NationStates

So, in 1950's America, a lot of husbands spanked their wives. Is this really Spousal Abuse? And, can we allow it? If we can't allow it, what should the penalties be? Fire away.

I personally, don't see anything wrong with it. Just as long as there are no bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality. I also don't see anything wrong with a wife slapping her husband in the face, once again, as long as there are bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality. As for penalties, there really shouldn't be any, unless of course there are any bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality.

So, tell me how wrong I am!

This is also about Spousal Abuse, just so ya know.

If someone were to try it on me I couldn't promise there wouldn't be broken bones. They wouldn't be mine though.

What possible justification is there for hitting your wife or husband?

I don't feel like hitting anyone is appropriate. Unless it's consensual.

They...spanked them? That seems more erotic than punitive.

Cosmopoles wrote:What possible justification is there for hitting your wife or husband?

What possible justification could there be to not hit your wife or husband? If you have the equal ability to do it with the equal regulations of the law, it is completely equal in nature.

UCUMAY wrote:I don't feel like hitting anyone is appropriate. Unless it's consensual.

Meow.

Cosmopoles wrote:What possible justification is there for hitting your wife or husband?

A valid question, and one I can't answer because I don't know of one. I can see spanking being used on kids (but not abused!) but that's something kids should grow out of…there shouldn't be a reason to spank your spouse unless you want to get nasty, and that's your thing.

Arborlawn wrote:So, in 1950's America, a lot of husbands spanked their wives. Is this really Spousal Abuse? And, can we allow it? If we can't allow it, what should the penalties be? Fire away.

I personally, don't see anything wrong with it. Just as long as there are no bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality. I also don't see anything wrong with a wife slapping her husband in the face, once again, as long as there are bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality. As for penalties, there really shouldn't be any, unless of course there are any bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality.

So, tell me how wrong I am!

This is also about Spousal Abuse, just so ya know.

Spousal abuse makes me sick. I want to beat any guy who does it. (or if it's a rare case where the wife does it, then I'd have a female friend of mine beat her, since I personally wouldn't be able to do that)

Arkinesia wrote:

UCUMAY wrote:I don't feel like hitting anyone is appropriate. Unless it's consensual.

Meow.

Cosmopoles wrote:What possible justification is there for hitting your wife or husband?

A valid question, and one I can't answer because I don't know of one. I can see spanking being used on kids (but not abused!) but that's something kids should grow out of…there shouldn't be a reason to spank your spouse unless you want to get nasty, and that's your thing.

I'd argue that it's in appropriate for kids. Abuse is abuse is abuse.

Punitively? no, it implies a dominate overseer roll in the relationship which can be a very dangerous dynamic and honestly has no place in a relationship.

1950's America: kinkier than your grandmother in latex.

Arborlawn wrote:So, in 1950's America, a lot of husbands spanked their wives. Is this really Spousal Abuse? And, can we allow it? If we can't allow it, what should the penalties be? Fire away.

I personally, don't see anything wrong with it. Just as long as there are no bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality. I also don't see anything wrong with a wife slapping her husband in the face, once again, as long as there are bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality. As for penalties, there really shouldn't be any, unless of course there are any bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality.

So, tell me how wrong I am!

This is also about Spousal Abuse, just so ya know.

if the wife complains to the authorities it should be treated like any other form of battery.

As long as both partners are willing no problem but since thats probarbly unlikely then no its not acceptable.

Vetalia wrote:They...spanked them? That seems more erotic than punitive.

at least they did in the movies.

Are we talking about spanking as a means of achieving sexual arousal, or as a means of enforcing authority within a marriage (or relationship)?

If the former (and consensual), spank, yank, and crank away. If the latter, it is absolutely abusive and should be punishable by law.

I mean, should we allow employers to spank or strike their employees as a means of motivating them? Of course not. A contractual bond, even one that acknowledges one contracting party as superior (which employment does, BTW, while marriage does not) still doesn't justify the use of force to maintain discipline.

Ashmoria wrote:at least they did in the movies.

You know, given how bowdlerized things were in 1950's films...that's kind of unnerving.

Agreeing to marry someone does not entail agreeing that they have ownership of your body and are therefore legally allowed to assault or batter you. The fact that you don't see something wrong with people committing violence against each other and believe that the legal penalty for violent acts should be reduced or removed based solely on the relationship of the victim to their attacker is more than a little disturbing.

(That said, let me make the distinction that there is a world of difference between non-consensual battery and consensual S&M, and I have no intention of finding fault with the latter.)

Wolny Kraj wrote:

Arborlawn wrote:So, in 1950's America, a lot of husbands spanked their wives. Is this really Spousal Abuse? And, can we allow it? If we can't allow it, what should the penalties be? Fire away.

I personally, don't see anything wrong with it. Just as long as there are no bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality. I also don't see anything wrong with a wife slapping her husband in the face, once again, as long as there are bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality. As for penalties, there really shouldn't be any, unless of course there are any bruises or broken bones or extreme brutality.

So, tell me how wrong I am!

This is also about Spousal Abuse, just so ya know.

Spousal abuse makes me sick. I want to beat any guy who does it. (or if it's a rare case where the wife does it, then I'd have a female friend of mine beat her, since I personally wouldn't be able to do that)

What makes gender be a shield for abuse to you? I'd want to hit anyone, male or female, who abused their spouse (or anyone else, rly).

Alien Space Bats wrote:Are we talking about spanking as a means of achieving sexual arousal, or as a means of enforcing authority within a marriage (or relationship)?

If the former (and consensual), spank, yank, and crank away. If the latter, it is absolutely abusive and should be punishable by law.

I mean, should we allow employers to spank or strike their employees as a means of motivating them? Of course not. A contractual bond, even one that acknowledges one contracting party as superior (which employment does, BTW, while marriage does not) still doesn't justify the use of force to maintain discipline.

We did back in the fifties.

What do i think? I think this Is the one part of history that gets me horny.

Cosmopoles wrote:What possible justification is there for hitting your wife or husband?

I asked for a HAM sandwich dammit!

Arborlawn wrote:What possible justification could there be to not hit your wife or husband? If you have the equal ability to do it with the equal regulations of the law, it is completely equal in nature.

Well, there's the fact that engaging in physical violence for absolutely no reason is usually quite bad for your relationship with other people. So what possible reason could someone have to hit their partner?

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:We did back in the fifties.

What kind of upstanding man would allow his employer to hit him?

Vetalia wrote:

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:We did back in the fifties.

What kind of upstanding man would allow his employer to hit him?

George S. Patton did it.

Alien Space Bats wrote:Are we talking about spanking as a means of achieving sexual arousal, or as a means of enforcing authority within a marriage (or relationship)?

If the former (and consensual), spank, yank, and crank away. If the latter, it is absolutely abusive and should be punishable by law.

I mean, should we allow employers to spank or strike their employees as a means of motivating them? Of course not. A contractual bond, even one that acknowledges one contracting party as superior (which employment does, BTW, while marriage does not) still doesn't justify the use of force to maintain discipline.

So you are comparing marriage to employer - employee relationship? Interesting.

Honesty, I believe that SHE can hit HIM as long as HE can hit HER, and vice versa. If either brake the law about it, they go to jail if it is done a night, or they both get fined if done during the day. No bruises, no broken bones, no extreme brutality.

Arborlawn wrote:

Alien Space Bats wrote:Are we talking about spanking as a means of achieving sexual arousal, or as a means of enforcing authority within a marriage (or relationship)?

If the former (and consensual), spank, yank, and crank away. If the latter, it is absolutely abusive and should be punishable by law.

I mean, should we allow employers to spank or strike their employees as a means of motivating them? Of course not. A contractual bond, even one that acknowledges one contracting party as superior (which employment does, BTW, while marriage does not) still doesn't justify the use of force to maintain discipline.

So you are comparing marriage to employer - employee relationship? Interesting.

Honesty, I believe that SHE can hit HIM as long as HE can hit HER, and vice versa. If either brake the law about it, they go to jail if it is done a night, or they both get fined if done during the day. No bruises, no broken bones, no extreme brutality.

Define "extreme brutality".

Spanking in itself as a form of punishment is "extreme brutality", tbqh.