "correctly". Anyway...as an adult, I'm still plenty autistic. In fact, I didn't even get diagnosed until age 28! My sensitivity to noise is worse than ever, and my tolerance to annoying social rituals and mimicking people is going down very quickly.

I don't class 'taking a belt' as smacking/spanking. It is beating. Smacking is using the palm of the hand, on the buttocks without too much force. I think this is the problem, people are classing violence and beatings as smacking, therefore saying it should not happen. Of course beating shouldn't happen.

I do understand that it is part of medical training. I do however, call into question the thoroughness of said training. Again, I mean NO disrespect to you, your profession, or the effort and time you put into earning your degree.

An M.D. earned however, doesn't necessarily equate to common sense. I was once concerned with my grades in a college class. My instructor, in an effort to calm my anxieties over it asked me, "What do you call a medical degree student that graduates with a C average?" The answer, of course, is "Doctor."

My response to him was, "Yes, but if you're laying on an operating table waiting to be cut open, and you had a choice of a "C" Doctor, or an "A" Doctor, which would you choose?

You get my point I'm sure. As much as I respect Doctors in general, I remain aware they are all human, and make as many mistakes as the rest of us. Most of my doctors have been great, but I have had some who baffled the mind with their lack of humility. The problem is, I never know which I am dealing with until I really get to know them.

So it shouldn't be too surprising that when taking advice, even from doctors, I live by "Caveat Emptor." If something I'm told doesn't appear to make much sense to me, I take it with a grain of salt.




For one thing, we are better fed than we used to be. The availability of a wider variety of foods due to the ability to trasport the long distances is also a major factor.



I never said all studies are bad. I said a lot more of them are poorly done that we would like to believe. I also said that many who interpret them are not as well trained as we would like to believe they are. Combine the two, and even a good study can be misinterpreted to indicate things the study doesn't really support.

It happens a lot more than we'd like to believe or admit. A lot of that is due to a lack of true understanding of both the mathematics involved, and the human psychological factors that can render the mathematics completely meaningless even when all the numbers add up.

After taking that course, I never trust ANY studies unless, and only if, I have the time to analyze them myself. I'm sure you know that takes a lot of time.

All I really mean is that I learned enough to not just take anyone's word for what a study does or does not indicate. I would have to trust the person explaining it to me a lot, or look at it myself. The former means forging a good relationship with someone, and there aren't a whole lot of people I know with the knowledge and skill to analyze studies. In fact, i don't know any personally.

While many studies are fine, and their subsequent interpretations may be fine, I'm not going to make radical changes to my lifestyle, philosophies, or beliefs without solid evidence that such a change would be truly beneficial. For those kind of radical changes, I'm not just going to take someone's word for it no matter how many letters they may have following their name. I would need to know and trust them personally first. Unfortunately, I've never been able to spend enough time with any doctor I've ever seen to get to know them that well.



Though there can be problems with anecdotal evidence, ignoring it altogether isn't a good idea either. I think we both know that. In many cases, it's the anecdotal that get's us looking deeper at things, and deciding to do a study.

I'm pretty sure you would agree with this:

The vast majority of studies never prove or strongly indicate anything. Most of them are inconclusive, some of which indicate the need for "further study." That being said, whenever a study claims to prove anything, it would seem to me the prudent thing is to doubt first, analyze second, then draw your own conclusion.

I've done just that with corporal punishment studies. I'm convinced it does no harm IF and ONLY IF it is done properly. What "properly" means is a whole other discussion. I'm satisfied but my mission isn't to convince the world of what I believe.

Frankly though, I do at times find it kind of presumptuous to be told that because I believe what I believe, I haven't done my homework. I have thank you very much.

I'm sure you've done your homework too. But just because we've reached diametrically opposed conclusions doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. It may only mean that one of us sees something the other has not seen, or undersands something the other does not understand. I'm not saying I understand more than you do. I'm saying that for now I prefer to trust my own sensibilities.

Everybody's got a study. Seems everybody's got a study to support whatever they believe.

Here's one supporting my lack of faith in studies:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0020124

How's that for irony?

I doubt spanking has to do with autism. I was, however, spanked as a child...my dad used a belt, or he would send me out to pick my own switch from the almond trees. I learned quickly to choose a thicker one rather than a thin one...those sting!! I don't think it affected me greatly one way or the other. I choose not to spank my own child, though.

No, it's biological, likely genetic in nature. I *was* disciplined as a child, well within reason.

autistic people aren't self centred. they do stuff on their own doesn't mean they're self centred... they're probably the only ones that would do a good act for someone else without expecting something in return or even thinkiing they've done a good act just the right thing to do. also whatever the outcome of spanking then that outcome is wrong because the means is unnaturall. maybe the ones who got spanked (majority or not - quantity doesn't change quality) grew up and make these loud noises - normal people raise their voice more than non normal. in fact there's a f**k load of bad qualities to the normal people - those normal people who are in mcdonalds and subway as workers ffs can't they get robots i don't want those rude people there. anyway spanking = low iq = s**t everything else. aspie people have perfect social skills with other aspies... and the fact they don't need to socialise with each other is absolutely fine.. it's only the normals have a need and then apparently after that it develops into apparently a 'skill' surely the greatest skill is to simply not need it in the first place. but to be fair i'm not sure whether normal people need or whether they just enjoy and are in fact having a higher baselines excitement in their life compared to the autists. all i know is the s**t thing about normal people is that they can't deal with autists and they will bully and the autist won't even though both find each other's company just as bad... so yeah that proves which side is morally worse.

close this thread. i just read that not spanking makes children more aggressive. that sort of reasoning suggests the world's doomed. surely a child receiving violence is going to be more violent than a child that doesn't know the meaning of violence. i read that spanking causes normality.... for christs sake normal people do all the violent things on their nights out and their social rank intimidation s**t... the act of spanking tiself would have been done by nt parents... stupid nt parents also... when i have a child i won't even teach him words until he wants to because i know how it all works and a babies mind is so unimaginably creative that to make them learn words ruins their sensory imagination.. ifa group of babies all grew up together just interacting with each other and being fed together they'd probably develop their own language just like twins have their own communication. what kind of dumb s**t is saying spanking is a good thing on wrongplanet - no you're the people that make this planet wrong.

a human brain is so intelligent and this world is so advanced and so many interesting objects and tv is like magic to them and stuff like that that the toddlers and young ones shouldn't have violence to punish them because the concept of right and wrong isn't in them yet and you should only punish people who purposely do wrong who know their doing wrong and still do it. otherwise you should teach them rather than use violence because tehy won't even understand the whole concept and so being punished won't teach them how to learn it will numb their brain so they don't think about things they only think about consequence to themselves this develops a selfish mindset and a weak mind (no genius will be coming from them) and makes them eventually want to be the ones in control and they'll look for people to punish. but basically they've suffered violence when they didn't do anything wrong (because it's only wrong if they knew they were being wrong on purpose) ah f*****g hell if parents can be violent to a child then there's no order to anything i might as well beat whoever the f**k i want up do whatever...

This is just a scam, come on! Some of these people being told they have asperger's are just smart, introverted people with bad social skills. Others are people who don't talk because they have crummy parents who put them in front of a television/nintendo and feed them junk food. Yeah, that will cause mood swings, shorten your attention span, and prevent you from interacting with others at a crucial age for development, making it difficult to socialize. It will also make you out of shape (hypotonia). Others are just kids who haven't been disciplined properly (temper tantrums, silent.

People have always been making money off of other people's misfortunes! "Hey remember those skinny, geeky kids in school who everybody made fun of? Lets make money off of them, telling them that we can solve all of their problems! We can make them pay to go to therapy, hire a new set of teachers, and sell them prescription drugs!" It's just like when the Catholic Church would make money off of people saying they were destined for hell, but if you come to us and pay us some money we will save you from eternal damnation.

The point is, the diagnostic criteria was broadened for autism spectrum disorders to include all of these kids who don't really have a disorder. Some kids are just sensitive and shy, tell them to suck it up and quit crying like people did a few generations ago.

And so your true intent, as I suspected, finally rears it's head. If you came here to preach this sermon, we've heard it all before. You, as all others before you with similar intent will soon find your message falling on deaf ears.

You really are wasting your time here if this is what you came for.

You'd probably have better luck preaching anti-Catholicism in a Catholic church my friend.

Well said MrXxx.

It's not worth replying to OP any more, there's a lot that could be said but methinks it's a waste of typing and thought spent better elsewhere.