▼

Thursday, May 9, 2019

Against the Beating, Circumcision, Piercing, and Tattooing of Minors (Incomplete)

Table of Contents


I. First Introduction: Abstract / Summary
II. Second Introduction: Goals and Purpose of This Article
III. Third Introduction: Why I Wrote This Article
IV. Six Reasons Why Children Should Not Be Hit
V. Why Children Should Not Be Circumcised
VI. The Primary Duties of a Parent
VII. Why Young Children Should Not Get Their Ears Pierced
VIII. Twenty Reasons Why Minors Should Not Get Tattoos or Body Piercings
IX. Why You Don't Have the Right to Sell a Part of Your Child's Body
X. Which Institutions in Our Society Are the Most Plagued by Child Abuse?
XI. Constitutional Analysis of How to Achieve Legal Changes in These Policy Areas
XII. Conclusions



Content


I. First Introduction: Abstract / Summary

     What follows - aside from an explanation and defense of my thoughts on those topics - represents a more or less comprehensive encapsulation of how I think children ought to be raised, aside from the topics of adoption, abortion and infanticide, and children's education.
     This article is also intended to function as a general treatise on my understanding of how and why children have limited ability to give consent.

     To be clear, when I say (in the title of this article) that I am “against the beating, piercing, and tattooing of minors”, I mean to say that I oppose the beating of children except in the most extreme of circumstances (which I will explain). Also, that I oppose the circumcision, tattooing, and body piercing of minors under 16, regardless of the presence of parental consent, and regardless of whether the state has legalized it. Additionally, I mean to say that I oppose the piercing of very young children's ears.

     In this article, I will focus on four types of adult/child interactions which cause me the most concern, since they involve the direct and willing infliction of pain upon children by adults: 1) beating, hitting, and spanking; 2) infant genital mutilation; 3) the piercing of minors; and 4) the tattooing of minors.
      Additionally, will explain why I believe that parents whom allow their children to get piercings and tattoos, are either enabling their children's self-harm, or exposing them to a great risk of self-harm and/or harm by others.
     I will also explain, throughout the article, why I think that the child's ability to give truly, fully informed consent is vastly outweighed by the power of suggestion of both the parents and the state. I will defend the notion that the state's and parents' approval of beating or spanking does not make it consensual on the part of the child.
     I will also explain why I think that the fact of the state's and parents' approval of the circumcision, piercing, nor tattooing of minors, should not be construed to suggest that the standards of governments and some parents should be the example for all parents, or for society in general.
     I will defend the notion that beating, circumcision, piercing, and tattooing – and other actions – put children at risk of not only self-harm, but also delinquency, endangerment, neglect, and insufficient protection. I will also explain why I believe that parents should be charged with child neglect, child endangerment and reckless child endangerment, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, if they allow their children to come to harm in these ways.
     I will also explain why I think that all of these abuses of children constitute not only direct physical child abuse, but also behavioral conditioning to avoid resisting adults' attempts to compliment their looks, flirt with them, and even “buy them” in various surreptitious ways (as well as, potentially, even pseudo-sexual or semi-sexual forms of child abuse).
     Following that, I will explain why I believe parents do not have the right to sell their children's foreskins to medical research companies. Penultimately, I will share my thoughts regarding which locations, and which institutions and industries in our society, I believe are the most plagued with pedophile grooming, child sexual abuse, and human trafficking; and give some additional advice to parents about how to protect their children from various threats.
     Finally, I will explain my thoughts about what the law ought to be in regards to the beating, circumcision, piercing, and tattooing of minors; as well my thoughts regarding the obstacles and advantages to making progress through enacting either federal law or state laws to address these problems.

     At the end of this article and throughout, I have provided links to my other articles on topics relevant to those discussed herein.


II. Second Introduction: Goals and Purpose of This Article

     Looking around this country for the past twenty years, I have been horrified to have to contend with the average American adult's lack of understanding of what constitutes consent. Considering the deprivation of our civil liberties since 9/11, I especially doubt that the the government understands the need for its authority to derive from “the consent of the governed”.
     But the need for consent of the governed, does not concern me as much as does the average American's understanding of why children do not have the ability to consent to life-long decisions (especially those which involve physical pain). I have documented many of these instances of abuse, in my May 2017 "listicle" (article / list) entitled "One Hundred Four Links About Arrest and Abusive Treatment of Students", available at the following link:

     Since the parietal (frontal) lobes of children's brains are not as well-developed as those of adults, their ability to understand long-term consequences - and make complex decisions based on those consequences - is relatively limited. Teenagers do not make decisions based on information, nor facts, nor pros and cons, nor cost-benefit analyses. For the most part, they process information - and make decisions - based on emotions, which are regulated by the amygdala, not the frontal lobe.
     The frontal lobes of children's brains are not well-developed enough to make important decisions through careful thinking and through using facts, as opposed to making decisions according to their feelings and according to impulse. There is even recent research that suggests that the human brain doesn't fully mature until the age of 25. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708
     This is why children who have not yet reached the age of 18 (or 17, in about half of the states' primaries) are not allowed to vote in elections. It is why their ability to enter into contracts - including work contracts and marriage contracts - are limited by law, and by the consent of judges and parents.

     [Side note, concerning the age of consent in an anarchist society:
     Even if elections are rigged, and the government is illegitimate (and they are), establishing an age of consent to interactions bearing many potentially life-altering or negative consequences, is essential to ensuring the survival of civil society. This is always true, whether anarchists are seeking to establish a moral code either outside, or against, the state.
     If you believe that any contracts and binding decisions which are made in society, should be made voluntarily and furthermore in a way that ensures minors' full information alongside parental guidance, when making decisions bearing life-long consequences, that doesn't necessarily make you “a statist”, and it doesn't mean you support the use of legitimized force against peaceful people.
     Whatever contracts or decisions anarchists decide to adopt concerning the age of consent, should be at least as good as, or better than, whatever age of consent laws the federal and state governments are enforcing now.
     If a community of anarchists declines to set any minimum age required for working, being party to contracts, marrying, etc., then people who trust government because they want a moral society in which children are safe, will not see anarchism and the abolition of government as solutions to the problem of child exploitation. They will correctly note that government sets an age of consent, while anarchists don't. And if anarchists are resolved not to set any age of consent requirements whatsoever, then the only way they can prove they're responsible, is to adopt some comprehensive, serious, and rigorous set of checks against the power of adults to exploit children.
     Throughout this article, I will support the idea that the age of consent to various activities, are set too low in most states, as well as by the federal government. I will additionally support the idea that potential anarchist replacements for age requirements – such as the notion that a child may work or marry, provided that they are “sophisticated” and “mature” enough – also risk causing us to run into some problems, in terms of our standards about judging whether a child has full or impaired ability to consent.]

     Decisions bearing life-long consequences, are the types of decisions that can have effects that last throughout one's entire lifetime. This is especially true in regards to decisions which involve the direct and willing infliction of pain upon a child. I say this because children can spend decades recovering from physical child abuse.
     Sure, a child might appear to “consent” to some things; say, for example, being lightly punched by a parent while they are young. More accurately, they can be tricked into appearing to consent. But children cannot consent to this behavior; not if it happens over and over again, nor if they are conditioned to accept punching as a normal everyday part of discipline or play, nor if punches are inflicted upon the child by a much older adult who should know better. A child cannot consent to the years of emotional trauma which may result from an apparently consensual thing that happens to them while they are still too young to know for how long it will continue to affect them and bother them.
     Decisions which affect children for their entire lives, especially decisions involving physical pain or permanent disfigurement, are too complex for children to make. But to leave pain and dismemberment aside for a moment, and to deal solely with decision-making: children may regret the decisions they made when they were children, once they come of age. Children are not yet able to understand all the activities from which they may be precluded, as a result of making an irreversible decision before they come of age.

     I will explain in this article why the mere fact that judges and parents can and do "give consent for a child to be married" - and the fact that judges can emancipate minors, and other things - should not suggest that society at large should accept these things as normal or beneficial to children's well-being.
     Governments and parents who allow their children to be married, basically "consent on the child's behalf". Which really means (as far as I'm concerned) that the child who appears to consent to a marriage can never be consulted while they are "of sound mind and body". Which is to say that no child is “of sound mind and body” - no child is in full possession of his wits and his decision-making capacities – before reaching an age of mental and emotional maturity.
     Additionally, many important decisions a person could make, also require that the person reach physical maturity. I believe that physical maturity must be present – in addition to mental and emotional maturity – for a person to make a consensual decision about whether to submit to pain (or to harsh labor, or tough physical conditioning, for that matter).

     In general, I will explain why I think the so-called “consent” given by a minor under age 16 – even with parental consent and state legality – is not sufficiently informed, and therefore does not constitute truly and fully informed consent. I will advance “fully informed consent, and awareness of most possible negative consequences” as a stronger standard for ensuring that consent has been given, than the mere appearance of consent.
     I believe that a child can never fully anticipate and weigh the pros and cons of all of the possible negative consequences pertaining to children interacting with adults. Especially since children's inability (or significantly impaired ability) to consent, precludes them from participating in all sorts of contracts and interactions. But an awareness of most potential negative consequences, might sometimes be good enough. However, knowing most consequences of an action, is not a guarantee that one will be aware of the worst possible consequence.

     The fact that children are precluded from participating in some adult activities (including working, being party to contract, sex, marriage, and even everyday social interactions with adults) may upset some teenagers who believe that they are mature enough to handle them. However, I will explain why I believe that the purpose of excluding children from most adult activities, is to keep children safe from exploitation and manipulation by adults. Especially, from adults who tell children what they want to hear; and who feed their desire to be told that they are mature enough to handle it.
     Although I would consider many of those interactions natural rights that should be free, in the event that the only people participating in them were adults, I will defend in this article the idea that children's limited ability to fully comprehend what they think they're consenting to, does not qualify them to become party to most contracts and interactions. And especially not without both: 1) significant parental guidance; and 2) full parental information. Not just one or the other, but both. And also, regardless of the opinion of a judge.
     After all, we're talking about fully informed consent being (or becoming) the standard. Not just some base level of “consent”, which merely requires a person to be “talked into it”. For fully voluntary consent to be said to have occurred, a person has to: 1) be able to fully understand all of the potential consequences of an action; and 2) not be forced, coerced, threatened, manipulated, nor even pressured, into an interaction, in any way.
     It is not enough to assent (that is, to give up struggle, having no realistic means to choose a different alternative); we must consent, and we must truly want to do what we're doing, without any reservations, worries, more pressures. Consent must not only be fully informed; it must be enthusiastic. Additionally, free choices cannot be made without a plethora of realistic alternatives. Nor can they be made when options are taken away unreasonably, or when options are rendered difficult or expensive to choose without cause.
     That is the standard which we should set for ensuring that adults fully consent to decisions and actions. But since children are so impressionable, they require extra protection; more protection than adults do. Children need to be shielded from the possible manipulative and pressuring effects which may result from certain adults' power of suggestion. This is to say that many children have been so well-conditioned to trust parents and adult relatives and teachers and police officers, etc., that they have practically been trained to trust all adults.
     A child should not take as gospel what an adult says, in several situations. For example, if: 1) that adult doesn't know what he is talking about; 2) that adult is overly confident or unsure of what he is saying; or 3) that adult is just communicating a matter of his opinion. Especially if that opinion is in regards to how a child should be brought up, and how cautious a child should be about kidnappers and predators; and especially if the child's parents are not within earshot while the conversation is happening.
     I will explain herein why I think much more consideration and protection than Western society currently considers normal, is necessary in order to keep children safe, and shielded from undue influence by adults whom are not their parents. I will also explain what I think are the roles of each the parents, the state, and other adults in society, in protecting children.
III. Third Introduction: Why I Wrote This Article

     I grew up in an affluent suburb on the North Shore of Chicago, called Lake Bluff. Once, when I was eight years old (this would have been around 1995), I was dining with my parents, and a friend of my father's, at home.
     My father's friend had a daughter who was around 5 or 6 years old. He was talking about how he had recently taken her to get her ear pierced. I can't recall how the whole conversation went, but he expressed a tinge of remorse or regret, or talked about how he hesitated, in getting her ears pierced. It might have been due to a concern about the pain involved, or the girl's youth, or perhaps both.
     I, of course – being who I am, and also being, at that time, a fly-on-the-wall eight-year-old – responded as rudely as possible to this as I could; by pouncing on this father's slight amount of regret, and attacking it with the first thought that came to my mind. I don't remember exactly what I said, but it was something like, “You know what would be a good thing to do? Not poke a hole in your daughter's ear.” My reasoning went like this: If his daughter never got her ear pierced, she wouldn't have to endure the pain, and he wouldn't have to think about it. It seemed logical enough!
     Immediately thereafter, I began developing the reasoning that backed my opinion up. At the age of eight, I already had some vague idea that it's wrong to pierce a very young child's ears because: 1) it is painful; and 2) it makes them “pretty”, when they're too young to need to be pretty for anyone. The idea that 3) children are not mature enough to be able to consent to that type of thing, was developed later, and slowly.

     The next of my memorable experiences involving the piercing of minors, occurred at the age of nine. I was in third grade, and a new student joined my class; a male student with a single ear piercing. He told us that if he'd had the other ear pierced, then it would mean that he was “gay” (homosexual). He also told us that he was not gay.
     There were several strange things about this kid, aside from being the only boy in the class with an ear piercing (and the only student with a single ear piercing, as well). Aside from the facts about sexuality which he revealed while explaining his piercing, he would tell us other things about sex and the adult world. These included things that we, at age eight and nine, did not necessarily want to know, but maybe thought that we wanted to know. (Here's the thing about learning sexual things when you're still a child: you don't know whether you really wanted it to happen, until after you become an adult.)
     The boy told us about how many men a woman could “take on” sexually at the same time (which he claimed was five). He told us about how the goth rock singer Marilyn Manson – then a new phenomenon, in the mid- to late 1990s – had had his ribs removed in order to be able to “suck his own dick”. Again, we were eight and nine years old when this kid told us these things.
     Some of my readers may be thinking, “How do you end up going to school with kids like that Where the Hell did you go to school? ” To repeat, I'm talking about affluent northern Chicago suburb Lake Bluff, Illinois, and the District 67 school system.
     I assure you that this did happen; I personally observed it. Additionally – and I don't mean to cite fiction in order to prove a fact – fim directors such as John Hughes and Todd Solondz have devoted large portions of their careers making films alluding to the abuse and neglect of children being overlooked, and assumed to not happen, in the suburbs. And art often imitates life.
     The list of strange things about this child continue! He had shadowy, deep, sunken eyes. He looked like he either hadn't been exposed to the sun much, or was overtired, or both. I noticed this at age eight, and I was somewhat disturbed by it, but not enough to talk to any adult about it. The child's appearance and behavior only became suspicious enough to me to speak and write about as the years went on.
     Thinking back now, I can't help but wonder whether this child looked the way he did, because he was either kept inside, or deprived of sleep, in order to perpetuate sexual abuse. If this child was, indeed, abused physically or sexually, how could it have gone on so long unnoticed? Not that I, nor any other innocent child, should have had the responsibility to notice it. But what about the child's teachers, and other parents?

     The third and final of my childhood experiences involving the piercing of minors, which I would like to share with my readers, occurred when I was 13 (around 2000). I was in a homeroom class which was made up of students from multiple grades.
     We had all just returned from summer vacation. A 14-year-old girl came up to me, said “look at my new belly button piercing”, and gave me about half a second to decide whether I wanted to see it. I realize, looking back on it, that she was basically “flashing” me a part of her body, and giving me virtually no opportunity to decline her offer to look at her piercing.
     My immediate reaction to this was twofold (aside from my unease with not being given an adequate chance to decline): 1) I had a visceral reaction to the thought of someone enduring pain on that part of their body; and 2) I thought it was “slutty”. By the age of 13, I was mature enough to express thought #2, so I expressed thought #1 instead, and said something like, “Didn't that hurt”?
     And I did think it seemed “slutty” for a 14-year-old girl to get her navel pierced. Especially if she was going to be showing it off like that; probably to younger and older boys, and female friends alike. Granted, when she “flashed” me, there was supervision by the homeroom teacher. But the teacher didn't think anything of it, as far as I can remember, and made no attempts to either discipline or defend the girl for that behavior, after she did the same thing to several other students within the preceding moments.
     At that time, at the age of 13, I had some basic notion of “Doesn't this girl realize that by wearing this body jewelry, she will be basically encouraging boys and men to look downward on her body, towards her groin? Shouldn't anyone who's talking to 13-year-old, be looking them in the face, rather than at their torso, whether that person is an adult or a child? Doesn't this piercing ensure that strangers, and maybe even adults, will be enticed to look at that part of her body?”
     I also thought, "How could her mother approve of such a thing?" I had no sense of just plain "that's kind of tacky", and it definitely did not cross my mind that, “wow, she must have gotten that piercing because she has a super-cool mom”. I don't want to blame or "slut-shame" the girl, but I thought, "She knows that this will make people look at her body all the time. She knows what she's doing." But did she? Can someone as young as 14 really be trusted to make a decision to get pierced, and to wear body jewelry? Granted, the holes from piercings will disappear if the rings are taken out, but isn't it inappropriate for someone that age to wear body jewelry for any duration of time?
     For this girl to display her body in class in this manner, risks normalizing the same behavior by the other children in the homeroom class. Especially students younger than she was, such as myself at that time. The purpose of body jewelry is to advertise for a mate. Just like young girls having their ears pierced, 14-year-old girls do not need to attract a mate, much less with jewelry that they know will attract people's eyes downward. Which invites anyone and everyone to focus their attention towards those parts of a 14-year-old's body.
     I now understand that the privilege of wearing body jewelry, and wedding rings, are supposed to be reserved for adults, because they are signals that indicate whether a person is looking for a mate or not. And minors should not be participating in this sort of signaling, especially if it involves or requires permanently altering parts of their body.

     I can honestly say that I feel traumatized by what I was told by that new student in my third grade class. And, in a somewhat similar way, I was traumatized by being “semi-consensually” flashed a belly button piercing by a 14-year-old girl when I was 13.
     It's not that I didn't enjoy looking at an older girl's body, I just couldn't bear to look at her there, because of the thought of the pain involved. I felt that pain, sympathetically. Especially because it was a small, pretty young girl who willingly chose to endure pain. I just couldn't process the thought of anyone purposely inflicting pain on a girl – especially a girl that young, or anyone for that matter – without themselves feeling that pain too, and without experiencing a feeling of revulsion at the thought that they're inflicting pain on someone else. I mean haven't we even observed rats feeling a revulsion towards causing pain to other rats? Why would this girl let someone put her through this pain? Was the pain "worth it", and what did she get out of it? What kind of person would poke a hole in another human being, especially a 14-year-old girl, and probably for money, no less?

     Something about these events just didn't sit right with me when they happened. But they must have not upset me quite enough to consider talking about it with my parents or teachers. I still regret not having done so.
     That aside, my thoughts on these events have matured significantly since I went through them, and so has my reasoning regarding why I believe that children should not be exposed to the risks associated with piercings and tattoos.
     What I can do about it now, is to impart the thoughts and advice that I have on these topics, and use this article to prompt a new conversation about these topics, both in private and in public.

     Aside from the personal experiences I've recounted above, the other reasons why I've written this article, is because I have recently noticed that more and more parents are allowing their children to get tattoos before they are 18, sometimes at ages as low as 12, or even younger. I have even discovered one tattoo artist who allowed his daughter to give tattoos to adults at the age of just 6 or 9 years old, while allowing the girl to wear temporary tattoos as well.
     Articles on that story can be viewed at the following links:
    http://www.littlethings.com/noko-nishigaki-tattoo-artist/
     http://au.news.yahoo.com/nine-year-old-girl-follows-dads-footsteps-become-tattoo-artist-060223442.html
     I've written this article to explain why I think that nobody under 16 should be tattooed under any circumstances. I will also explain why I believe that temporary tattoos and "semi-permanent" makeup are gateways to permanent tattoos (as well as more drastic alterations of appearance).
     Aside from the issues of tattooing and piercing minors, I am also writing this to explain why I think that, under no circumstances, should anyone under 16 be considered capable of consenting to, nor considered to be "asking for", getting beaten as punishment. I defend this idea, contrary to the twisted logic of some of the more thoughtless and cruel parents, who jump to physical discipline as their first-ditch effort, and give their children little to no indication as to what will cause them to resort to physical methods of discipline.
     Herein, I criticize egregious, unnecessary, and disproportionately violent hitting, beating, and spanking of children by parents, which I feel that too many parents accept. In this article, I give some practical advice to parents about how to make hitting and spanking into last-ditch disciplinary efforts only.
     Aside from piercing, tattooing, and beating, I have also written this article in order to criticize the practices of circumcision and female genital mutilation, to compare and contrast them with one another, and with the other practices discussed in this article.
     I give this advice not only in the interest of helping children avoid unnecessary physical pain and trauma; but also in the interest of helping parents avoid losing their children's respect through using too harsh disciplinary techniques; and also to help parents avoid accidentally inculcating their child into obeying, and not questioning, the authority of adults.
     I give this advice out of concern about parents, and other adults, who may wish to coax their children into – or else refusing to consider the dangers involved in – submitting to pain inflicted by adults, in exchange for pleasure, beauty, money, a long-term career, a mate, and/or other rewards.

     I aim to explain, throughout this article, as many of the potential negative consequences and connotations of piercing and tattooing, that I can think of.
     I will also explain why I believe that to pierce or tattoo a minor is to expose them to the risks of more potential negative consequences than even parents and governments can anticipate. Additionally, I will explain why I think that means that a child's consent to some painful and/or life-changing decision – even if enthusiastic – means almost nothing; without regard to whether they are being guided by parents or government, and without regard to how direct that guidance is.
     But first, it will be necessary to explain why children should not have pain directly and willfully inflicted upon them. I will explain my thoughts on that within the context of why I believe that children should be neither hit, spanked, nor beaten (except in extreme circumstances), nor have their genitals mutilated.
IV. Six Reasons Why Children Should Not Be Hit

Preface

     As a preface to my six reasons why children should not be hit, I would like to clarify and qualify.
     When I say “hitting”, I mean to include beating and spanking, in addition to striking. I regard all of these as more or less the same thing, because they all involve direct application of physical force and pressure, by the adult upon the child, with the deliberate intent of causing pain.
     Don't misunderstand me; if a child is about to die, or is hurting another child badly, or doing something that is extremely likely to result in their imminent death, injury, or kidnapping, then the use of physical power is necessary. But that should not imply that force is always useful and necessary to prevent harm to the child, nor that it should be acceptable when force is used when other techniques such as blocking and restraint can be tried before more forceful measures need to be attempted.
     But by all means, if a child's life is in clear and present danger, and “violent force” or some sort of “violent” restraint is for some reason the only thing that can save them – like jerking them away from a moving car in a way that causes a slight amount of pain to them – then that “force” should be considered acceptable. Moreover, the action would certainly qualify as saving the child from imminent harm, and/or saving the child from itself, so some limited degree of “force”, as I described, would be acceptable, to avoid a greater harm from befalling the child.
     However, my acceptance of the use of “force” in such situations, should not be construed to mean that parents may use force on their children whenever they think that not doing so will result in a greater amount of harm to the child, as compared to if the parent were to refrain from hitting the child. That is not at all what I mean to say.
     First off, for children under two, it would be brutal and extremely unnecessary for an adult to strike a tiny baby or infant (whether it's beating, hitting, slapping, spanking, or anything). The sheer size and relative power of the adult, relative to the child, is automatically an instance of disproportionate use of force. That is not a fair fight, and children should not be fighting anyone, especially adults. (I see you, child fighting leagues. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TWHAwAJaIQ)
     For children between the ages of two and six, something which could sort of be called “force”, or “forceful”, might be acceptable, but only to control and punish behaviors that are actually violent and threatening. These include destructive and self-destructive outbursts, hurting other children deliberately, or (perhaps) extremely mean comments and bullying of other children. But overt force – such as spanking, hitting, beating, etc. - should not be among the first resorts.
     If a child smart-mouths - and says really hurtful things, or things that endanger them – then it might be acceptable to introduce some sort of threat into their discipline, because if they're smart-mouths, then it's possible that they can be reasoned with. However, that threat need not be physical. Confining the child to its room, taking cell phones and internet etc. away, and restricting the child's social hours, can and should all be tried before resorting to striking a child in any way.
     Of course, if the child is recklessly disobedient, to the point where they risk their life on a near-daily basis, then, yes, overt forms of restraint and even “trapping” - and maybe even physical force is probably necessary to keep the child from running away and doing something it will regret. Especially if the kid is especially violent or threatening to join a gang.

     In my opinion, it would be ridiculous to argue that a child any younger than 7 years old has any capacity to understand the long-term consequences of what they do, nor a well-developed ability to understand that other people are other people, feel feelings, and can feel pain.
     To repeat, I believe that smart-mouth children can probably be reasoned with (since they think they're so smart). As such, many of them can probably be talked out of the most reckless of behaviors they are considering. But children age seven and younger should not be expected to be reasoned with.
     As a matter of fact, six or seven is the age at which most American parents have just stopped lying to their children (if not later). Like about things like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. We should not expect children to adjust well to us lying to them for six years, and then, just a year after we tell them Santa and the Easter Bunny are fake, expecting them to know it's wrong to hit other children and steal from them, and be fully accountable for their decisions.
     Unless you like seeing 7-year-old children handcuffed in courtrooms on trial for murders they accidentally committed. Which are definitely accidental, because - if you need a reminder - is because they don't know any better, because they're children. They haven't been around as long, to learn as much as adults have about the world around them, and about the possible dangers around them. Additionally, to develop their awareness and decision-making abilities. So they shouldn't be held to as high a standard of culpability and awareness as adults are. It's as simple as that. I'm not sure why some people need so much explanation.

     In general, there is more or less nothing a child could do which would merit being hit. It may seem as though I have just named a lot of them, but I've really only named: 1) the child committing, or realistically threatening, physical force; and/or 2) “joining gangs” (but remember, that includes the girls, too; don't think I don't hear Lana del Rey singing about running away and joining biker gangs http://genius.com/Lana-del-rey-yayo-lyrics). And then I explained that other methods should be used before resorting to overt force.
     As such, I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which I would approve of hitting a child below the age of seven or eight years old. Only using or threatening violence; committing reckless acts of disobedience; or ignoring their parent's warnings about dangers to their life, limb, and liberty; could possibly justify such a thing, and – at that – it must be to prevent greater harm from resulting.
     Additionally, I think parents should be held fully responsible for any harm, threats, force, and fraud committed by their child. However, this is not to say that the parent should serve the full sentence which an adult would serve if they committed the same crime, considering that the child did not know better, and the parent did not commit the act. But an adult should receive a sentence which is similar in form to the sentence which they would receive if they had committed the act personally, but which is a lesser punishment than if the adult had done so personally.

     The frontal lobe of the human brain – the part that controls decision-making – continues developing throughout the first 25 to 30 years of life. This means that, even when children reach their late teen years, their decision-making abilities are likely still not well-developed enough to fully understand the long-term consequences of their decisions.
     You can read articles about the development of children's brains and decision-making abilities here:     http://www.tenneyschool.com/frontal-lobe-brain-teen-decision-making/
     The fact that people significantly below the age of 25 or 30 have significantly less developed decision-making abilities, hinders, and calls into question, minors' ability to fully consent to activities, in a manner which is sufficiently informed, conscious and aware of repercussions (including how they could be held responsible, and how their action could result in harm to someone else or themselves). And that standard is what is necessary for true and full consent to be said to have occurred. I cannot imagine that any child below the age of 16 is capable of fully consenting to any potentially harmful and/or life-altering decision in such a manner.
     Granted, children can gradually be introduced to responsibilities, between the age at which they learn to speak and/or clean up after themselves, and the age at which they leave their parents' home. In particular, children must eventually be introduced to the responsibility to take care of passengers in their cars, when they learn to drive. And that is why so much practice is required of them before they can hit the road without an adult.
     But aside from the responsibility to care for others' safety on the road: Minors shouldn't be relied upon to be trusted to save someone's life; unless they are an older teen with lifeguard training, or a minor well-trained in emergency resuscitation. But even if a child has such capacities, it would in most cases probably be too traumatic for the child to have to bear the consequences of failing to save someone's life, such as having to contend with the possibility that they're responsible. As a child, they wouldn't be responsible, and probably shouldn't be relied upon to save people's lives or watch over people's safety, but that is not to say that a child capable of reviving someone should be prevented from doing so, especially if it is as a last resort.
     The fact that children can be gradually introduced to responsibilities, does not necessarily guarantee that they will be able to handle - nor that they should be held fully responsible for - the consequences that come with those responsibilities. That is why we gradually introduce responsibilities to them, and it's also why we make privileges conditional upon responsibilities.
     But we must remember not take children's rights away, as a punishment for failing to live up to responsibilities and earn privileges. The privilege can and should be taken away when a child shirks a responsibility, but the freedoms a child needs to survive must not. These include the freedoms to breathe, eat, and move around (at least within the house). To take away a child's right to those things, as well as warmth and shelter, would be completely unreasonable punishments; as a reaction to shirking responsibility, and as a reaction to anything but the most violent, reckless, or threatening behavior a child could do.

     I will explain throughout the remainder of this essay why I believe that children's impaired ability to make decisions, primarily hinge on the importance of avoiding situations which could result in negative life-long consequences befalling the child; especially those which directly involve or are extremely likely to involve physical harm (and/or severe emotional harm) to themselves and/or to others.
     I will also explain why these situations which bear negative consequences that specifically and directly involve the infliction of physical pain upon children, must logically include the tattooing and piercing of children under 16, because of the nature of what those actions entail.
     I will also explain why I believe adults must be around to guide children away from such decisions, because adults can think of possible negative consequences of actions, which children aren't capable of imagining. However, that doesn't mean that adults always will think of all the consequences.


Reason #1: Almost Nothing Kids Do Merits Violence

     Not that you should need a reason not to hit children, but the first reason not to hit kids, is that it's exceedingly rare that they would do something so bad, that it could merit using physical violence. And what follows is my explanation of why hitting children is almost never an appropriate or necessary punishment for anything a child could do (falling short of committing or realistically threatening overt violence).
     Physical violence does not “correct” children's behavior. Hitting, beating, and spanking are not examples of “discipline”, although some may wish to call it “physical discipline”. Examples of discipline which a child should be learning, include, first, gaining control over their basic bodily functions, so that they're at least capable of doing a single thing or being outside for several hours at a time. And then, later, once they're capable, adhering to normal school and sleep schedules, studying, and scheduling hobbies and other activities.
     Adults must not use hitting, spanking, beating, caning, etc. as substitutes for either discipline or education. Physically hitting a child, does not “teach” them anything, except to endure your abuse. Unless a child is threatening force (and is realistically capable of delivering on their threat) - or the child is actually using force – then to use direct physical force against the child would most likely not be worth the cost of saving the child from any potential harm (to whomever) which could result from their actions (that is, because such risks would be low, given that no harm is risked).
     Additionally, the cost of teaching the child to grow accustomed to being hit - whether for discipline, “education”, or any other reason – has consequences, and they are often long-lasting, and devastating to child development and the consistency of family structure and a nurturing home.
     A child who grows up in constant fear of being hit by its parent, will cry and cower out of fear – and shrink from their parents' commands – solely out of fear of being hit again. Far be it from me to explain why, but apparently some parents are too inconsiderate of the possibility that they're hitting their child for crying, because he's crying, which is because he thinks his parent is going to hit him again. For a parent to continue to hit a child for crying for fear of being hit, is to perpetuate a never-ending cycle of abuse.
     To hear a song about that topic, listen to Kimya Dawson's 2002 song "Stinky Stuff (Hold My Hand)": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpvinhZnMI8
     All children, and adults, need natural human rights to live, and to grow safely and comfortably. No child deserves to grow up having no clue how to talk his parents out of beating him. Any parent who is too quick to resort to physical “discipline” of the child – or who issues too many commands such that no child could possibly follow all of them and still be in full compliance, or demands too much transparency into the child's life to the point where it interferes with the child's innate right to personal privacy and bodily autonomy – is at risk of not only communicating to the child that they are not allowed to question or resist a parent who is hurting them.
     And that, I believe, increases the chances that the child might think they have no right to resist other adults who may want to willingly and openly inflict pain on them. It probably also increases the odds that the child will eventually teach the same behavior to its own children.
     To hear a song about that topic, listen to Lou Reed's 1989 song "Endless Cycle":      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFulWX-sD_g
     Watch the following video, and ask yourself - whatever this kid did - whether it was truly necessary for the adult to use the amount of force he did to get the child to stop shoving him.
     http://1079ishot.com/out-of-control-kid-taunts-pushes-man-messing-with-cars-video/

Reason #2: Most Adults Are Larger and Stronger Than Children, Such That Nearly All Uses of Physical Force by Adults Against Children Amount to Disproportionate Violence
Reason #3: Enduring Pain as a Child, and Being Coached Through It, Damages the Nervous System, and Changes the Way Children Process Pain

Reason #4: The Use of Violence Demoralizes its User, Delegitimizes its User's Authority, and is No Substitute for Non-Violent Attempts at Reasoning with the Child
Reason #5: Hitting of Any Kind is a Violation of the Child's Right to Autonomy Over its Body, and Spanking is a Violation of the Child's Autonomy Over its Private Parts and Genital Areas

Reason #6: Overt Forms of Physical Punishment (Like Beating, Hitting, and Spanking) are Not the Only Traumatizing Forms of Physical Punishment; Subduing and Tickling Can Be Traumatic Too


[Explanations for reasons #2-6 as to why children shouldn't be hit, will appear here at a later date, as will the following sections of this article:

V. Why Children Should Not Be Circumcised
VI. The Primary Duties of a Parent
VII. Why Young Children Should Not Get Their Ears Pierced
VIII. Twenty Reasons Why Minors Should Not Get Tattoos or Body Piercings
IX. Why You Don't Have the Right to Sell a Part of Your Child's Body
X. Which Institutions in Our Society Are the Most Plagued by Child Abuse?
XI. Constitutional Analysis of How to Achieve Legal Changes in These Policy Areas
XII. Conclusions]





Originally Written on May 3rd and 9th, 2019
Originally Published (in part) on May 9th, 2019

Based on Notes Written between April 28th and May 9th, 2019

Edited and Expanded on May 11th, and June 12th, 18th, and 21st, 
and July 9th, 2019
at

No comments:

Post a Comment