According to the pro-spanking position, it would appear that not only is the practice of spanking children wholly justified (guilt-free), but it is also a punishment that should be administered in the absence of anger. It might be suggested that these recommendations do not reflect psychologically healthy behavior, and for good reason. I'll explain why this is the case.
The Sociopath is capable of striking without anger, and, after having done so, will leave the scene without feelings of guilt or remorse. The Sadist is also capable of striking without anger, and will do so in the name of love, or simple gratification.
Society tends to define these pathological behaviors as they relate to mostly adult-to-adult behavior. It would appear that because children are held to a lower standard of treatment, people who treat individuals under the age of 18 in a manner consistent with sociopathic or sadistic behavior are excluded from being characterized as such......even though the behavior is no different. In the case of young children, it should not be ignored that they happen to be exceptionally vulnerable and defenseless against acts of physical (and emotional) aggression. These are the behavioral characteristics that are most sought-out for victimization by both the Sociopath and the Sadist......targeting a helpless victim who presents no perceived threat of retribution. Even though the young child is the ideal target for these pathological behaviors, children are nevertheless permitted to be subjected to such treatments on a societal level (so long as observable physical injury is not in evidence.)
And so it is that we can publicly witness violent acts inflicted upon children in the absence of anger or guilt which are based on sadistic definitions of 'loving behavior'.
Evidence of the double-standard to which we hold children can be seen when placing a wife in the position of a child under the same circumstances. A husband who physically punishes his wife without anger or remorse for the purpose of controlling her behavior (or teaching her a lesson), while claiming that the Assault and Battery (spanking) he inflicts upon his wife is nothing more than display of his love and a show of his caring, would be a husband who would most certainly be considered a pathological individual by societal standards.
'Following one's heart' in this case, would demonstrate the cold, dead heart of the Sociopath, or the lust for inflicting pain which fills the heart of the loving Sadist.
It simply does not matter why an individual loses their humanity, whether it be for religious or psychological reasons, the purposeful, cold-blooded infliction of pain upon another human-being in the absence of remorse, is pathological by any standardized definition of normal human behavior. The justifications used as excuses for such assaultive acts are no less irrational than the behavior itself.
HAVE YOU BEEN
TO THE NEWSROOM?