Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Brat Camp

Karen In Dallas

<< < (3/125) > >>

OverLordd:
I was more inforcing the idea of "Walk a mile in a persons shoes." Because if something happens to a person that they dont like then they are less likely to do it to another person, at least if they have a ounce of humanity in them. I believe the entire industry would just implode if parents were required to go through a week of what these kids went through. Its idealism I know, and it would never happen, but its still the principle of the thing.[ This Message was edited by: OverLordd on 2005-08-06 10:53 ]

Nonconformistlaw:
I decided, since there are apparently two lawyers around here, I should go by some kind of name to avoid being mistaken for KareninDallas, which I am definitely not! :exclaim:, which are very good questions by the way. I?d love to see independent research on those issues as well.

Nonconformistlaw:
Again, I think you ask very good and valid questions and I would love to see the research on them as well. ::bigsmilebounce::  ::bigsmilebounce::  ::bigsmilebounce:: here?s how I think Straight would have responded to your questions. (I've actually heard them respond to items 1 and 2 numerous times while "in the program" and 3 is a true fact, but never actually heard them have the nerve to use that line to respond to similar questions)

1)   70% success rate
2)   They all relapsed because they stopped  
        applying their program.
3)   Nancy Reagan came to visit and loved
        Straight! Why, we have the endorsement of
        the White House!!!  :eek:

Nihilanthic:
Just for kicks:

Today, on Spike TV, theres gonna be a live UFC on at about 9 pm EST (check listings to be sure).

If you wanan see what restraining someone is REALLY like, try watching this. And FWIW, Id *LOVE* to see "Randy Couture vs the staff of Tranquility Bay"  :grin:
Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw.
--Bastard Administrator
--- End quote ---

Deborah:
This debate re: restraint goes in circles because the majority of people consider it okay to use restraint as punishment, as a deterrent to ?undesirable? behavior, and to instill fear. Progress on this issue will not happen until it is dismantled and analyzed. I think those are all the wrong reasons to use it for the same reason I think corporal punishment is wrong.

Think about it.
A kid gets angry. He is too far gone to be rational. De-escalation doesn?t calm him. He is becoming violent.
Anger and rational thought are like oil and water. Rational thought is impossible when someone is lost in anger, particularly when it has escalated to potential violence.

There would be two reasons that I can think of where restraint in this situation could be considered a therapeutic tool.
To genuinely protect him from hurting self and others.
To provide some resistance- an aid in helping him to vent the anger.

Restraint can be potentially very useful depending on the attitude of the person conducting the restraint.

While the restraint is happening the restrainer is holding the kid in the highest regard. He is always aware that the kid (or adult) is unable to think rationally due to the anger, therefore can?t control his anger. So the restrainer puts the kid in a safe hold and states the truth while the restraint is happening, ?I?m going to hold you until your anger has passed. I can?t allow you to hurt yourself or others. When you?ve calmed down we?ll discuss what upset you. Your anger may be justified, but hurting yourself or others is not.?

Not unlike what we see when a teen (or adult) gets into a confrontation that is heading for a fist fight. Four or five of the kid?s friends will come to his aid; circling around him, holding him back and trying to talk him down. It?s pretty much instinctual, common sense.  Just as when a parent swoops up a raging toddler who?s about to go ballistic on his friend, and ?holds? them until they have settled down. Those are useful restraints and there is no intention of hurting the teen/child. If the child struggles to get away, the parent does not squeeze the life out of the child. They reposition themselves to avoid being hurt or hurting the child.

That?s a whole different experience than ?I?m going to hold your ass down till you stop exhibiting anger. I?m going to cause you pain until you submit.? And so many times in programs, kids are baited because the staff enjoys restraining. They probably love to take them behind the woodshed for a whopping, but can?t. On the other hand, sadistic restraints are allowed and written-off as ?therapeutic?. If the kid dies due to the restraint, no problem, we?ll call ?Excited Delirium Syndrome? and blame the kid?s behavior for his own death.

So, in a sadistic hold the kid stops. What happened to the anger? Did it magically disappear? No. So, what might happen? It comes out more covertly in passive aggressive ways. The kid gets more clever in his attempt to seek revenge for being hurt, yet again, by a misguided authoritarian adult.

I have seen thoughtful therapeutic holds and they can actually go a long way in developing deep trust between a kid and his care giver because it is done with genuine respect, depending on what happens during and afer the restraint. It?s all about the intention and it has to clear and genuine. And don?t think that kids can?t discern the difference. If you restrain a kid for the purpose of punishment and to establish your power over the kid, you may see him ?act? better, but has anything of real therapeutic value actually occurred? No. Just another authoritarian adult who has forced their will and not made a difference at all in the kid?s perception, or addressed the kid?s real need. In this case, you may as well be beating the kid. It?s just another form of abusive punishment.

There are other ways to aid a kid in venting his anger. One way that my son found particularly useful was to get in the sauna. He was 18 and attended a voluntary rehab to avoid court ordered (ineffective) rehab. They would go to the ?box? when anger surfaced. He said it was very effective.

I used to give my kids pillows to hit/kick. Very effective for younger kids. Batakas are great. They can whack the crap out of you and it doesn?t hurt.  I wrestled with them which would eventually turn into a giggle fest. They had a punching bag and gloves. Kids love to break things when they?re angry so we had a place they could throw empty glass bottles against rocks without getting hurt.
When they got older I?d give them 5 minutes to spout off every nasty, mean thing they were thinking. Every single thing they resented me for. No holds barred. No resentment. When they were done letting off steam (letting me know what a shit I was), they?d return to their normal reasonable selves, capable of having a discussion or negotiating. I didn?t require an apology, but most times got one.
There are sooo many ways to let them safely vent their frustration and anger, these are but a few.
When my younger son was incarcerated in the TBS he?d tell me how angry he'd get due to the petty BS and baiting. I?d ask him if there was any activity available that might be useful to vent his anger, like throwing a ball as hard as he could against the side of a building, etc. These discussion were difficult to have with him since someone was always listening. I felt sure that they would do everything in their power to interfere with him gaining access to a ball, or whatever.

If you are conducting restraints for any other purpose than genuine protection or to aid the kid in venting anger, you are doing it for the wrong reasons, and it has no ?therapeutic? value.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page