The worst punishment imposed by your parents

mloc wrote: »

It's amazing how people will try to rationalise child abuse, especially when parents seem to devise almost sadistic methods of inflicting extra pain on their children.

Isn't the point of corporal punishment to inflict pain? What do you mean "extra pain". If it is planned from the start isn't it all part of the original amount of pain intended?

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a big difference between a slap that stings for a few seconds and a beating that is painful for hours.

Edit: Some posters mentioned having stuff applied that prolonged the pain, that is bordering on sadistic.

I never said there wasn't a big difference between a slap that stings for a few seconds and a beating that is painful for hours.
What I meant was that if a parent intends to deliver a beating that is painful for hours, where is the extra pain?
Similarly if the even if the parent is a sadist and applies stuff to prolong the pain, where is the extra pain?

bath handle wrote: »

Why didn't your sister get a flat? Are you seriously saying that a 20 year old woman would go to a house late, and be prepared to remove her underwear preparatory to being savagely beaten on her bare backside ? Are you saying that she was afraid of being sent to a Magdalene Home if she did not submit to this shocking barbarity ?

Until the Age of Majority Act of 1985 a 20 year old was, in law, an infant. The parents had to right to their wages which they could obtain directly from the employer if they wished. A 20 year old had a reduced legal capacity to enter a contract of letting, being a minor.
Caning was an everyday activity with canings being carried out in schools up and down the country until 1982.
In the case of THE KING v. DONOVAN [1934] 2 K.B.498 the following happened

"The appellant, being charged with caning a girl of seventeen for purposes of sexual gratification, pleaded in defence that the prosecutrix had consented, and the chairman of quarter sessions in summing-up directed the jury that "consent or no consent" was the vital issue in the case:-

But it is submitted that these limitations do not apply here. The act complained of is not illegal in itself and the injuries are only the marks of a cane which would appear in administering ordinary corporal punishment. There was no breach of the King's peace, nor was there any injury to the public, as in a prize fight, nor any unfriendly relationship."

The appellant was acquitted.

Beating the buttocks with a cane was considered to be normal punishment. Section 37 of the Children Act authorised parents to use corporal punishment.

kneeler wrote: »

We were spanked until we were 19 or 20. Coming home late at nigh would always mean the cane. Even after we started working we would be spanked. My sister got a job in an office and she had a navy pleated skirt and wore tights to work. After about three weeks she got some lipstick on a curtain and she was brought down to the couch and spanked and pasted. We lived near a Magdalen laundry and there was always the threat of being put into it. A friend of mine knew someone who had been in it and she said you are better off being battered by your parents than by the nuns, The priest or the reverend mother could put you in if it was thought you were wild. the priest used to call around the houses and liked to see the cabne hanging up.

There were no rivers of piss and puke in the streets at night that time. Nor were there assaults in the street leading to death every weekend and some weekdays as well.

the purple tin wrote: »

Plenty of assaults in the laundries and industrial schools though.
Domestic abuse was much more common then too. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not going on.

That is why people didn't want to be put in them. If people knew they were going to be sent to some unpleasant place they wouldn't carry on like they do.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

Why didn't your sister get a flat? Are you seriously saying that a 20 year old woman would go to a house late, and be prepared to remove her underwear preparatory to being savagely beaten on her bare backside ? Are you saying that she was afraid of being sent to a Magdalene Home if she did not submit to this shocking barbarity ?

Until the Age of Majority Act of 1985 a 20 year old was, in law, an infant. The parents had to right to their wages which they could obtain directly from the employer if they wished. A 20 year old had a reduced legal capacity to enter a contract of letting, being a minor.
Caning was an everyday activity with canings being carried out in schools up and down the country until 1982.
In the case of THE KING v. DONOVAN [1934] 2 K.B.498 the following happened

"The appellant, being charged with caning a girl of seventeen for purposes of sexual gratification, pleaded in defence that the prosecutrix had consented, and the chairman of quarter sessions in summing-up directed the jury that "consent or no consent" was the vital issue in the case:-

But it is submitted that these limitations do not apply here. The act complained of is not illegal in itself and the injuries are only the marks of a cane which would appear in administering ordinary corporal punishment. There was no breach of the King's peace, nor was there any injury to the public, as in a prize fight, nor any unfriendly relationship."

The appellant was acquitted.

Beating the buttocks with a cane was considered to be normal punishment. Section 37 of the Children Act authorised parents to use corporal punishment.

Just because it was legal doesn't mean it was right .

Milk & Honey wrote: »

A lot of people use the law as a guide. E.g. many view the maximum speed limit as an invitation to drive at that speed. many drive while below the drink drive limit on the basis that the upper limit gives them permission to drive with that level of alcohol and deems them safe to do so.

So, if a law was passed tomorrow stating that a child could be beaten to within an inch of its life, every child in the country would be beaten to within an inch of its life regularly thereafter?

Mouldy Mary wrote: »

what does the fact that her father served in the Middle East have to do with her brutal torture.? She must have been caught killing, cooking and eating one of her younger siblings to get that punishment .

It was nothing like that. My mother got a report from the nuns that I had been seen talking to a boy from the Brothers school outside of the convent where I was going to school. My mother took me up to the bedroom and told me to remove my drawers so she could beat my behind with a cane. I refused as I hadn't been beaten on my behind since I was much younger. She told me a second time and I again refused. She called my father up from the yard and told him that I was defying her by refusing to remove my drawers. He grabbed me and threw me face down on the bed. He put my mother sitting on one of my arms. He then took off my shoes and socks and tied my feet to the top of the metal frame at the end of the bed. He looked at the cane my mother was going to use and said "too thick". He went off and came back after a few minutes. He started beating my bare feet and shouting "now will you remove your drawers". My mother was saying " Good man Jack" every time he struck a blow with the thin rod. I was screaming and trying to reach my drawers with my free hand but it was no good because I still had my pinafore on. My brothers and sisters could hear all the shouting and screaming and thought our mother and father had gone mad. In our house my father punished my brothers and my mother punished us. My mother nearly always beat us on the hands with a cane like at school. My father used a studded belt or sometimes a stick to wallop my brothers so beating the feet was very unusual. I don't think my parents meant it to be as severe as it was. They never did it again.

Mouldy Mary wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

dolanbaker wrote: »

It was nothing like that. My mother got a report from the nuns that I had been seen talking to a boy from the Brothers school outside of the convent where I was going to school. My mother took me up to the bedroom and told me to remove my drawers so she could beat my behind with a cane.

What exactly was the offence? What were you supposed to have been doing that merited a beating with a cane on your behind? Were you smoking joints together, or having sex in full view of the whole town?

Paddy Cow wrote: »

The original offense was the nuns complaining that she had been talking to a boy. For that her mother was going to cane her on her bare arse. When she refused to take off her underware, the mother saw it as defiance, called up the father and they went bat sh!t crazy.

Thank you for your summary of Mouldy Mary's post. I was able to work out that much myself however. What I am trying to find out is what was the alleged offence in the first place. Why was she being caned at all?