Physical discipline--did you experience it?

[Quincunx]

Every time someone young does something awful, the responses start with "in my day, we disciplined our kids" and "spanking doesn't work" and "spanking is the only thing which works" and "physical abuse is not the standard". At first, I mentally filed them all under 'can be safely ignored', but had a re-think that gathering actual data might better help. So.


Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?


I'll toss my own data set in after a bit.

[Asthix]

Yup I was spanked. Wasn't a big deal to me though. I always had the mindset as a kid, "Is it over yet? Ah well, it'll be over soon. I should clarify that this was barehand spanking, no implement was ever used. Also, I'm a gentle person by nature so if I ever have kids I don't think I would spank them. Not because I'm against it. I would simply try to raise 'em to respect my authoritah without it.

No. No laws I know of against spanking here.

I'll tell you something that traumatized me though. Tickling. I'm ticklish and one day someone found out and wouldn't stop tickling me. I was completely at their mercy until I started sobbing and they realized how mean they were being. It may sound funny but I am against tickling more than spanking.

[unosarta]

No. No laws I know of against spanking here.

Well, if my terrible memory remembers correctly, there was a scandal about a man who spanked his son, but I cannot recall the details. Just noting this since we both come from Minneapolis, and it might be helpful for Quincunx. At least, I think it was in Minneapolis, it might have been in a suburb.

I personally was never spanked. My parents always found other methods of discipline, and my parents stayed pretty adamant that they would not ever use it. I do not believe that there is a no spanking law, but it does seem to be socially unacceptable, as reflected by the aforementioned scandal.

And no, I am not really shocked. This is an important topic, and one that should be talked about.

[Zeofar]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?


I'll toss my own data set in after a bit.

Yes... You could say that.
Not really.
Don't know, just moved here.
See above.
A little. It isn't a big deal, in my opinion. I don't think using belts or brooms qualifies as spanking, though, in case you're wondering. That is just straight-up beating.



I'll tell you something that traumatized me though. Tickling. I'm ticklish and one day someone found out and wouldn't stop tickling me. I was completely at their mercy until I started sobbing and they realized how mean they were being. It may sound funny but I am against tickling more than spanking.

I actually told my mom that I didn't mind spanking but that she could really bother me by tickling me, which was true. I really wanted to be good, so I told the truth about it. She didn't believe me, and to this day tells it as a joke if the topic of spanking comes up.

[thubby]

if you really want to know about corporal punishment there is literally tons of research on the subject.



Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?

yes, though extremely rare
yes
no
-
shocked is the wrong word, but certainly surprised. i didn't think it was outright illegal anywhere.

[Asthix]

{scrubbed}

[IthroZada]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline? Yes
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? That one is complicated, I lived with my father who used it, and after he died, with my mother who didn't.
Is there a no-spanking law where you live? No.


Honestly, I am pro spanking. I know studies have found it damaging, but I personally think whatever damage is negligible, as long as it doesn't develop into full on abuse, and isn't used for every minor infraction. It may sound a bit callous, but I think a mix of negative and positive reinforcement is far better than just positive. Time-out however, will always be the preferred method.

Anecdotal evidence is rather weak evidence in scientific terms, but when it comes down to it, I was spanked, and I learned my lesson.

[Coidzor]

* Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Yeah, got spanked a few times as a small child.

* Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Don't know. They stopped when I was somewhere between 6 and 8. They could have just decided that I was old enough for reason and obedience training to be effective in curtailing any youthful excess or maybe they just got distracted from it by my dad almost dying.

* Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
I don't even know how to check what county and municipal laws are. :smallconfused: There's not at the state level as far as I can tell. AFAIK, corporal punishment is forbidden in the school system in the majority of the state. There was one place in the state where corporal punishment was still practiced in schools about ten years ago that I know of because it caused one of my friends to move to this part of the state.

* If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
N/A

* Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
I'm not even exactly sure what question you're referring to. But then, I think I'm a bit tired.

[Runestar]

* Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
* Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
* Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
* If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
* Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?


1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No (but corporal punishment is now banned in schools)
4) Singapore.
5) Not really. Being from an Asian society, caning was (and still is) pretty much a way of life.

Corporal punishment was pretty much the norm back when I was in school. Heck, my teacher would cane us once for each mistake we made in our spelling test. And these were 100 question exercises where I routinely got 20-30 wrong...:smalleek:

He would have to buy a new cane every week because the current one would be worn out by Friday.

Granted, teachers' authority in class was unquestionable and they were allowed to do whatever they wanted with us.

[Serpentine]

i didn't think it was outright illegal anywhere.It is in New Zealand. Apparently it's incredibly strict to the point of being a bit silly, but, on the other hand, it has done the trick better than anything to curtail child abuse - no shades-of-grey lines to overstep, I suppose.

Only once was it ever applied to me. I was being a pain when dad was getting me ready to go somewhere and we were running late, so he smacked me on the bottom once with the back of the hairbrush. I guess it must've hurt somewhat just cuz I remember it, but I don't remember any pain. But then later I slapped him in the face, so I guess we're even...

I am okay with a quick slap on the wrist or bottom, but basically if you have to do that, something's gone wrong already.

[Coidzor]

I am okay with a quick slap on the wrist or bottom, but basically if you have to do that, something's gone wrong already.

Well, that is sort of the nature of the beast if you have to consider disciplinary action in the first place.

[Serpentine]

Well, I mean, "use extremely sparingly and only in emergencies where other forms of discipline aren't available/won't work". More or less.

[Brother Oni]

Bear in mind that physical discipline for children is also very cultural based. In my culture, physical discipline is commonplace and has a general of view of 'spare the rod, spoil the child'.
There is also a hard culture of only sparingly giving praise for accomplishments and generally speaking of your children in disparaging tones, ostensibly to prevent them from becoming big headed, since over achieving is encouraged. Fortunately, this view is becoming less prevalent and is only really common in more traditional families.




Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?


In answer to your questions:

Yes. I also went to schools where corporal punishment was still used, such as caning.
No, although they stopped using it once I got too big to punish physically.
Yes, but only if it leaves a mark and 'reasonable chastisement' is still currently permitted. Scotland has stricter laws.
2004 in England and Wales. Law in Scotland was enacted 27 October 2003.
No.


If you like, I can provide references for the appropriate legislation. Looking up the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, may also be of interest.

[Mauve Shirt]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?



Yes
No
Not that I know of?
Maryland
No

[Trog]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?

Yeah. A little that went beyond the type I talk about below.
Yeah. I don't believe my younger sisters (I'm the oldest) were ever subjected to that.
No clue.
Nope.
No.

Also, I would toss out there that if a toddler is trying to do something like run out into traffic a whap on the butt gets the point across to not do that very effectively. At a very young age they simply cannot understand "watch out for cars" or "that's hot" and might ignore the word "no" or any other verbal discouragement or what have you and so a swat on the butt is done to discourage them instead. Basically it beats the alternative of them being injured or killed through their ignorant yet innocent actions. It is done to keep them safe then and in the future.

Now if you start beating the child for every little thing or what have you, that's, of course, completely different.

[ghost_warlock]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Yes. I was spanked, slapped hard enough to leave welts, punched, and (on one occasion) thrown against a wall.


Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Uncertain. I was the oldest child in the household and physical discipline was universally distributed by my step-father, who never raised a hand (so far as I can remember) against my step-siblings (his biological children).


Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
No.


If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
N/A. (For the sake of completion, I live in the state of Iowa, U.S.A.)


Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
Professionally, I'm a social worker who works in a group home with abused/neglected children; so not really.

[WalkingTarget]

Yes, we (my brothers and I) got spanked when we were young, no implements used, though.
My mom stopped spanking us when I, apparently (I don't remember this), told her that her "spankings didn't hurt".
I have no idea if there's any sort of law on the books regarding it. I'd be surprised if there was one, though.

Using our anecdotal evidence, I'd say that some sort of corporal punishment, used without excess, is a "good" thing. My brothers and I are all fairly upstanding citizens these days and our home was pretty much drama free by the time we had all outgrown the spanking stage. Of course, it's hard to say if that's the amount of spanking we got, general upbringing we received, genetic predisposition, or something else (or a combination).

[nihilism]

i thought it was illegal in the glorious canadian empire but a quick google search (well 2 searches the first one mostly turned up s&m sites) and a quick scan of a news article revealed that they came close to illegalising it but never got round to it. here in canada town, you can tan yer punkass lil troublemakers hide till its red as an angry smily :smallfurious:. ok you probably can't that would be abuse, but im sure a shade lighter would be acceptable.

as of march 2009 24 countries have introduced a ban on corporal punishment for children. sweden was the first in 1979.

I have to say there is nothing more awkward than seeing a parent spank or threaten their child with spanking in public

i was never spanked.

[Zaggab]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
No. They never used it. Neither did my parents parents.

Is there a no-spanking law where you live?

If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Yes. In Sweden, physical discipline is forbidden since 1979.

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?

Yes. I had no idea physical discipline was so common. The general sentiment I have grown up with is that it's always wrong to hit a child. I thought that applied everywhere, but apparently it's not as ubiquitous a trait of modern civilisation as I thought.

[Quincunx]

Yes, of the "big scary noise and tiny force" variety. Sometimes it was proportionate to the danger we had put ourselves in, and sometimes it wasn't.
No
Doubt there was at the time--that cultural shift happened afterwards
N/A
Not shocked either way. Slightly shocked there WAS another way to interpret that though.


Tickling was a way to vex sisters, not part of deserved punishment. (No matter who was being tickled, 2 vs. 1 is not good odds for the tickle-ee.)

[mangosta71]

I was spanked as a kid. Never hard enough to do damage or leave a mark, though. Of course, by the time I was 10 or so, I was well-behaved enough to only need discipline on rare occasions.

I wouldn't respond to anything else. Wasn't social enough to care about getting grounded, all my toys and books were in my room so getting sent there wasn't a punishment, imagination was (and still is) active enough to keep me entertained while I'm sitting in a corner...

[Marnath]

Actually Trog, I understood "That's hot" from an early age. Know how my parents accomplished that? I wanted to touch the stove, but they said no thats hot don't touch it. Being a small child I of course went right back over there as soon as they turned their backs(small children are kinda stupid :smalltongue:) and they let me. I burned myself, and from then on I had empirical evidence that yes, that's hot. :smallwink:

[Morph Bark]

Blast yeah I did. Got my mouth once washed with soap too when I was 5. Cussed only a tenth as much afterwards. I never got why my parents didn't do the same with my youngest brother, since he has always been far worse.

[Elder Tsofu]

1) Nope
2) Nope
3)

sweden was the first...
4)

...in 1979.
5) Not particularly, the world is large so there is always a place for anything.

Link to a booklet about it for those curious about the subject:
http://shop.rb.se/Product/Product.aspx?ItemId=5144041&SectionId=2017327&MenuId=74347
Just be sure to endure what might feel like Sweden propaganda before reaching to the part with the evaluation studies.

[fknm]

[LIST]
Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Yes.

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
No.

Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
No.

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
No.

[Thajocoth]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?


My mom had me at 18, so she didn't know better. She did initially try spanking. Didn't work though... After each hit, after I screamed from the pain, I'd follow it up with "Didn't hurt!" Eventually, she realized that spanking is physical abuse. What worked for me was simply talking to me. I've never broken a rule if I understood why it was a rule. Though, I know that I'm not an average person...

When my mother ran day care later, she used time out and sticker-boards. This was extremely effective. Almost every child who came in was spoiled by their single parent who didn't have the time to figure out how to not spoil them. Within a week of starting, they'd be behaving until their parent showed up. A few more weeks, and they'd behave until they were out the door. A few more and their parent would be asking my mom how she managed to do it. It really pissed the kids off when their parents started using the same tactics, but they'd eventually accept it.

The technique is... You tell the child what they did wrong and send them to a corner. They have to face the corner. After a bit, ask them what they did wrong. If they can't answer, tell them again and have them stay in the corner to repeat this process. It works because they want to play with their toys and their friends, not stand in the corner.

The sticker-boards are to reward good behavior and helping out. It's a sheet of construction paper with the child's name on it. They get a sticker that they can put on it if they do good. It generally didn't take long after kids started in my mom's day care for them to be fighting over who gets to set the table or clean up the blocks because they wanted those stickers.

Spanking, however, teaches only "You should fear the wrath of those who are in charge." Using fear and pain to control a child like this, you're almost guaranteeing mental scarring and unhealthy views of authority.

I'm not shocked at the question... But it makes me sad that, in the modern world, abuse is still so regularly accepted. I didn't know any places started having no spanking laws though. That's good, at least. Hopefully those will spread further.

[MountainKing]

Honestly, I am pro spanking. I know studies have found it damaging, but I personally think whatever damage is negligible, as long as it doesn't develop into full on abuse, and isn't used for every minor infraction. It may sound a bit callous, but I think a mix of negative and positive reinforcement is far better than just positive. Time-out however, will always be the preferred method.

Anecdotal evidence is rather weak evidence in scientific terms, but when it comes down to it, I was spanked, and I learned my lesson.



Also, I would toss out there that if a toddler is trying to do something like run out into traffic a whap on the butt gets the point across to not do that very effectively. At a very young age they simply cannot understand "watch out for cars" or "that's hot" and might ignore the word "no" or any other verbal discouragement or what have you and so a swat on the butt is done to discourage them instead. Basically it beats the alternative of them being injured or killed through their ignorant yet innocent actions. It is done to keep them safe then and in the future.

Now if you start beating the child for every little thing or what have you, that's, of course, completely different.

AMEN to both; I wholeheartedly support sentiments like these, because that's how I was raised (and frankly, I'd like to think it worked out pretty well).


I have to say there is nothing more awkward than seeing a parent spank or threaten their child with spanking in public

I take it you've never watched a 23 year old man arguing with a 6 year old with Asperger's then? Because I've been that man, and let me tell you, it is not a fun time.

Also, for Quin:

1.) Yup. I was a little **** too, so I got it frequently. Over time, I developed a tolerance for it... which lead to escalation (from bare handed to belt; nothing more).
2.) Yes and no. Once I hit seven, physical punishment ceased to have any effect on me, so, physical punishment ceased, and things like losing privilages became the norm. However, with my little brother Ben (six years old now, Asperger's), physical punishment is nearly impossible. The ONE time I tried spanking him, he collapsed to the floor, laughing like he was Heath Ledger's Joker and I was Batman. So, for him, policy has to be different, as physical punishment is next to impossible.
3.) Nope. Don't think so.
4.) Nope; I get into this discussion pretty frequently (ever since I dated a single mom, in fact).

[Mathis]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Yes, though it wasn't spanking. It got more violent than that, and I do not speak to my father to this day. Yes, it is awkward at family gatherings since my relationship with my mother and younger siblings are more than fine meaning there is only one person I ignore.

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Apparently, my little sister and younger brother have never experienced physical dicipline. This might be explained by that there are a few years between us (5 and 7, and I am the oldest.). So yes, my fathers stance on physical dicipline has changed.

Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Yes there is, though until 2008 you could smack your child over the fingers, mildly, to correct it. It was enacted sometime in the 70s I believe, but I am not sure. From 2008 you could no longer twist the wording of the old law in order to: Slap, push, pinch, shake or smack your child mildy across the fingers. This was added to the law Christmas 2008.

Edit:I live in Norway by the way, and in 1972 (Before Sweden in 1979) a law was enacted regarding parents' right to dicipline their children. The wording of the law-text left it's meaning unclear as to whether or not it's purpose was to ban all physical dicipline of your child. And so, in 1987 an addition to the law was made that made it clear that all violence against children was from now on illegal. Still, debate went on about degrees of violence and what classified as violence and so the addition was made in 2008 that specifically mentioned spanking, pushing, pinching, shaking and smacking of fingers.

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
No not really. Our parents grew up in a society where it was socially acceptable to physically dicipline your child and some still think that this is ok today. But I see that if someone in the public media makes a statement that can be interpreted as making a positive remark towards physically diciplining your children, that person creates an uproar of a one-sided debate where it is visible that the majority of the population are against physical diciplination. I could link you to some sources but I doubt you speak any of the scandinavian languages, but if you do please send me a PM and I'll send you the links to the old news articles.

My personal opinion: If one thinks that physical dicipline of ones child or anyone in general is the right way to deal with behavioral problems, one is exhibiting an extraordinarily lacking knowledge of how childrens psychological development actually works. Quite simply, physical dicipline such as spanking, is an easy way out, read: false solution.

[Thajocoth]

I take it you've never watched a 23 year old man arguing with a 6 year old with Asperger's then? Because I've been that man, and let me tell you, it is not a fun time.

As someone with Asperger's, I find this statement very confusing. That is, what the child having Asperger's has to do with anything here...

[Eloel]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Yes

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)

Physical discipline stopped when it had to. Noone able enough to prevent being hit will sit there getting hit, and once you're more able than the primary 'discipliner' (mom, for me), the discipline stops.

Note that I'm not talking about hitting back. I'm talking about preventing being hit, be it by running and locking a door, hiding, or something else.


Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
No laws vs spanking. Laws come in when blood comes out though.

If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Irrelevant question.

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
Actually, yes. There are families that manage to make their children understand things without physical treatment? I'd love to meet them.

[KnightDisciple]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?

1.)Yes. My parents used several methods, including scolding, grounding, and spanking. Spanking was typically the last resort, especially after...well, my memory is a rusty bear trap, but I'd say after 6 or so, I wasn't spanked much. Typically only when I'd made it clear the other punishments weren't working (such as when I agreed "no TV for today as punishment", then ended up sneaking in some TV watching; mom wasn't happy). They used flattened hands, or occasionally one of those inch-wide, foot long, thin paint stir sticks, and only ever on the rear. The force was only enough to sting for a minute or less, never left any marks.
2.)Nope. They didn't use it past a certain age, but that had nothing to do with changing overall stance, and everything to do with finding the best, most applicable punishments. Teenagers react to different discipline than 3-year-olds or 10-year-olds.
3.)According to the link with state laws, not really, no. Of course, it was something like half an eternity since I was in grade school (okay, a little over a decade and change, but still :smalltongue:), so I don't think there were any such laws then, either.
4.)N/A
5.)Not really. This discussion comes in "surges", popping up every now and again. Few people change opinions one way or another.

Anyways, I don't think spanking, if done correctly, is abuse. A big step in that is limiting what tool you use; those paint sticks I mentioned sting, but would likely snap before leaving any bad injuries, even assuming your parent tries that. Flat hands impart the same force over a wider area. And the buttocks have plenty of, ah, "give" to them. The applied force is a big step too.
That said, it shouldn't be the only tool, and it isn't something for all ages. Very young children might need a quick swat of they try something dangerous, like running into the street or something, or touching something hot (I'd rather not have my kid "learn" by getting burned, since that pain lasts longer), or so on. The idea is that the immediate discomfort is less than the potential discomfort if they aren't corrected. Each kid is going to react differently to different types of punishment; one size does not fit all. As they grow older, it's typically best to transition to grounding and such.
The thing is, any discipline brings one sort of fear or another. Whether it's fear of spanking, fear of grounding, fear of lectures...The thing is, we all sit around with, at the minimum, teenage brains. We're able to really sit back and analyze things. I don't recall being nearly so philosophical at 8 years old; things are much simpler, and so your punishments are more direct. It's only with time that the lessons sink in.
I don't condemn those who don't spank; if they can manage it, awesome. But saying that all spanking is "physical abuse" is rather hyperbolic, and honestly pretty false.

[THAC0]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Yes, I think I got popped across the bottom once or twice, but really I was such a goody two-shoes that I didn't need it.

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Not to my knowledge.

Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
Noo, unless you count the "no corporal punishment in schools"

If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
No.

To elaborate, I am against corporal punishment in schools, just because it's so easy for it to be taken the wrong way. I have taught in districts where corporal punishment was still allowed, and it is very highly regulated. But still, too much room for error, IMO.

I am against laws forbidding parents to use reasonable physical discipline, because quite frankly, sometimes, for some children, it's needed.

Now, that said, what some posters in this thread have described, I would classify as abuse, not discipline.

[Cobalt]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
No, and my father takes appropriate pride in this.

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
No.

Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
I'm not aware of one; it's never come up. Though there may be. I never hear anyone complaining about being caned or switched.

If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
N/A

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
Not particularly.

[factotum]

There's an anti-spanking law in the UK now, but there wasn't while I was growing up. Nonetheless, my parents never spanked me except for once--myself and my twin brother had been playing around with our older brother's air rifle, and our mother took the stick to us for that. The sheer shock of it certainly meant we never did it again!

I like to think we've grown up to be reasonably well-adjusted adults despite the almost total lack of physical chastisement, though.

[Trog]

Actually Trog, I understood "That's hot" from an early age. Know how my parents accomplished that? I wanted to touch the stove, but they said no thats hot don't touch it. Being a small child I of course went right back over there as soon as they turned their backs(small children are kinda stupid :smalltongue:) and they let me. I burned myself, and from then on I had empirical evidence that yes, that's hot. :smallwink:
Yeah. Well, if they had spanked you instead you wouldn't have gotten burned would you? :smalltongue:

Incidentally my son learned hot in a similar way. He didn't listen to me (when he was like two or three? I forget) and, before I could stop him and despite multiple stern warnings not to go near the lawnmower ever (it was off, but still hot), he slapped his hand on the muffler of the lawnmower.

And suffered second degree burns.

I had to rush him immediately to the hospital. He had to have some sterilized goop I had to spread on it and had his hand wrapped in bandages for the longest time and he was in pain and misery throughout the better part of the healing process.

Should have spanked him before hand and saved him a lot of pain. Live and learn.

[Xyk]

To me, spanking just looks like operant conditioning. It's treating children like dogs rather than human beings and kids won't understand why what they did is wrong, only that if they do it again, they will be hit again.

I was never spanked, and though not quite an adult yet (17 years old), I have a solid set of morals, reasons behind each of them, and fairly strong willpower. I think it's more important that a parent garner's his/her child's respect and friendship than it is to be seen as an authority figure.

[Thajocoth]

Should have spanked him before hand and saved him a lot of pain. Live and learn.

How would any sort of "punishment" have prevented him from touching the lawnmower while it was hot? He would've had to already touched the mower prior to the "punishment", by which point it was already too late to do anything.

[CynicalAvocado]

i was beat like a red headed stepchild. i'm not as bad of a person now

[Mathis]

How would any sort of "punishment" have prevented him from touching the lawnmower while it was hot? He would've had to already touched the mower prior to the "punishment", by which point it was already too late to do anything.

Read his post again. He's saying he should have spanked his son before he actually touched the mower so that he wouldn't have to suffer second degree burns. Before, not after.

Edit: And also, if I'm not completely wrong, it was said in jest.

[KnightDisciple]

To me, spanking just looks like operant conditioning. It's treating children like dogs rather than human beings and kids won't understand why what they did is wrong, only that if they do it again, they will be hit again.

I was never spanked, and though not quite an adult yet (17 years old), I have a solid set of morals, reasons behind each of them, and fairly strong willpower. I think it's more important that a parent garner's his/her child's respect and friendship than it is to be seen as an authority figure.Um...the parent is an authority figure. That's what they're there for: to teach and guide their kids, while also loving them. Your child should respect you because, one way or another, you're consistent in your discipline and rules, and because you actually know better.

As for "operant conditioning"...um, that's any sort of discipline for the first few years. Yes, kids learn, but there's still the early years where you can't just give them a lecture about "not going into the street". You have to actively enforce it, barring a few rare cases. Three year olds are still learning to speak and stuff; complex concepts are sometimes a bit beyond them. It's part of the learning process.

Edit: Also, I'm thinking Trog meant "spanking before touching", so that the kid didn't touch it. Because the brief sting of a spanking is vastly preferable to 2nd degree burns. But maybe I'm crazy.

[Fiery Diamond]

1) Yes, bare-handed spanking on the bottom.
2) No, but I don't recall what age I was when it stopped and was replaced by other forms of discipline.
3) Except for "not in schools", no.
4) Irrelevant.
5) No, though I am surprised by the number of people here who think that any form of physical discipline is abuse. Frankly, emotional abuse can be just as bad, if not worse, than physical abuse, and if there are laws preventing spanking (which, if done correctly, is not abuse) created in the attempt to stop abuse, a parent who doesn't want to sit back and not discipline the child may move to emotionally abusive methods of controlling the child.

[Diva De]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
oh yes

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not?
perhaps the number of contact, and perhaps object of contact...in a word, no

Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
not that I am aware of

If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
N/A

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
No, and I think that with spanking, you have to be careful. Some people don't understand the difference between "spanking" and "beating". A spanking is a series of light- to mid-strength blows to the buttocks in an attempt to curb negative behavior. It leaves no lasting marks or damage. Beating is hitting anywhere else, with more force, or with objects. There is simply no excuse for that. Now, I have been known to pop a hand or a mouth for particular offenses, but I would never do some of the things people do to their children. No closed hand - ever. No objects (belts, paddles, etc) - ever. No hits to the head - ever. I think that different things work for different families, and it's not really my business what happens in anyone else's home, but...geez. Anything that leaves a bruise IS NOT OK FOR A CHILD.

[Willis888]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?



*yes
*no
*apparently not - see below
*n/a
*yes



{scrubbed}

[Pyrian]

I take it you've never watched a 23 year old man arguing with a 6 year old with Asperger's then? Because I've been that man, and let me tell you, it is not a fun time.
As someone with Asperger's, I find this statement very confusing. That is, what the child having Asperger's has to do with anything here...I'm guessing it means that MountainKing was losing the argument. :smallbiggrin:

I have no doubt that most kids do not need to be spanked to learn how to behave. The most common argument is that some kids do, which is very difficult to assess. Bluntly, it's a chance I'd be willing to take. Because it's used much more as an excuse, from what I've seen, than as a reason per se.

Discipline should be a teaching tool, but far too often what it really is, is an anger-release tool for the parent/guardian. When discipline has more to do with the parent/guardian's state of mind than the actions of the child, you lose control of what you're teaching. My opinion is that such is more the norm than the exception, even though virtually no parent/guardians would ever admit to such a state of affairs.

[Marnath]

Yeah. Well, if they had spanked you instead you wouldn't have gotten burned would you? :smalltongue:


I wouldn't have learned anything from a spanking, now would I? :smalltongue:
Spanking teaches your child that things are bad to do because you'll get beat otherwise. Actually suffering the consequences of disobedience however, taught me that I should listen to my parents because they say things for a reason, not just because they want to hit me.

To be fair though, it wasn't super hot, I didn't suffer serious injury: they actually worked it out to teach me a lesson without too much harm. From then on though, when they warned me to stay off the road, or not to go near a running lawnmower, I listened because while I did not understand why, I clearly remembered that they had been right before. Except that one time I decided to get up on the piano bench after they told me not to. Slipped in my sock feet off the slippery finish, and whacked my head but good on the corner. As my dad cradled me in his lap(which is where I came to at O.o) he held some gauze to my forehead to stop the bleeding and said "next time you'll listen, won't you?" Yup, I sure did. :smalltongue:

[Thajocoth]

Edit: Also, I'm thinking Trog meant "spanking before touching", so that the kid didn't touch it. Because the brief sting of a spanking is vastly preferable to 2nd degree burns. But maybe I'm crazy.

But... That wouldn't prevent them from touching it. They've done nothing to associate the abuse with yet at that point, so the pain and fear are merely directed towards the authority figure, not the act he's trying to prevent. :smallconfused:

[KnightDisciple]

I wouldn't have learned anything from a spanking, now would I? :smalltongue:
Spanking teaches your child that things are bad to do because you'll get beat otherwise. Actually suffering the consequences of disobedience however, taught me that I should listen to my parents because they say things for a reason, not just because they want to hit me.

To be fair though, it wasn't super hot, I didn't suffer serious injury: they actually worked it out to teach me a lesson without too much harm. From then on though, when they warned me to stay off the road, or not to go near a running lawnmower, I listened because while I did not understand why, I clearly remembered that they had been right before. Except that one time I decided to get up on the piano bench after they told me not to. Slipped in my sock feet off the slippery finish, and whacked my head but good on the corner. As my dad cradled me in his lap(which is where I came to at O.o) he held some gauze to my forehead to stop the bleeding and said "next time you'll listen, won't you?" Yup, I sure did. :smalltongue:What if a kid runs into a street, and suffers the consequence of being dead?

Again, proper spanking involves no lasting pain. By the time your kid can understand more than "that's bad because mommy and daddy say so", spanking is likely used incredibly rarely, if at all.

But I'd rather my kid spend a couple years thinking "I won't touch the stove or run into the street because mommy and daddy will spank me" than them badly burning himself, or getting killed by a car.

Edit
But... That wouldn't prevent them from touching it. They've done nothing to associate the abuse with yet at that point, so the pain and fear are merely directed towards the authority figure, not the act he's trying to prevent. :smallconfused:First, please stop calling it "abuse". By doing so, you're implicitly calling every parent who's ever used corporal punishment an abusive parent, inherently less worthy and tainted by evil in comparison to non-spanking parents. I. Do. Not. Appreciate. It.:smallannoyed:

Second: Kids can at least make the association "if I try this, mom or dad will punish me in some way, so I won't do it". It's not rocket science, they can make that leap. In time, they'll be able to more fully understand the reasoning.

[Thajocoth]

By the time your kid can understand more than "that's bad because mommy and daddy say so", spanking is likely used incredibly rarely, if at all.

That age is generally 2. When my parents rand a day care, an awful lot of 3-year olds came through. Every last one was able to understand simple explanations. (At least, after the first week of being there...)

[Quincunx]

But... That wouldn't prevent them from touching it. They've done nothing to associate the abuse with yet at that point, so the pain and fear are merely directed towards the authority figure, not the act he's trying to prevent. :smallconfused:

. . .That's not how normal toddlers think. What you perceive as the separation between punishment and act is, in the toddler's mind, the separation between their will (I did not get punished) and reality (I did get punished). Forgive the lack of psychology terminology, but I'm referring to the time before kids realize that the outside world exists and goes on existing without them. . .the stage before they can interpret a model or a map. . .

[Pyrian]

But I'd rather my kid spend a couple years thinking "I won't touch the stove or run into the street because mommy and daddy will spank me" than them badly burning himself, or getting killed by a car....Hyperbole much? :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

I wouldn't have learned anything from a spanking, now would I? :smalltongue:
Spanking teaches your child that things are bad to do because you'll get beat otherwise. Actually suffering the consequences of disobedience however, taught me that I should listen to my parents because they say things for a reason, not just because they want to hit me.

Wait. So, did they set up a stove so that you'd end up burning yourself on a low temperature setting rather than one hot enough to give you severe damage or did they have you out in the yard while the lawn mower was running while you were young and dumb enough to go near it and touch it at all?

Also, how old were you?

By the time a child is capable of playing piano they're past the point where spanking serves any parenting purpose. :smallconfused: So I don't really understand what your point is with that one.

You have a strange view on how parents approach this sort of thing. Most (admittedly a small handful due to the private nature of such things) of the parents I've known have couched physical intervention to their children in a much different framework than that anyway. Even when I was 3 I knew they weren't doing it because they wanted to.

[Thajocoth]

. . .That's not how normal toddlers think.

They think the same as anyone else, they just don't know a whole lot yet. So yes, it is.

[KnightDisciple]

That age is generally 2. When my parents rand a day care, an awful lot of 3-year olds came through. Every last one was able to understand simple explanations. (At least, after the first week of being there...)Those are some darn smart 2 and 3 year olds.

I'm not saying they can't understand it at all, ever. But young kids can be just as rebellious as older kids. I'm not saying you point them at the mower, then spank them and yell "No!". First you say "don't touch it". If they try again a couple of times, you move them away and say "no". If they still try, then you give them a swat.

[Pyrian]

I find the age parameters discussed here interesting. In most discussions I've had on the subject, the notion was entirely reversed; the kid had to be quite a bit older before they were capable of formulating plans evil enough to be worth a spanking. In those discussions, the very idea of spanking a mere toddler was agreed by all parties to be ridiculous and patently unnecessary.

[KnightDisciple]

...Hyperbole much? :smalltongue:*Points to Trog's story* Not really?

[Coidzor]

They think the same as anyone else, they just don't know a whole lot yet. So yes, it is.

:smallconfused: No they don't. Their language and critical thinking skills are still developing. Hell, some people don't develop their full ability to think until their 20s.

[Thajocoth]

Those are some darn smart 2 and 3 year olds.

I'm not saying they can't understand it at all, ever. But young kids can be just as rebellious as older kids. I'm not saying you point them at the mower, then spank them and yell "No!". First you say "don't touch it". If they try again a couple of times, you move them away and say "no". If they still try, then you give them a swat.

But if a parent were negligent enough for the child to be near the hot mower, how would they prevent them from touching it the first time they tried to?

There should be plastic in all outlets, gates over every stairs, hands should be held when near streets, ect... The child should never be in a situation where they CAN get burns or hit by cars or whatnot until they can understand rules well enough...


Those are some darn smart 2 and 3 year olds.

I'm not saying they can't understand it at all, ever. But young kids can be just as rebellious as older kids...

And if you know how to discipline properly, and reward good behavior, they cease to be. Just like almost anyone else.

[Quincunx]

They think the same as anyone else, they just don't know a whole lot yet. So yes, it is.

. . .they truly don't. Read up on developmental psychology. It's interesting to see adults with full-grown cognitive abilities try to develop tests for testing what's "known" and seeing at what ages those "known" methods of thought. . .aren't. (Nor is leaving an outlet uncovered to see at which age a child 'knows' not to stick a hand OR a tool into it considered an ethical experiment. :P)

[Thajocoth]

:smallconfused: No they don't. Their language and critical thinking skills are still developing. Hell, some people don't develop their full ability to think until their 20s.

That has nothing to do with being able to understand basic cause and effect. That's there on instinct, for almost everything that can breathe. I'm not talking about chemistry here... I'm talking about the basic "That's dangerous, you shouldn't do it." Which is a case that should almost never be able to come up anyway...


. . .they truly don't. Read up on developmental psychology. It's interesting to see adults with full-grown cognitive abilities try to develop tests for testing what's "known" and seeing at what ages those "known" methods of thought. . .aren't. (Nor is leaving an outlet uncovered to see at which age a child 'knows' not to stick a hand OR a tool into it considered an ethical experiment. :P)

I've taken courses on developmental psych when I was in college... I was initially going to double major. And I stand by what I've said.

[Juhn]

Also, I would toss out there that if a toddler is trying to do something like run out into traffic a whap on the butt gets the point across to not do that very effectively. At a very young age they simply cannot understand "watch out for cars" or "that's hot" and might ignore the word "no" or any other verbal discouragement or what have you and so a swat on the butt is done to discourage them instead. Basically it beats the alternative of them being injured or killed through their ignorant yet innocent actions. It is done to keep them safe then and in the future.

Now if you start beating the child for every little thing or what have you, that's, of course, completely different.

This is pretty much exactly how my parents thought about spanking, and I support them in having done so.

[Milskidasith]

I find the age parameters discussed here interesting. In most discussions I've had on the subject, the notion was entirely reversed; the kid had to be quite a bit older before they were capable of formulating plans evil enough to be worth a spanking. In those discussions, the very idea of spanking a mere toddler was agreed by all parties to be ridiculous and patently unnecessary.

Well, here are some reasons I can think of:

Toddlers are much more likely to be persistent. You can tell a ten year old "don't stick your hand on the stove" and he'll probably understand. Toddlers... not so much.

Toddlers have a much lower pain tolerance (or at least I recall having a lower pain tolerance). You could probably swat a toddler pretty lightly and still make them understand it was bad... hitting an older kid is much less likely to have any impact unless it starts turning into full on abuse.

Toddlers can't be punished by sending them to their room or taking away things. Seriously, what can you take away from a toddler? How do you send them to their room without forcing yourself into exile there as well? I mean, you could put them in a crib, I suppose, but it's probably a lot more emotionally impacting for a kid over ten or so (or even younger, I dunno) to be unable to visit friends or use facebook or a cell phone than it is to send a toddler to their playpen or... take away their stuffed animal, I guess?

So basically... you can presumably spank toddlers lighter to get the same emotional impact (so it's not damaging), they're more likely to keep trying so you need to do something strong to prove it is a bad idea, and the other punishments aren't really as effective. I still don't really support the idea of spanking anybody, but toddlers actually seem like an edge case where, if they really do keep trying something life threatening, it might be a reasonable thing to do.

[Elfin]

*Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
No, never.

*Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
I don't think so, no.

*Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
Sadly, I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

*If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
-

*Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
Yes; I had no idea at all that physical discipline was this widespread. I'd assumed there wasn't much left of corporal punishment.

[Marnath]

Wait. So, did they set up a stove so that you'd end up burning yourself on a low temperature setting rather than one hot enough to give you severe damage or did they have you out in the yard while the lawn mower was running while you were young and dumb enough to go near it and touch it at all?

Also, how old were you?

By the time a child is capable of playing piano they're past the point where spanking serves any parenting purpose. :smallconfused: So I don't really understand what your point is with that one.

You have a strange view on how parents approach this sort of thing. Most (admittedly a small handful due to the private nature of such things) of the parents I've known have couched physical intervention to their children in a much different framework than that anyway. Even when I was 3 I knew they weren't doing it because they wanted to.

Yeah, they had it set low so I wouldn't get hurt too bad, just enough to get the point across. I never meant to imply that I was playing the piano, I just thought it would be cool to stand on the bench because I didn't know better. I was pretty young.

[Ippolit]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Not as such no, but I have a very vivid memory of one time when my sister and I, who I guess must have been five and four years respectively, were getting ready to leave the house. We were running late and my sister was throwing a tantrum because she didn't want to go and also insisted on tying her own shoelaces, which according to my father was taking too long . After a quick argument and with lots of screaming my father proceed to spank my sister three times. To this day I remember how scared and betrayed this made me feel.

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
The only mention of this incident my father has made was that he, since he only hit us once, for justifiable reasons could not have been that bad a father...

Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
Yes

If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
15 March 1979 (Sweden)

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
Not Really

Speaking only from my personal experience, when a parent forfeits the role of the protector to become an aggressor, if only for that short a period, it is bound to adversely affect the child.
No matter how one tries to rationalize it I don't see it ever being justifiable and I think children at the time of being subjected to this "discipline" would be prone to agree.


{scrubbed}

[Thajocoth]

Well, here are some reasons I can think of:

Toddlers are much more likely to be persistent. You can tell a ten year old "don't stick your hand on the stove" and he'll probably understand. Toddlers... not so much.

Toddlers have a much lower pain tolerance (or at least I recall having a lower pain tolerance). You could probably swat a toddler pretty lightly and still make them understand it was bad... hitting an older kid is much less likely to have any impact unless it starts turning into full on abuse.

Toddlers can't be punished by sending them to their room or taking away things. Seriously, what can you take away from a toddler? How do you send them to their room without forcing yourself into exile there as well? I mean, you could put them in a crib, I suppose, but it's probably a lot more emotionally impacting for a kid over ten or so (or even younger, I dunno) to be unable to visit friends or use facebook or a cell phone than it is to send a toddler to their playpen or... take away their stuffed animal, I guess?

So basically... you can presumably spank toddlers lighter to get the same emotional impact (so it's not damaging), they're more likely to keep trying so you need to do something strong to prove it is a bad idea, and the other punishments aren't really as effective. I still don't really support the idea of spanking anybody, but toddlers actually seem like an edge case where, if they really do keep trying something life threatening, it might be a reasonable thing to do.

#1 - They're softer and more fragile. The same nerve signals cover a smaller area. They have no callouses. So you're right. Their pain tolerance is much lower.

#2 - A toddler wants to play. You CAN take away play. Standing in a corner, facing the corner, with their hands at their sides is incredibly boring, especially for a toddler. They WILL learn from that if you do it right (as I explained it in an earlier post)... And it will be without physical abuse. And don't forget the importance of positive reinforcement too!

#3 - A hot stove shouldn't be where a toddler CAN get to it. So this is a ridiculous scenario anyway.

So no edge cases where it's reasonable... It's never reasonable.

[Deth Muncher]

I was spanked. At a very young age it worked, but as I grew older it pretty well wore off. Desensitization, I suppose?

[Milskidasith]

#2 - A toddler wants to play. You CAN take away play. Standing in a corner, facing the corner, with their hands at their sides is incredibly boring, especially for a toddler. They WILL learn from that if you do it right (as I explained it in an earlier post)... And it will be without physical abuse. And don't forget the importance of positive reinforcement too!

The problem is that "stand in a corner" is not something that is easy to enforce without taking up 100% of a parent's time in order to do so, nor does it work in any "outside" situation. You can't punish a toddler acting out in a store by saying that he can't play, because it is unlikely they'd understand that concept, and you certainly can't stand them in a corner. As I said earlier in this, it also takes all of the parent's attention to keep a toddler standing in a corner, compared to the relatively minimal effort it takes to make sure an older kid isn't playing video games or on facebook or whatever.


#3 - A hot stove shouldn't be where a toddler CAN get to it. So this is a ridiculous scenario anyway.

Replace with "any situation the toddler can harm themselves." Because yes, there are plenty of them.

[Helanna]

#2 - A toddler wants to play. You CAN take away play. Standing in a corner, facing the corner, with their hands at their sides is incredibly boring, especially for a toddler. They WILL learn from that if you do it right (as I explained it in an earlier post)... And it will be without physical abuse. And don't forget the importance of positive reinforcement too!

So what do you recommend if the child REFUSES to stand in a corner? Running around, throwing things, throwing a fit, etc. I'm not using this as a counter-point or anything, I'm just curious.


#3 - A hot stove shouldn't be where a toddler CAN get to it. So this is a ridiculous scenario anyway.

. . . You think a toddler being able to reach a stove is ridiculous? Because I don't know about you, but my stove is in my kitchen. I can't really move it anywhere else. And toddlers can most definitely reach the top of it. There is not a way for me to child-proof my stove. If a spanking'll stop them from touching it and getting badly burned, then I would certainly spank them.

Spanking is certainly a good way to get through to a small child. My mom says she only ever spanked me once - after I ran into the street while she wasn't watching. Apparently, I never, ever did that again, and I certainly don't have any form of mental scarring - I can't even remember anything about it - so I'd say it worked pretty well.

Myself:

1) My mom almost never used it with me and my 16 year old sister, but she used it a lot more for my 11 year old sister.
2) Nope.
3) A quick search claims that we have barely any laws about it - a parent can use any non-excessive force s/he deems necessary to maintain order.
4) --
5) Nope. I know this is a controversial topic.

I know my mom and I spanked my youngest sister a lot - she was IMPOSSIBLE to control in any other manner. We stopped after it lost all effectiveness, and now she's just impossible to control period. Including, now, bringing her to her bedroom, because if you grab her arm and try to drag her there, she will fight so hard that she WILL end up hurting herself, and then screaming that you're abusing her at the top of her lungs.

Although I vividly remember one time when I was babysitting my sister, and she was moving around and I ended up slapping the back of her leg hard enough to leave a bright red mark. When my mom got home she was pissed at everyone, and was yelling a lot. I ran off and was crying. She thought it was because I was so stressed about how impossible my sister was, and was surprised that I was crying because I didn't mean to hit her so hard.

[Thajocoth]

The problem is that "stand in a corner" is not something that is easy to enforce without taking up 100% of a parent's time in order to do so, nor does it work in any "outside" situation. You can't punish a toddler acting out in a store by saying that he can't play, because it is unlikely they'd understand that concept, and you certainly can't stand them in a corner. As I said earlier in this, it also takes all of the parent's attention to keep a toddler standing in a corner, compared to the relatively minimal effort it takes to make sure an older kid isn't playing video games or on facebook or whatever.



Replace with "any situation the toddler can harm themselves." Because yes, there are plenty of them.

Not really... When my mom used to do this with the kids in her day care, children in time out were in a corner in a different room entirely, and mostly did as they were told. When there's anger in someone's voice, the kid instinctively knows they're already in trouble, and won't want to make it worse. She'd check on them often, and snap things like "face the wall" or "hands down", but mostly didn't need to pay direct attention, and it worked great.

In a store... You give them time out when you get home. My mom would give time outs the next morning if children in her day care suddenly ignored all the rules when their parents arrived (which was the norm after the first week generally, which is how long it took for the time out method to get them to otherwise behave most of the time). Within a few weeks of that, they'd mostly behave until they were out the door.

[Brother Oni]

Spanking, however, teaches only "You should fear the wrath of those who are in charge." Using fear and pain to control a child like this, you're almost guaranteeing mental scarring and unhealthy views of authority.

I'm not shocked at the question... But it makes me sad that, in the modern world, abuse is still so regularly accepted. I didn't know any places started having no spanking laws though. That's good, at least. Hopefully those will spread further.

I'm curious about your stance on this. Is it an actual belief of this, or are you playing Devil's Advocate for the purposes of this discussion?

As I mentioned earlier, physical punishment for children is far more common in certain cultures. As another poster mentioned, it's very common in Asian societies - are you therefore saying that all children raised in an Asian way are mentally scarred with unhealthy views of authority?

I was raised in such a society and I was punished, sometimes severely, but the punishment was always appropriate. I was a bit of a pyromaniac when I was younger - I would like to see your suggested punishment for attempting to burn the house down.


Not really... When my mom used to do this with the kids in her day care, children in time out were in a corner in a different room entirely, and mostly did as they were told. When there's anger in someone's voice, the kid instinctively knows they're already in trouble, and won't want to make it worse. She'd check on them often, and snap things like "face the wall" or "hands down", but mostly didn't need to pay direct attention, and it worked great.

So what do you do if the child is either too young to understand what you're telling them to do, or don't speak a language that you do?

As mentioned earlier, on small children, telling them to stand in a corner simply won't work unless you sit there and watch them, making sure they don't move. And that's if they understand what they're supposed to do in the first place.

[Thajocoth]

So what do you recommend if the child REFUSES to stand in a corner? Running around, throwing things, throwing a fit, etc. I'm not using this as a counter-point or anything, I'm just curious.



. . . You think a toddler being able to reach a stove is ridiculous? Because I don't know about you, but my stove is in my kitchen. I can't really move it anywhere else. And toddlers can most definitely reach the top of it. There is not a way for me to child-proof my stove. If a spanking'll stop them from touching it and getting badly burned, then I would certainly spank them.

First part - Not likely to occur. Tone of voice can be a powerful thing.

Second part - Why doesn't their play area have one of those half-gates? Why are they in the kitchen?


I'm curious about your stance on this. Is it an actual belief of this, or are you playing Devil's Advocate for the purposes of this discussion?

As I mentioned earlier, physical punishment for children is far more common in certain cultures. As another poster mentioned, it's very common in Asian societies - are you therefore saying that all children raised in an Asian way are mentally scarred with unhealthy views of authority?

I was raised in such a society and I was punished, sometimes severely, but the punishment was always appropriate. I was a bit of a pyromaniac when I was younger - I would like to see your suggested punishment for attempting to burn the house down.

I'm stating my opinions, mixed with some facts. The main two being:
Child should never be spanked = my opinion.
Spanking is physical abuse = fact.

As for whole societies being scarred and having unhealthy views... Almost all adults could benefit from some time with a psychologist. At least here in the USA... Including myself here. I'm not entirely sure that it's "almost" all. Might be ALL adults. Society itself has more problems to fix than most individual people in it. This issue is one of them.


So what do you do if the child is either too young to understand what you're telling them to do, or don't speak a language that you do?

As mentioned earlier, on small children, telling them to stand in a corner simply won't work unless you sit there and watch them, making sure they don't move. And that's if they understand what they're supposed to do in the first place.

The first... If they're too young to speak and understand, then they're too young to have done anything wrong to require punishment and should be in enclosed play areas.

For languages... Those tend to be fairly standard. Regions have languages everyone speaks. This is a rare border-case. I don't claim to know the answer to every last border case. Also, spanking in this case may make the child fear people who speak your language in general.

For the last part, tone of voice works wonders. They'll listen. And if they don't, use a mostly empty room... Perhaps with just a bed in it or something. Shut the door. Picking up and moving a small child should be easy enough.

[Brother Oni]

Second part - Why doesn't their play area have one of those half-gates? Why are they in the kitchen?

My son figured out how to climb out of his cot when he was one, shortly before he started walking. At 2 he could scale a 1m playpen using his toes to grip the bars. Climbing up onto a table or reaching a hob would not be difficult, especially with chairs and stools about.



Spanking is physical abuse = fact.


This I cannot see as fact. I can find no legal definition for smacking beyond 'lightly hitting a child', at least not in the Child's Act 2004.



As for whole societies being scarred and having unhealthy views... Almost all adults could benefit from some time with a psychologist. At least here in the USA... Including myself here. I'm not entirely sure that it's "almost" all. Might be ALL adults. Society itself has more problems to fix than most individual people in it. This issue is one of them.

So in your opinion, at least 20% of the world's population could benefit with some time with a psychologist? :smallamused:

I think I'm going to step out of this now, before I break board rules by ranting.

[KnightDisciple]

Um, "spanking=physical abuse" is not a "fact", at least not in the universal sense. As you can see, the status of that statement (fact or opinion) is still hotly contested.

So yeah, not really a "fact".:smallconfused:

[Thajocoth]

Um, "spanking=physical abuse" is not a "fact", at least not in the universal sense. As you can see, the status of that statement (fact or opinion) is still hotly contested.

So yeah, not really a "fact".:smallconfused:

Contested only for a lack of understanding terms.

Definition of physical abuse = Any purposeful application of physical pain.

[Morph Bark]

Not really... When my mom used to do this with the kids in her day care, children in time out were in a corner in a different room entirely, and mostly did as they were told. When there's anger in someone's voice, the kid instinctively knows they're already in trouble, and won't want to make it worse. She'd check on them often, and snap things like "face the wall" or "hands down", but mostly didn't need to pay direct attention, and it worked great.

Anecdotal "evidence" doesn't really work though. Not everyone is the same, some people just send out a natural aura of authority, and your mother likely is also much more experienced with little children due to her line of work, so she knows much better how to use her body language and tone of voice in just the right way and saying just the right things to make the toddlers do what she tells them to do. Many parents will eventually be able to master some parts of that, perhaps, but not all, and with the first child, especially if they have no prior experience with other people's little ones, they might find it really hard.

[Thajocoth]

My son figured out how to climb out of his cot when he was one, shortly before he started walking. At 2 he could scale a 1m playpen using his toes to grip the bars. Climbing up onto a table or reaching a hob would not be difficult, especially with chairs and stools about.

There are probably more secure, less climbable gates you can get.

[KnightDisciple]

Contested only for a lack of understanding terms.

Definition of physical abuse = Any purposeful application of physical pain.Yeah, some internet searching reveals that it's not quite so clear-cut and universal, and that spanking is constantly under debate one way or another.

[Thajocoth]

Yeah, some internet searching reveals that it's not quite so clear-cut and universal, and that spanking is constantly under debate one way or another.

There are forms of physical abuse that aren't bad... For example, if a person WANTS to be hurt. (Common for sexual fetishes.) Or if a person's otherwise going to hurt someone else, and you can't come up with one of the ways to prevent them from doing so. (There's always at least one. It's not always obvious.)

People who are pro-spanking, don't believe it to be a bad form of physical abuse. I believe it is.

I don't think I know the exact answer for every case... But I'm quite sure there IS a viable alternative in EVERY case.

[Mercenary Pen]

1- Yes I did indeed

2- Yes, but more as a way of finding punishments that would actually mean something as we grew older and capable of reason ourselves.

3- There are now laws that limit spanking (no use of implements, no leaving marks)

4- United Kingdom (2004 according to Brother Oni)

5- No, not really.


Having spoken with my mother on this a few years ago much of the reason she agreed to use corporal punishment was in an attempt to avoid being like her mother... Her mother didn't use corporal punishment but instead gave lectures that went on past all reason- and then continued any number of weeks later at no provocation at all. She felt it was better for us to be disciplined at the time for the things we had got wrong, rather than to be disciplined for all time for things that should have been dead and buried years before...

[KnightDisciple]

There are forms of physical abuse that aren't bad... For example, if a person WANTS to be hurt. (Common for sexual fetishes.) Or if a person's otherwise going to hurt someone else, and you can't come up with one of the ways to prevent them from doing so. (There's always at least one. It's not always obvious.)

People who are pro-spanking, don't believe it to be a bad form of physical abuse. I believe it is.Couching it in the terms "physical abuse" brings an inherent negative bias to the discussion, though. I realize that's the bias you yourself carry, but you must realize that it unconsciously attempts to swing the discussion in your favor. Hence objections to that equivocation.

[Brother Oni]

There are probably more secure, less climbable gates you can get.

He can climb this sort of gate (http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Search?storeId=10001&catalogId=1500002451&langId=-1&searchTerms=SAFETY+GATE) with ease.

Playpens like this (http://www.mothercare.com/gp/search/ref=sr/279-1421970-2627157?Action=submit&rh=n%3A42764041&field-keywords=play+pen&x=0&y=0) aren't much better as he can get better leverage due to the angle on the sides.

There simply aren't any other type of gate that are sold for dividing up a room. Gates and pens with soft sides would just be torn in less than a week.

I'd like to point out that not all parents use physical punishment as a first option - for many it's the last, where other attempts have been tried and failed.



The first... If they're too young to speak and understand, then they're too young to have done anything wrong to require punishment and should be in enclosed play areas.


As I said earlier, my son is 2 and he doesn't yet speak any language beyond the odd word. Enclosed play areas don't hold him.



For languages... Those tend to be fairly standard. Regions have languages everyone speaks. This is a rare border-case. I don't claim to know the answer to every last border case. Also, spanking in this case may make the child fear people who speak your language in general.


In the UK and the European Economic Area, immigration is commonplace, especially economic migrants. There are a number of schools where the children speak English as a second language, if at all. This is not to mention care centres and the like where the children are young enough not to fully understand their native language.



For the last part, tone of voice works wonders. They'll listen.


Tone of voice is not universal - some languages are naturally harsher or simply louder. For example my wife took a long time to work out that I wasn't arguing with my parents and that my native language was naturally spoken in a hard loud manner.



And if they don't, use a mostly empty room... Perhaps with just a bed in it or something. Shut the door. Picking up and moving a small child should be easy enough.

Some parents don't have the luxury of a mostly empty room. Shutting the door can also result in you trapping the child's toes underneath the door as they've been screaming and hammering on the door non-stop.



I don't think I know the exact answer for every case... But I'm quite sure there IS a viable alternative in EVERY case.

To put it bluntly, testicles. Viable alternative for a 6 year old attempting to commit arson?

[Coidzor]

There are forms of physical abuse that aren't bad...

Ah, no. You see, abuse is by its definition a bad thing. BDSM and such, ignoring any potential other moral quagmires involved with it, if one of the parties desires pain due to having crossed wires in their brain making it pleasurable to them, it is not abusive for the other person to give it to them.

[ForzaFiori]

1) Yes, I was spanked as a child, both with hands and with belts when my dad realized that his hand wasn't working

2) No.

3) It's considered physical abuse/assault if you raise a welt, but as long as that doesn't happen, it's legal

4) South Carolina (upstate SC, to be specific)

I see nothing wrong with spanking. It's not illegal here, and it's still really common in the south (not sure about the north). Personally, I think that sometimes everyone just needs to get an idea smacked into them if they just aren't getting it. As for the "mental scarring", I say it's pretty much bull. Don't get me wrong, if you truly abuse your child, yea, they'll be messed up. But spanking your kids is not the same thing. I was spanked until I was 8 or 9, when I just stopped letting it bother me, at which point I started getting grounded. I live a fine life know, and my few mental problems are not linked to that (dyslexia from birth, slight memory problems from 10 concussions)

[Elder Tsofu]

. . . You think a toddler being able to reach a stove is ridiculous? Because I don't know about you, but my stove is in my kitchen. I can't really move it anywhere else. And toddlers can most definitely reach the top of it. There is not a way for me to child-proof my stove. If a spanking'll stop them from touching it and getting badly burned, then I would certainly spank them.

We probably have higher stoves in Sweden, but the one I've seen here in the US is about the same so...

Its not unusual to put one of these one either:
http://www.byggfaktadocu.se/10/product/54/98/36/Spisen_th.jpg
It adds some height.

We also have plastic round corners to put on edges, and child-resistant locks on the cupboards.

You can usually child-proof your home quite a bit. (atleast in Sweden)

(Ofcourse this only works in the early ages when they don't know better)

[Mercenary Pen]

We also have plastic round corners to put on edges, and child-resistant locks on the cupboards.

You can usually child-proof your home quite a bit. (atleast in Sweden)

(Ofcourse this only works in the early ages when they don't know better)

In my experience, Child-proofing rarely works. Any time they try to use a cunning mechanism rather than 'this simply requires too much force for a child to achieve' the child will eventually manage it out of trial and error- a perfect example of this is the supposedly child-proof caps on medicine bottles, which would more correctly be marketed as pensioner-proof caps...

[Trog]

In response to all this hulabaloo over my example I give you this:

It worked. My kids have grown up happy and healthy and don't fear for their life nor think any less of me for having taught them that lesson at that time... if they, indeed, remember it at all. My parents did the same to me for running out in the street when I was young (so I heard later) and despite the fact that I myself at that age probably didn't understand what I had done wrong, I damn well learned not to do it and later, when I was capable of understanding, why I wasn't supposed to do it.

All I cared about was keeping my child safe and making sure he knew not to engage in activities that could get himself killed without scarring them for life doing so.

Mission accomplished.

This is used by a LOT of parents in dangerous situations and the only people, in my experience, who ever decry this have never raised a kid themselves. Cue someone stating that they have raised a kid and still decry it. Cue me also not giving a dire rat's ass about their opinion. *shrug*

[Elder Tsofu]

In my experience, Child-proofing rarely works. Any time they try to use a cunning mechanism rather than 'this simply requires too much force for a child to achieve

No cunning mechanisms here - more or less raw force need to be applied. :smallsmile:

[Marnath]

I feel the need to point out that I wasn't arguing against spanking earlier, I was just mentioning an alternative that worked in my specific case.

[Lioness]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline? Yes, though nothing more than a smack on the butt if I did something really wrong.

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please). I suppose. As I got older, I either didn't misbehave as much, or they decided that I was old enough to reason with.

Is there a no-spanking law where you live? Not that I'm aware of.

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question? Nope, things like this vary from family to family.

I don't really have a problem with it, as long as the spanking isn't overly painful, persistent, or damaging. It's a negative consequence. Child does something bad. Something bad is followed by small pain. Child probably won't be keen to do something bad again.
It only works to a certain age, and shouldn't be a first resort. We were sat in a "naughty corner" for a few minutes, and we hated it there. If we refused to go in, there'd be a smack on the bottom or wrist.

[CynicalAvocado]

none of the other little kid era punishments worked for me
timeout- used as naptime
grounding- cut a hole in my screen and left
loss of computer privileges- used my friend's

[IthroZada]

At Thajocoth: I won't argue with you about whether spanking is abuse or not, I seriously doubt we would be able to convince each other of anything considering how you stated in another thread that you believe that their is always a non-violent solution, and I can't even say that you are necessarily wrong.

I do think you are overstating how easy it is to keep a child out of danger. How many children have gotten stitches in their head from simply running over a hardwood floor? How do you childproof that? I'm not turning my house into a rubber ward. Secondly, I'm confident the human psyche is more than resilient enough to handle spanking. I seriously doubt society could have progressed beyond the stone age if that was the case.

[Pyrian]

See, I approach it from the opposite angle: corporal punishment is inherently wrong, and short of solid proof of benefit, I can't justify it. There definitely seems to be a very strong cultural angle. But given that cultures that don't believe in it seem to do alright, that's reason enough to abandon it, IMO.

When you have "I was spanked and I turned out alright" versus "I wasn't spanked and I turned out alright", I'm going with the latter. :smallconfused:

[THAC0]

Some of you seem to have only experienced extraordinarily well-behaved children! Which is great for you, but not for those of us who have experienced poorly-behaved children.

[Pyrian]

Clearly, then, it follows that children who aren't spanked behave better! :smallbiggrin:

[THAC0]

Clearly, then, it follows that children who aren't spanked behave better! :smallbiggrin:

Or perhaps the ones that are well-behaved are sekretly spanked at home! :smallwink:

[onthetown]

My mom never laid a hand on me, but my dad would hit me if I ever got out of hand. Not spanking, either.

I was always a lot more well-behaved than the other kids my age who were allowed to run wild, but I was also quieter and more fearful. It may have taught me to smarten up when the situation calls for it, but I'd rather see good parenting than resorting to physical violence to keep your kids in line.

I imagine spanking is along the same lines as this, though less abusive.

[Krade]

Before I post on topic, I feel it is incredibly important for me to point out that negative reinforcement (http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/proj/nru/nr.html) is not the same as punishment.
The concept of Negative Reinforcement is difficult to teach and learn because of the word negative. Negative Reinforcement is often confused with Punishment. They are very different, however.

Negative Reinforcement strengthens a behavior because a negative condition is stopped or avoided as a consequence of the behavior.

Punishment, on the other hand, weakens a behavior because a negative condition is introduced or experienced as a consequence of the behavior.
Yes, I was spanked.So were all four of my older brothers. Though far more effective was when we had to hold out our hands ourselves and get them smacked. Still stings, doesn't hurt for long, also taught us to sit still and deal with the punishment. Probably has something to do with my chronic honesty.

Don't know if they ever changed their minds though as I was the youngest and I still got it (though my brothers getting in trouble taught me a LOT about how to not get it).

Not sure if there are laws or not. Never had a reason to check.

And no, not shocked at the question.

Now that all that is out of the way, I find discussions/arguments on physical discipline to be a waste of time. It is far too divided an issue. No one is going to change thier minds about anything.

Edit: Yeah I quoted a post below me. What of it?
Or it makes no real difference and whether the children are of any worth is based entirely on the game of russian roulette that is genetics and the ability of parents to nurture their young, provide adequate resources to them, and instill the values in them to utilize those resources properly.Pretty much this.

[Coidzor]

Or it makes no real difference and whether the children are of any worth is based entirely on the game of russian roulette that is genetics and the ability of parents to nurture their young, provide adequate resources to them, and instill the values in them to utilize those resources properly.

[Helanna]

So a question for those who do not believe in physical discipline:

What do you suggest for a child who will not behave? They will refuse to stand in a corner, will run around avoiding you screaming at the top of their lungs, throw things at the walls or other people, break things, hit people, kick people, throw a tantrum . . . and they have already broken their door in such a way that you have no place to put them (you can't lock them in their room.)

Come to that, what do you think about locking children in their rooms? When my mother talked to a counselor about alternative punishments, we were told not to lock my sister in a room at all, because that has just as many negative effects for her.

[Diva De]

Come to that, what do you think about locking children in their rooms? When my mother talked to a counselor about alternative punishments, we were told not to lock my sister in a room at all, because that has just as many negative effects for her.

Where I live, locking a child in their bedroom means you can be charged with neglect.

[Moonshadow]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?

Yes. I got both the hand and the wooden spoon.

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)

Maybe not conciously, but they didn't really do it to my youngest brother, but there is a 12 year age gap between me and him.

Is there a no-spanking law where you live?

Don't know.

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?

No, not really. I'm more surprised at the people coming in here and saying that they're surprised over the amount of spanking still going on.


Now, if I have children, you better believe that I'm going to spank them if I think what they've done warrants it. I'm 23. I'm not scarred because I occasionally recieved a spanking. I was never hit with a closed fist.

And in all honesty, I think we could do with the return of the cane to Australian schools. I think it would help with all the idiot teenagers who have absolutely no respect for society.

It's either corporate punishment, or national service, and I'm not big on the idea of national service.

On that note though, how can people not condone physical discipline in a child, but still be fine with the army?

[Trog]

When you have "I was spanked and I turned out alright" versus "I wasn't spanked and I turned out alright", I'm going with the latter. :smallconfused:
Pretty sure the results are not dissimilar for the vast majority of people... at least for the examples I gave of dangerous situations, anyway. *shrug*

For those beaten with items and such or bruised or what have for other reasons entirely that's different of course and I agree.

[Mathis]

A response to Death Dragon:

Non-violent solutions have already been mentioned several times in this thread. And honestly I really am to inebriated to bother to go back and find them. If those solutions simply doesn't seem good enough for you Im going to suggest you go talk to someone working in a kindergarten, or give one a call to ask them what they do in that exact situation you have described. If you are genuinly interested and not just out for a debate to prove who's the smarter (something I'm afraid a lot of people are) this is a good option. Also, there are several books on child psychology out there for buy or borrow, most of them will leave you a lot wiser after reading. Because if someone knows how to handle situations with non-violent solutions, it's people working in kindergartens. Seriously, try spanking children when working in kindergarten, I dare you, I double-dare you.

Also for clarification, though I do not support physical dicipline (I'm a supporter of explanations and time-outs and talking to your child until you get your point through. Using a stern voice if you can't appear authorative without.) I do not believe being spanked will leave you emotionally scarred for the rest of your life. I just believe there are better options out there leaving spanking and such use of physical force unneeded.

[Elder Tsofu]

So a question for those who do not believe in physical discipline:

What do you suggest for a child who will not behave? They will refuse to stand in a corner, will run around avoiding you screaming at the top of their lungs, throw things at the walls or other people, break things, hit people, kick people, throw a tantrum . . . and they have already broken their door in such a way that you have no place to put them (you can't lock them in their room.)

Come to that, what do you think about locking children in their rooms? When my mother talked to a counselor about alternative punishments, we were told not to lock my sister in a room at all, because that has just as many negative effects for her.

Give it a hug, a long one. :smallsmile:
I would try to figure out the reason why the child threw such a tantrum in the first place. You can usually go back and see where things went wrong, is this a spoiled child who've always got what they've wanted when they've shouted and threw a tantrum (just to shut him/her up)? Then the parents have dug a hole they've got to climb out of - show that the tactic is not working anymore...
Is the child just tired and actually needs some sleep?

Running around kicking people ain't normal - is it maybe due to the fact that the child have seen that hitting people is actually ok - mom/dad is doing it I mean?
A sharp reprimand can solve a lot of problems, especially if it comes from a non-violent parent as the child haven't been used to a higher level of punishment.
I'm no expert, going only from my own upbringing - but I turned out al-right so I suppose it might be a good model...

I'm with Pyrian - we've yet to see any adverse effects on society from not using physical violence against our kids as punishment. Until then I believe that it might be a good idea for the hitters to contemplate over how this could be the case. :smallsmile:

[THAC0]

Seriously, try spanking children when working in kindergarten, I dare you, I double-dare you.


It's actually an acceptable solution in several states, still.

And as a teacher of kindergartners, sometimes I have been in the situation described. Obviously I did not spank the child, as that is illegal in my location, but the ONLY solution the entire school could come up with, is when it got that bad to physically pick up the child and return the child to their home. There was NOTHING else we could do.

[Katana_Geldar]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?



1) Yes. Just with the hand or a wooden spoon, not very often but often enough to be used as an effective threat. But not after the age of 3 when my parents could start to reason with me and use the naughty chair (time out I guess).
2) No, and my Dad still says that kids under the age of 3 need it to understand consequences. There is a big difference between spanking and child abuse though even if the line is rather narrow between them.
3) No
5) Not really, as it is discussed.

One thing with getting kids to face consequences is that you need to find out what their currency is, that way you can be more effective. Usually it's taking away of privleges like TV for instance.

Time out I agree with, as it also gives kids and parents a chance to calm down. It also teaches kids HOW to calm down and think things through when they are calm, as you often make mistakes in the heat of emotion.

Another thing I have found when teaching kids is that they rarely see my angry side unless it's necessary. Generally, I'm a rather nice person and like kids...which I have found is rather effective when i have to give them consequences for what they did. "I hate to do this, as I really like you but you chose to do this and you have to accept the consequences."

[Mando Knight]

Every time someone young does something awful, the responses start with "in my day, we disciplined our kids" and "spanking doesn't work" and "spanking is the only thing which works" and "physical abuse is not the standard". At first, I mentally filed them all under 'can be safely ignored', but had a re-think that gathering actual data might better help. So.


Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?


I'll toss my own data set in after a bit.
Yes, no, no, N/A, no.

I am confident, however, that whenever physical discipline was applied by my parents, it was because they truly believed it the best course of action at the time. I also have had almost nothing less than the highest respect and regard for my parents, and in retrospect, I am sure that almost every time I was spanked it was when I deserved it... so my opinions on the matter are somewhat skewed against those who have bad childhood memories.

[Mathis]

It's actually an acceptable solution in several states, still. It's illegal where I am.

And as a teacher of kindergartners, sometimes I have been in the situation described. Obviously I did not spank the child, as that is illegal in my location, but the ONLY solution the entire school could come up with, is when it got that bad to physically pick up the child and return the child to their home. There was NOTHING else we could do.

Even if it's legally acceptable, the parents probably have something to say about it.

I've been in the exact situation myself, in a kindergarten. It was a little girl of 5 years. She hit me, she kicked me, she spat at me and she scratched me with her nails. I still have scars from those nails actually.

When I realized that words and time-outs would get me nowhere I picked up and sat her upon my lap, held her arms down, refused to let go and talked to her slowly in a calm and relaxed voice about how I felt about what she was doing: "Not liking it, hurting my feelings and how I was going to have to tell her mother and father about how she was behaving" and things along that line. We talked for about 20 minutes after that. And you know what? It worked, it worked so well in fact that I never had to do anything but look at her sternly again for her to calm down from then, and there were a lot of situations like this one from that day. But she knew the consequences of what she was doing. She just needed a reminder in the form of me looking at her sternly and saying a few words.

[THAC0]

Even if it's legally acceptable, the parents probably have something to say about it.

I've been in the exact situation myself, in a kindergarten. It was a little girl of 5 years. She hit me, she kicked me, she spat at me and she scratched me with her nails. I still have scars from those nails actually.

When I realized that words and time-outs would get me nowhere I picked up and sat her upon my lap, held her arms down, refused to let go and talked to her slowly in a calm and relaxed voice about how I felt about what she was doing: "Not liking it, hurting my feelings and how I was going to have to tell her mother and father about how she was behaving" and things along that line. We talked for about 20 minutes after that. And you know what? It worked, it worked so well in fact that I never had to do anything but look at her sternly again for her to calm down from then, and there were a lot of situations like this one from that day. But she knew the consequences of what she was doing. She just needed a reminder in the form of me looking at her sternly and saying a few words.

No, they really didn't have anything to say about it. It was legal, they knew that, even if they said anything they didn't have a leg to stand on...

I'm glad that worked for you, I really am. I've just seen enough to know that no two situations are ever alike, and I know I certainly haven't seen everything yet. No one thing, no two things, no three things work all the time.

So, as I don't believe that spanking=child abuse, I see no reason to make it illegal, even if it's not something I might choose to use.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I was spanked. I endorse spanking... situationally. Because I should not have been.

Like all discipline it depends on the child what may get through. I didn't deserve half the spankings I did, and those I did deserve I already felt bad about the situation. All physical punishment did was make me mad when if I'd been left alone I'd have felt remorse. It made me want to commit the act again.

I was the type of kid who if popped for not picking up his toys would rather be spanked for the rest of the day than touch them after the smacking. However, if someone had said, 'I want the room clean so I can walk, please go put them away' I'd have been 'Ok!'

I was spanked til I was at least 14. It was at that age I finally looked my father in the eye and told him if he ever touched my butt again I'd knock him on his. I was nearly as tall as him already by that age and I meant it. My father actually seemed to respect me for it, but my mother layed into me hard (verbally). That was their last spanking attempt, however.


I have a much younger brother however. It takes a spanking just for him to 'get it'. He's so ADD its unreal, and is in his own little world half the time. You pop him and he's like, 'Ow. What? Oh, ok.'

I have a younger sister as well. She's just plain mean sometimes without any provocation. She's the kind who if not punished will think she got away with it.

Now my eldest sister, she also should not have been spanked. It totally broke her heart each and every time and made her a much more bitter adult.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?



Yes, yes I did. And I'm rather shocked whenever I discover that somebody is appalled at the concept of physical discipline or corporal punishment.
Well, my father's stance changed whenever he got particularly sauced. Usually from "Spanking when it's appropriate" to "Throw punches".
Don't know, don't particularly care. But this is a famously "Blue" state, and we all know how bleeding-heart Liberals tend to be.*
I live in Massachusetts.
I'm shocked and confused that you seem to have a con stance about it, but that you brought the subject up? Not particularly.


*This poster would like to note that he is acknowledging local traditions and inclinations. This is not an open invitation to begin discussing politics. Seriously, that just ends badly for everyone involved.

[Katana_Geldar]

I was spanked til I was at least 14.

Sorry, but that is wrong.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Sorry, but that is wrong.

I agree here. By fourteen, you should be competently able to parry punches well enough that the punishment should become "unarmed combat training" instead of spanking.

[Mathis]

While I don't believe the same thing will work again either, I'm hoping something similar will and that I won't ever be tempted to go the lengths of physical dicipline. I dont believe it's abuse either, there are huge differences. But I do believe there are a lot of other, better, options.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I agree here. By fourteen, you should be competently able to parry punches well enough that the punishment should become "unarmed combat training" instead of spanking.
If they'd tried it again it would have been.

I don't fault spanking, just the faulty spanker.

I was not only 14, but well into adulthood mentally. By this time I'd already fallen in love and would have considered marriage in a couple years, and been ready for it. I was already wanting to get a job to save up for it. Never happened, but I was emotionally mature enough for it.

Not saying I necessarily have improved since then, but hey :smallwink:

[Thanatos 51-50]

Heh. I remember that, after early childhood, my mum in particular became much less fond of spanking, and rather resorted the the emotional and psychological attacks as punishment.
She only really hit me once after she gave up spanking, where we were engaged in a verbal argument over something trivial, I'm sure, and I countered one of her points with something she had no response to, so she slapped me.

I immediately left the room to laugh.

My dad also eventually turned everything that started out as a beating (deserved or un-) into combat training, where he would, instead of absolutely wiping the floor with me, he would wipe the floor with me and then teach me how to deal with what he just did.
This is how I learned to counter chokeholds, recover from throws and become a generally evasive fighter.
He also taught me how to disable somebody bigger and stronger than I was - assuming their arms weren't double jointed - sleeperholds, the proper way to choke somebody and a few reversals.

[thorgrim29]

* Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Yeah, pretty light, only when we'd insult our parents or do something dangerously stupid, and only until we were old enough for other stuff to work (like reason, shaming and privilege withdrawing)
* Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please) I don't think my sister got spanked as much as me and my brother, but that's mostly because we'd (especially him) torment her a bit so she was more protected by our parents, made her very thin skinned, but she's growing out of it.
* Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
None that I know of
* If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
* Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
Nope,

[DeathsHands]

\

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?




Yes I did.
Yes; trying physical discipline with me after like, 11 years old would've been pretty useless; I developed very thick skin by then.
Truthfully, I'm not certain.
See above.
Not at all.


Like plenty of others have said, it was generally acceptable to have corporal punishment once upon a time; it's starting to be seen as ineffective in lieu of alternative methods.

[Amiel]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?


I experienced physical discipline in my formative years and youth, to the point of shifting from a position of lawful neutrality in my world-view paradigm to an alignment of chaotic good. I also have very little respect for authority.
Perhaps contrary to experience, I actually condone the use of corporal punishment in schools.

Yes.
They changed their stance as I got older; using 'harder-hitting' implements of discipline as I got more mischievous, then stopped physically disciplining me altogether.
I am unsure of that, possibly not.
See above.
No.

[Brother Oni]

Give it a hug, a long one. :smallsmile:


Speaking from experience, all that will result in is a hand in your eye, knocking off your glasses and possibly causing a cut from the nose supports and a foot in your groin.

As for trying to figure out what was wrong in the first place, it's often difficult if the child is too young to communicate, or they've worked themselves up into such a frenzy that they've forgotten what it was that caused it in the first place.



A sharp reprimand can solve a lot of problems, especially if it comes from a non-violent parent as the child haven't been used to a higher level of punishment.

Again, communication issues. Language is a taught skill, pain is pretty much universal.



I'm with Pyrian - we've yet to see any adverse effects on society from not using physical violence against our kids as punishment. Until then I believe that it might be a good idea for the hitters to contemplate over how this could be the case. :smallsmile:

We also haven't seen any adverse effects on societies where physical discipline is commonplace. Phrasing it as 'physical violence' almost automatically gives a strong negative bias, which I think is detrimental to the discussion.

In my experience, once you've instilled a level of fear of punishment, then there's no need to continue to use physical discipline. The alternative methods advocated are then usually sufficient, simply because the fear of greater punishment is there.
The trick is getting that fear of greater punishment in the first place.

Going back to the original point, I'm not sure what the case is like in the US, but in the UK at least, there is a perceived social problem of gangs of teenagers causing problems with no respect for authority.
Compared to my experiences in an Asian society, where teenagers are mostly well behaved it leads to the observation that perhaps physical punishment at an early age may actually help install respect for authority, or rather a fear of authority figures.

Whether this is actually better for a society (obeying the law out of fear of punishment compared to obeying the law out of respect for it), is a question I'm not able to answer.

[Frozen_Feet]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?

Yes. I was never spanked, but I was regularly snapped to the forehead, pinched from nose or ears, pulled from my hair, picked up and put in a corner, and physically forced to sit down if I was uppity.

Really, I feel the discussion has so far been too spanking centric. That's not nearly all I think falls under physical discipline.

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not?

I didn't even realize they had a stance before I was fifteen, and media made a big deal about a law suggestion that would've criminalized parents from causing pain to their kids. I remember being midly bemused by how black-and-white the discussion surrounding the law was - it seemed people thought there was only pain that irreversibly damaged children, and the only alternative to that was no pain at all.

I was also too big at that point to be concerned of what my parents thought of the matter - my policy from 10-years-old has been "if my parents hit me, I hit them straight back". :smalltongue:

Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?

Yes, I believe there is. (Some off-shoot of the aforementioned law suggestion.) I've never been so interested as to look up the details, though.

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?

No. Opinions and laws concerning physical discipline vary wildly from place to place and time to time. It's not an obvious or clear-cut matter.

---

Now, some of my own thoughts: I'm against spanking, or otherwise beating or punching a kid. A "kid" in this case means someone pre-teen - while teenagers are still children in many senses of the word, they can be physically large or strong enough that punching for real can be a justified response in some cases. Those cases tend to be rather rare, though, and generally teeter closer to self-defense than any form of discipline.

However, I'm generally for other methods of physical discipline; towards rebellious children, one of the biggest sources of authority an adult has is being physcally bigger and stronger than them. There are several age-categories during which children like to be contrary just because; they absolutely can't be reasoned with when they're like that. Physically restraining and stopping a child is perfectly viable method of discipline in those cases.

My favorite method of dealing with defiant youths is simply lifting them up so they can't do anything until I let them down. Hey, if picking up and carrying a rebellious offspring back to homebase works for tigers, wolves, dogs and what not, it sure works for me. :smalltongue:

I also hold that slight pinching of nose and ears or snapping on the forehead are fine methods of directing a hyperactive kid's attention back to matter at hand, or letting them now they're doing something incredibly stupid. The trick is to not overdo it - causing pain or damage is not the goal, so it's not necessary to extert much force.

It should be noted that I feel kiddy gloves have too much padding these days. I think that in some places, parents are so adverse to using physical means for discipline they deprive their children of physical response to the point it does more harm than good. Children are physical. They are violent. Both boys and girls like to hit each other with stick and wrestle on the ground in one tangled ball. More often than not, the only thing separating "traumatizing abuse" and "fun game" in children's mind is context.

For example, there's a game called "Bulldog" here in Finland, which pretty much boils down to this: players try to run away from the catcher, who is trying to grab them and hoist them off the ground. As you should guess, lots of kicking and screaming ensues. In the context of the game, 10-year-old girls are perfectly fine with being tackled to the ground by a 20-year-old male so hard it knocks the wind out of their lungs. And after one round is over, they ask for a second one. I doubt they'd find it so much fun if I threw them to the ground for eating the last cookie etc.

Usage of violence is a matter of degree and context. I think punching, specifically, is so traumatizing because raising a hand to strike is a very strong hostile gesture among humans - that's why it's so prone to cause mixed feelings and loss of trust in a growing child. I don't think grabbing a child by the back of their neck sends similarly threatening signals - again, look at other mammals. Grabbing an uppity cub by the collar is pretty common among mammals, I even think some of our closest relatives in animal kind do that; so I think it triggers different instincts in a kid. Raised hand triggers "fight or flight", pinch of the neck triggers "oops, I made mommy angry".

---

I also object to equivocating "causing pain as means to an end" with "abuse". For one, it'd equate all Martial Arts training with abuse, something I can't agree with. In my mind, abuse is synonym for miss-use, and like said, I think there's a time and place when violence is justified, which would disqualify it from being abuse.

---

I also wonder how well those who object to "children being treated like dogs" know dogs. Because nearly all dog-training manuals equate dogs with little kids, and most modern ones specifically advice against beating up your dog too much. The equation makes sense too, as dogs and kids really do act in similar ways, something I believe all who both own a dog and have / work with kids should notice.

[Elder Tsofu]

Again, communication issues. Language is a taught skill, pain is pretty much universal.
I wouldn't hit a baby anyway. But I might just hit the parent who did it.


We also haven't seen any adverse effects on societies where physical discipline is commonplace. Phrasing it as 'physical violence' almost automatically gives a strong negative bias, which I think is detrimental to the discussion.
Its hard to see the effect if you feel no need to prove that your actions don't harm the kids. But I for one would say people beating their children would be a bad enough side effect on society from beating children...

Well, it is what it is seen as in Sweden - so I use the terminology. Some people think that War is a madness - and that killing animals is murder.
In cases like this I generally just say: If the shoe fits, then by all means feel free to wear it. :smallsmile:

[Amiel]

A hypothetical, what would you do to an extremely badly behaved child or person of the youth persuasion, where words of wisdom and discipline don't seem to have any effect?
I'm talking about a right proper misbehaver.

[Elder Tsofu]

First thing I would do would not be to justify hitting all children due to one individual. Then I would proceed without hitting it.

[THAC0]

First thing I would do would not be to justify hitting all children due to one individual.

I don't think anyone here has said that all children should be spanked. They have been saying that spanking can be a tool used sometimes for some children and that the choice should be there.

[Elder Tsofu]

But since no children apparently need to be hit, then there's no need to hit them. *shrugs*

[THAC0]

But since no children apparently need to be hit, then there's no need to hit them. *shrugs*

That is the disagreement, yes.

[HalfTangible]

Every time someone young does something awful, the responses start with "in my day, we disciplined our kids" and "spanking doesn't work" and "spanking is the only thing which works" and "physical abuse is not the standard". At first, I mentally filed them all under 'can be safely ignored', but had a re-think that gathering actual data might better help. So.


Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?


I'll toss my own data set in after a bit.


Yup, belt to the butt. Also groundings. Usually the former would be followed up by the latter or the latter would stand by itself. Generally lessened if i told them the truth first.
Eventually they just decided i was too old for it. No idea what that means.
Don't think so.
N/A
Frankly i wish i was.


Honestly, there needs to be some form of punishment, and pain is a fairly effective method of doing so. {Scrubbed}

I'm ok with hitting a kid if the damage is short term (a few minutes of aching, for example), done in response to bad behavior, and puts the kid in no real danger.

Honestly i found it more traumatizing to go through middle school. And to see one of my neighbors get duct taped to a tree*

*I should probably stress that the kid had hit his own mother with a water balloon, was perfectly safe and could get down as soon as he pulled the duct tape off of his legs.


But since no children apparently need to be hit, then there's no need to hit them. *shrugs*

Yes they do :smallconfused:

[blackfox]

Every time someone young does something awful, the responses start with "in my day, we disciplined our kids" and "spanking doesn't work" and "spanking is the only thing which works" and "physical abuse is not the standard". At first, I mentally filed them all under 'can be safely ignored', but had a re-think that gathering actual data might better help. So.


Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?


I'll toss my own data set in after a bit.
1) Yes, and inconsistently. If we weren't quiet and out of the way while he was angry or stressed, we would get hit until we shut up, which was usually just a backhand to the diaphragm followed by a lot of screaming.
2) Yes, once I got big enough to hurt him, having long since been willing.
3) Not as far as I know.
4) Virginia
5) Not really? I don't know what this refers to...?

Things that worked on me: Explanations of why I should or shouldn't do things. Blatant manipulation.
Things that did not work on me: Attacking me, making me go to my room, taking away privileges.
Things that should not be used to discipline your child: Attacking them, emotional abuse.
People who will not be having children: BlackFox.

[Frozen_Feet]

People who will not be having children: BlackFox.

Why not? *tries to resist urge to make a real bad joke about offering help, and fails*

[Philistine]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Yes. Open hand and wooden spoon from mother; open hand, closed, fist, belt, and (on one particularly memorable occasion when I was nine) wire clothes hanger from father.
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Not to my knowledge, although as best I could tell my younger siblings got a lot less of it than I did. Particularly from our father; mother was generally a little more even-handed, if you'll pardon the pun.
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
Given that it's still (last I heard) used in schools here, I'm gonna say no.
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
n/a
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?
{Scrubbed} I got my share and then some, and I'm here to tell you: I wish my father had confined himself to handing out the occasional beating. Pain passes, usually even before the bruises fade, and time suffices to dull the memory of even the worst physical damage. The name-calling, derision, and general psychological crap, on the other hand... That stays fresh in memory for a long, long, long time.

[Elder Tsofu]

Yes they do :smallconfused:

*points at Sweden et. al.*
It is probably due to the fact that our kids are more well behaved and generally better than your kids from birth. <- Noticed the sarcasm?

Isn't generally wrong to hit someone lying down, or someone unable to defend themselves? I don't see why this wouldn't apply to children as well.

[Winter_Wolf]

I am okay with a quick slap on the wrist or bottom, but basically if you have to do that, something's gone wrong already.

Yeah I pretty much agree with this. It does a lot less good to spank a child than it does to explain to the child why their behavior was wrong, than just to smack them and believe, that will straighten 'em out. Because at the age where spankings are still practical, children don't have a developed set of morals or ethics, and won't realize why something is wrong. I think it does enforce a mentality of "okay I better try harder not to get caught". As a swift corrective action/consequence a swat will usually cause the behavior to cease in the short term, but at some point when the child still remembers the situation, the guardian needs to sit the kid down and explain things, and ideally make sure the kids understands.

To put it another way, consequences are a part of life, but if you can't be bothered to educate a kid, from the kid's point of view, you're being a bully. That said, there are times when I really wish a parent would just smack the brat already! You've all met "that kid" at least once, and you've all thought at least in passing. Frankly I'd rather get smacked once in a while for doing wrong than have a parent that's a doormat to the child's whims.

[Marnath]

Yeah I pretty much agree with this. It does a lot less good to spank a child than it does to explain to the child why their behavior was wrong, than just to smack them and believe, that will straighten 'em out. Because at the age where spankings are still practical, children don't have a developed set of morals or ethics, and won't realize why something is wrong. I think it does enforce a mentality of "okay I better try harder not to get caught". As a swift corrective action/consequence a swat will usually cause the behavior to cease in the short term, but at some point when the child still remembers the situation, the guardian needs to sit the kid down and explain things, and ideally make sure the kids understands.

To put it another way, consequences are a part of life, but if you can't be bothered to educate a kid, from the kid's point of view, you're being a bully. That said, there are times when I really wish a parent would just smack the brat already! You've all met "that kid" at least once, and you've all thought at least in passing. Frankly I'd rather get smacked once in a while for doing wrong than have a parent that's a doormat to the child's whims.

This is exactly the case, thanks for putting it more eloquently than I could. :smalltongue:

[Murdim]

Not really. I have been slapped very occasionally, but never in a way that could qualify as punishment.
No.
Not in France.
N/A
Quite. I'm positively sure that most children do not need physical punishment in order to behave correctly. Even if we assume that spanking is an acceptable way to discipine a child, there's quite a few strategies that are more positive, more constructive, less self-defeating, and of course plain less painful before it becomes a reasonable option.Overall, I pretty much agree with Serpentine. And Winter Wolf.


I got my share and then some, and I'm here to tell you: I wish my father had confined himself to handing out the occasional beating. Pain passes, usually even before the bruises fade, and time suffices to dull the memory of even the worst physical damage. The name-calling, derision, and general psychological crap, on the other hand... That stays fresh in memory for a long, long, long time.
What about neither physical nor emotional abuse ? :smallconfused: I'm pretty sure even the posters who approves of physical punishment here would agree that your father is guilty of both offenses.

[Nameless]

Physical discipline was used on me when I was younger. but at a controled level. It didn't happen very often, so when my parents did use physical discipline on me, I knew it was serious and that I should stop doing whatever it is I was doing.
I was never really slapped to the point of grate pain. I cried, but it was from shock and the realisation that I was doing something very bad. I think I turned out okay.

I don't really think that there's anything wrong with it, and as log as it's used responsibly, it can be quite effective. Of course, if it's used to often, then it won't have as much of an effect on the child and if it's used to the point of child abuse... Well that's another story.

[Brother Oni]

I wouldn't hit a baby anyway. But I might just hit the parent who did it.

Smacking a baby is pointless, as they have no concept of what is acceptable behaviour and they have no ability to learn such a relatively advanced idea.

Smacking a toddler would be justifiable as they're at the edge of comprehension, with the ability to form behavioural patterns and understand cause and effect. They can understand 'running across the road = smack'. They might not be able to understand 'running across the road = possible road traffic collision resulting in death or injury'.



Isn't generally wrong to hit someone lying down, or someone unable to defend themselves? I don't see why this wouldn't apply to children as well.

Depends on whether you view children as 'little adults' or not.

From my point of view, children are children and should be treated as such. This includes treating them with leniency and using appropriate means to punish them when required.

The flips side is that if you view them as 'little adults' and that they have the same rights as an adult, then they should have the same responsibilities as one.
This would lead to the ridiculous situations where a 6 year old hits another in the playground in a fight and gets arrested for common assault, or a 5 year who takes a sweet or toy from another child and is therefore guilty of robbery/mugging.

The law differentiates between children and adults - the existence of borstals/young offenders institutions/juvenile centers are proof of that.

[Thajocoth]

...The flips side is that if you view them as 'little adults' and that they have the same rights as an adult, then they should have the same responsibilities as one...

This is an aside, not a point (your post just happened to remind me of it):

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned a friend who was allergic to the uniform. This was in late elementary school. He had two younger brothers. His parents were an oral surgeon and a lawyer. They were horrible at managing money though... So they had the middle child manage all the family's finances. This actually worked out quite well for the five of them. The place wasn't turned into a funhouse or anything. The parents essentially received an allowance.

[Elder Tsofu]

Depends on whether you view children as 'little adults' or not.

From my point of view, children are children and should be treated as such. This includes treating them with leniency and using appropriate means to punish them when required.

The flips side is that if you view them as 'little adults' and that they have the same rights as an adult, then they should have the same responsibilities as one.
This would lead to the ridiculous situations where a 6 year old hits another in the playground in a fight and gets arrested for common assault, or a 5 year who takes a sweet or toy from another child and is therefore guilty of robbery/mugging.

The law differentiates between children and adults - the existence of borstals/young offenders institutions/juvenile centers are proof of that.

Ah yes, I forgot - in US you can get arrested as a child. We have the view that you are not fully responsible for your actions until you're 18 - and until (12 or) 16 its the parents who have full responsibility for your actions. (I don't remember the exact age clearly)

But we also think that children have rights. And one of them is to be treated with respect as a human being.
As physical violence is frowned upon from the point of the law for adults its quite strange not to not give children the same protection. Its like that it was more or less OK to hit your wife in the past.

The only real limitation we have on children's rights is more or less on the side of making decisions. As said above that's an protection, but its also a limitation as we see that someone not fully developed mentally isn't in a position to fully control their life.

[Amiel]

But since no children apparently need to be hit, then there's no need to hit them. *shrugs*

How else would they learn discipline?

[Thajocoth]

How else would they learn discipline?

Any other method. Such as time out, if executed properly. There are plenty of alternatives. (I don't know them all, obviously.) One's sure to work for any situation.

[Krade]

Hey kids! It's time to follow the Circular Logic Train!:smallbiggrin:

Not using it proves that not using it works!:smallfurious:
Using it proves that using it works!:smallfurious:

This thread is silly.:smalltongue:

[Amiel]

Yes, however, also couple that with current research and observation studies suggesting children, especially schoolkids, are misbehaving more than ever.

My point is don't excessively physically discipline, but also don't shy from it either, especially when and where it is warranted.

Physical Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a Moderator (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766084/); "Countries with the lowest use of physical discipline showed the strongest association between mothers' use and children's behavior problems, but in all countries higher use of physical discipline was associated with more aggression and anxiety."

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Any other method. Such as time out, if executed properly. There are plenty of alternatives. (I don't know them all, obviously.) One's sure to work for any situation.
Quite patently doesn't work, according to both personal observation and anecdote.

[Thajocoth]

Quite patently doesn't work, according to both personal observation and anecdote.

Then you didn't do it right.

[Krade]

Then you didn't do it right.

This argument fails because there's no way to disprove it.

"If it works, then it works."
"If it doesn't work, then you didn't do it right."

There is no possible outcome that disproves it.

[Thajocoth]

Hey kids! It's time to follow the Circular Logic Train!:smallbiggrin:

Not using it proves that not using it works!:smallfurious:
Using it proves that using it works!:smallfurious:

This thread is silly.:smalltongue:


This argument fails because there's no way to disprove it.

"If it works, then it works."
"If it doesn't work, then you didn't do it right."

There is no possible outcome that disproves it.

When something may or may not be a harmful thing to do, especially to a child, it's up to those arguing that it's not harmful to prove their side. If they can prove it's absolutely necessary, which they can't in this case, then it's ok. Otherwise, it should be avoided as much as possible, which in this case, is entirely.

[Amiel]

How exactly is physical discipline harmful to a child? especially if it light in its application, and fixes disciplinary problems?

[Thanatos 51-50]

Worked on neither myself nor my two brothers is what I'm saying. I'm aware that this is both too small and too clustered a sample to be scientifically relevant, but it does disprove your "always works" theory.

Time outs just made us angrier and more likely to lash back out, with little consideration given to doing so furtivly.

Of course, it has recently come to light that I show several markers for clinical psychosis, and my little brother has Asperger's syndrome, so we are far from the psychological norm.

[Thajocoth]

How exactly is physical discipline harmful to a child? especially if it light in its application, and fixes disciplinary problems?

It uses pain and fear to control. It's mentally traumatizing. It provides children with an unhealthy fear of authority, rather than a respect for it.

[Thanatos 51-50]

When something may or may not be a harmful thing to do, especially to a child, it's up to those arguing that it's not harmful to prove their side. If they can prove it's absolutely necessary, which they can't in this case, then it's ok. Otherwise, it should be avoided as much as possible, which in this case, is entirely.

One could feasibly argue that "sparing the rod" as it were is more harmful than the occasional application, as it fails to prepare them for adult life, where the world will be all too happy to break their neck for a minor slight, imaginary or percieved.

[HalfTangible]

When something may or may not be a harmful thing to do, especially to a child, it's up to those arguing that it's not harmful to prove their side. If they can prove it's absolutely necessary, which they can't in this case, then it's ok. Otherwise, it should be avoided as much as possible, which in this case, is entirely.

By that logic California is fully justified in trying to prevent video games being sold to minors. You can't demand that the other side disprove a point unless you've already proven yours. Otherwise arguments would just go in circles and nothing would get done.

[Amiel]

It uses pain and fear to control. It's mentally traumatizing. It provides children with an unhealthy fear of authority, rather than a respect for it.

Verbal reprimands can be emotionally traumitising, and likewise uses fear; while physical discipline can last a while, verbal stinging words can last a lifetime. Verbal reprimands also provide a lasting fear of authority.

[Thajocoth]

Of course, it has recently come to light that I show several markers for clinical psychosis, and my little brother has Asperger's syndrome, so we are far from the psychological norm.

I also have Asperger's. There is no accepted form of discipline that'd work on me. Several, including physical, were attempted. What worked on me was simply explaining the reason for each rule.

[Marnath]

When something may or may not be a harmful thing to do, especially to a child, it's up to those arguing that it's not harmful to prove their side. If they can prove it's absolutely necessary, which they can't in this case, then it's ok. Otherwise, it should be avoided as much as possible, which in this case, is entirely.

This arguement is baseless. It swings both ways, you must prove that it is harmful. Just saying it should be avoided does nothing more for your case than saying it is ok does for the opposing view.

[Helanna]

It uses pain and fear to control. It's mentally traumatizing. It provides children with an unhealthy fear of authority, rather than a respect for it.

I honestly think that you're really over-blowing this. I have never, ever, in my entire life, met anyone traumatized by being spanked as a child. Do you have any solid sources on studies that indicate this? And nothing like "it's been shown again and again . . ." or "Multiple studies have been done . . .". If anyone here can provide a couple of solid, reputable studies, then I'll look at them and maybe reconsider. Otherwise, I don't take a couple people saying "It's emotionally scarring!" with no proof to be an argument.

Like I said, I was only ever spanked once. End result? I never, ever ran into the road again, and I don't even remember it. I seriously doubt other punishments would have been as effective in teaching me not to play in the street, and it obviously didn't harm me, so why would it be such a horrible thing to do?

[Krade]

Allow me to reply more seriously.

THERE IS ENTIRELY TOO MUCH EVIDENCE SUPPORTING BOTH POINTS OF VIEW.

You can't say one works and one doesn't because they both work when done right and niether works when done wrong.

[Lord_Gareth]

Hey, I got spanked constantly as a kid and I'm perfectly untraumatized.

[Elder Tsofu]

Would you hit your old parents?

When they become a little gaga from their dementia and start wandering around and don't listen to perfectly good reason?
Pain is an universal language after all, and afterwards they know that they shouldn't wander out in the road or get fooled by in-honest phone merchants.

I wouldn't, but I expect some would - there are people for everything after all.

*shrugs and leaves the "discussion"*

[Amiel]

Would you hit your old parents?
This is extremely tangential to the discussion and causes it to stray into territory that is not central to the discussion and irrelevancy.

Your parents already know of discipline and its effectiveness, and (may) have had its effects applied on them when they were children, or administered it to their own children.

[Krade]

Would you hit your old parents?

When they become a little gaga from their dementia and start wandering around and don't listen to perfectly good reason?
That's completely different. A child's brain is developing. "Your old parents" are going the opposite direction. No amount of any kind of anything will change that. If someone hits the mind deficient elderly for disobeying or whatever, they won't learn anything, not even fear.

I know you left the "discussion," but I'm assuming you'll actually read this anyway. I don't need or expect a response and I'm not saying your stance (or anyone else's, for that matter) is wrong. Just pointing out fallacious arguments. I call 'em like I sees 'em.

[Katana_Geldar]

I also have Asperger's. There is no accepted form of discipline that'd work on me. Several, including physical, were attempted. What worked on me was simply explaining the reason for each rule.

And, how that would work for a toddler? Reasoning with very young kids doesn't really work all the time as they can't thinking logically yet. For instance, they think the world disappears when they close their eyes.

And FTR, I have aspergers to and I was smacked until the age of 3 when I got the naughty chair.

However, with kid logic the way it is they can ask "Why can't I hit Johnny but you can?"

There is a lot that can be done with voice, though. Even dogs, who don't really understand language, understand an "angry voice".

But, as I said before, there is a clear difference but a fine line between physical disciple and actual violent child abuse.

Lets see if we can go through a few case studies then of kids and how you would respond:

* Drawing/painting or otherwise marking a wall not by accident
* Running onto a busy road
* Hitting another child
* Hitting an adult
* Tantrum in a public place (this is a sore one for me)
* Rough play at home
* Rough play in public (i.e. at the park)
* Breaking something valuable intentionally
* Breaking something valuable by accident
* Refusing to do something (take a bath, go to bed, eat vegetables)
* Refusing to pick up their toys
* Refusing to pick up their toys and you fall on them and hurt yourself
* Not sharing

Here are mine:
* Drawing/painting or otherwise marking a wall not by accident
That would be a smack if it was a young child, and if it was an older child they should know better by now and they would help clean it up.

* Running onto a busy road
Smack, and very quick

* Hitting another child
Depends, if the child is overwrought maybe. But they still need to know how to "play nice".

* Hitting an adult
Maybe

* Tantrum in a public place (this is a sore one for me)

That would depend on if it was simple disobedience OR is a child is tired and overemotional. I cringe when I see kids being smacked by their parents in public, when all they need is to sit down, clam down and maybe go home for a nap.

* Rough play at home with other kids
Depends on how rough, though with some kids if they see someone else is hurt then that might be enough.

* Rough play in public with other kids (i.e. at the park)
See above.

* Breaking something valuable intentionally
A smack

* Breaking something valuable by accident
Like with rough play, some kids seeing that thing broken would be a real scare.

* Refusing to do something (take a bath, go to bed, eat vegetables)

No smack there, positive reinforcement would work better. Like toys in the bath, story before bedtime or desert if you eat your vegetables.

* Refusing to pick up their toys
No smack their, and if they don't know how to pack up then do it with them.

* Refusing to pick up their toys and you fall on them and hurt yourself
As above, kids shouldn't suffer because an adult is feeling bad

* Not sharing

Depends how it goes, as some kids can react badly to a selfish child

* Demanding a privlege (like a chocolate)
A simple use of the word "No" and ignoring any outbursts (that remain outbursts) can work wonders.

[Cobalt]

How else would they learn discipline?

This, of course, implies that people like myself are rowdy upstarts with no sense of self-control.


You can't say one works and one doesn't because they both work when done right and niether works when done wrong.

This statement is fact.

[Amiel]

This, of course, implies that people like myself are rowdy upstarts with no sense of self-control.
What?

My point is don't excessively physically discipline, but also don't shy from it either, especially when and where it is warranted.

See above.

[Thajocoth]

And, how that would work for a toddler?

I meant when I was a toddler... At the age of 5 I was telling off my biological father for how he treated my mother, and it was MY decision for us both to leave him. In preschool, I'd get mad when other children tried to play blocks with me, because they had no sense of structural integrity, and made it impossible to build anything really tall. The attempts at other forms of discipline were while we were still with my biological father.

I am sufficiently outside the range of "average" to not use myself as an example for this thread... That before was more of an aside in response to something someone else said. And this is more of an aside to what you said.

I do think there are plenty of alternatives that work on ordinary toddlers though.

[Keld Denar]

My dad beat the crap out of me a couple times when I acted out. One I remember the most was in a gas station. I was shoving some small piece of candy into my pocket when my dad saw me. He crossed the 20' between us in about 3 steps, picked me up by my neck, and carried me to the front of the store where he made me apologize to the clerk and give the candy back before my feet touched the ground again. When I got home, I got a whoopin, supplimented by being forced to pack up ALL of my toys into boxes where they remained for an entire year. That was probably one of the worst times I've ever been disciplined. There were other times, but none as memorable as that. I've never even THOUGHT about shoplifting since.

Its funny, the event came up in conversation when I was talking to my parents on the phone about 2 weeks ago. I actually thanked them for it. I'd probably be in jail for some retarded crap instead of a successful and (mostly) productive member of society.

[Brother Oni]

Ah yes, I forgot - in US you can get arrested as a child. We have the view that you are not fully responsible for your actions until you're 18 - and until (12 or) 16 its the parents who have full responsibility for your actions. (I don't remember the exact age clearly)


According to this chart (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9747&page=18#p20004703ttt00001) (which I admit is a bit out of date), the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Sweden is 15 with no juvenile system, thus you can be arrested at 15. In the UK, it's down to 10, but it's mostly offences like vandalism and shoplifting.



But we also think that children have rights. And one of them is to be treated with respect as a human being.


Being treated with respect as a human being is not mutually exclusive from being treated like a child.

Do you believe that all parents who use physical discipline are therefore failing to respect their children and thus either do not care for them or are abusive parents?



As physical violence is frowned upon from the point of the law for adults its quite strange not to not give children the same protection. Its like that it was more or less OK to hit your wife in the past.

There's a difference between physical violence and physical discipline. Obviously this is a sticking point of the argument - the people who are for physical discipline believe there is a difference, while the anti-discipline people don't think so.

In the UK, there are several degrees of assault with increasing severity of punishment depending on the means and injury done to the victim. Just as there are different levels of physical violence, there are different levels of physical discipline, ranging from a quick light smack, all the way up to beating with a stick.

What level is appropriate is highly dependent on the circumstances and the person. One extreme would be the opera training schools in China, where discipline is very strict (the film Farewell My Concubine has some graphic examples of this), while I believe that you're at the other end of the spectrum where no sort of physical discipline is acceptable.

There is a point where discipline turns into abuse and violence - thankfully most parents who use discipline clearly know where this limit is.

For your last point, I don't know about where you are, but it's never been acceptable to beat your wife. A husband however couldn't be charged with raping his wife - thankfully that has since been changed.

[Thanatos 51-50]

* Drawing/painting or otherwise marking a wall not by accident
* Running onto a busy road
* Hitting another child
* Hitting an adult
* Tantrum in a public place (this is a sore one for me)
* Rough play at home
* Rough play in public (i.e. at the park)
* Breaking something valuable intentionally
* Breaking something valuable by accident
* Refusing to do something (take a bath, go to bed, eat vegetables)
* Refusing to pick up their toys
* Refusing to pick up their toys and you fall on them and hurt yourself
* Not sharing
* Demanding a privilege (like a chocolate)


Fear, followed by letting them know just how afraid I was.
Stand by, let the natural order peck itself out. For the reference, I'd do the same if my child was the victim, followed by yelling at him for not defending himself if he does not, or for not defending himself properly if he tries and fails. Intervention only at the point where enough has become enough. At which point, my child would be punished if he tried to take it further. Probably through surgical application of pain.
"You have free reign to discipline my child, other adult, do not abuse him or I will abuse you."
Public tantrums lead to public lectures. "Punish in Private, Praise in public" is a backwards rubric to me.
"Don't hurt yourself."
"Don't hurt anyone else."
Indentured servitude, increase of volume of chores, other busy work. Daddy had to work hard to get that, and now you need to work hard to apologize for your shenanigans.
Mild lecture to be more careful.
Removal of privileges until they comply, to be compounded with lectures as to why for repeated offenses. Numerous repeated offenses will meet threats of the rod. Calling those threats a bluff will result in application of the rod.
See above.
Also see above. This is probably the point where threats are applied.
Refuse to share with them, make them see how the other side of the fence feels.
This depends on whether or not they have earned the privilege or positive reinforcement in question, with answers ranging from pointless correction of their grammar to "Sure, go ahead," to a simple "No, you haven't earned it."


I'd make a horrible parent.

[Amiel]

A horrible parent would enforce and solicit the use of tasers :smalltongue:

[Thanatos 51-50]

A horrible parent would enforce and solicit the use of tasers :smalltongue:

Well, if my Little Girl decided she needed a taser to defend herself, I would make it a point to tase her with whatever one she acquired. One does not brandish a weapon or possess knowledge of how to harm without knowing EXACTLY what the other side of the fence feels.
Yes, I know many pressure points and have been on the receiving end of each one. And, while I have not been maced, I have been exposed to CS gas and made to remove my mask. I have never been tased.

[742]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline?
Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please)
Is there a no-spanking law where you live?
If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted?
Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?


split parents: one slightly, one very much so, both also physically abusive to the point where it has an effect on my clothing choices and carpentry skills to this day.

one sort of changed (i was able to cut all dies because of custody stuff) the other changed after autism was thoroughly explained-the abuse continued, but rarely under the (word? mind blanked out, but i think it starts with a P) of authority until i turned up the spookiness and changed the dynamic of the relationship

probably not, but enforcement is basically nonexistent even for blatant abuse so it wouldnt matter if there was one.

not really; though your motives are suspect. are you considerating incorporating physical pain into your parenting style? assuming you are a parent of course.

[Brother Oni]

Well, if my Little Girl decided she needed a taser to defend herself, I would make it a point to tase her with whatever one she acquired. One does not brandish a weapon or possess knowledge of how to harm without knowing EXACTLY what the other side of the fence feels.

So in order to be able to know how to use or brandish a firearm, you must shoot yourself or have been previously shot? :smalltongue:

[Eloel]

So in order to be able to know how to use or brandish a firearm, you must shoot yourself or have been previously shot? :smalltongue:

In order to be a responsible firearm user, I'd say yes.

[THAC0]

In order to be a responsible firearm user, I'd say yes.

Wow. I hope that was a joke!

[Thanatos 51-50]

Firearms are... a tricky proposition. They're the only real weapon I know how to use without having been affected by, and it's difficult to intentionally wound somebody with one and not insure a long hospital stay at the lease. Rubber bullets, maybe?

[Mando Knight]

So in order to be able to know how to use or brandish a firearm, you must shoot yourself or have been previously shot? :smalltongue:
The only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCoEQXY5hM8#t=21m40s)

That's an interesting perspective, Thanatos. Though, of course, it should be in a controlled environment for when you first experience it yourself...

[Brother Oni]

Firearms are... a tricky proposition. They're the only real weapon I know how to use without having been affected by, and it's difficult to intentionally wound somebody with one and not insure a long hospital stay at the lease. Rubber bullets, maybe?

Rubber and plastic bullets could be argued as not representative of the real thing. Additionally, just because they're intended for 'non-lethal' use, still doesn't mean that they can't cause fatalities or not hurt sufficiently to cause a hospital stay.

I do see your point of view however - if you're intending to inflict harm on someone, you should know exactly how much harm you're inflicting, which in turn will limit frivolous escalation of force or careless weapon use.

Which in a roundabout way brings us back to the thread topic - people who have experienced appropriate levels of physical discipline appear to be the ones more willing to make use of it on their own children.

I am a bit concerned about some posters who have apparently continued to receive physical discipline up until quite late in their lives. That's not discipline, that's just simple abuse - I personally would stop using physical means once the child is capable of being reasoned with.

[Krade]

For firearms, the rule I was taught (when I was 10 or so) is NEVER point a gun at anything you don't intend you're not prepared to kill. If the situation has gotten to the point where you "need" to shoot someone, you shoot to kill, never wound. The idea that someone should be shot before using a gun is THE dumbest thing I have ever heard.

That said, I have come close to that situation, and I sincerely hope it never happens again.

[Remmirath]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline? No, I didn't. My parents generally took the 'explain why what you're doing is wrong' route, and it appears to have worked as I didn't do those things again. I'm not sure about other people, but I am sure that for me that was the most effective thing to do. I've always taken better to having things explained.

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not? (details please) Not that I know of, no. I've never actually brought the topic up with them, so I must admit I don't even know for sure what their stance is, just that they never did anything of the sort to me or my brother. I do recall one of my parents mentioning in passing that her household did use physical discipline to some extent, and that might've had something to do with why they decided against it (since I know that their respective less-than-wonderful experiences in school were a large part of why they homeschooled us).
This is all conjecture, though, since I've not asked.

Is there a no-spanking law where you live? I have no idea.

If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted? N/A

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question? The question in the title of the thread? Shocked would be the wrong word. Surprised, yeah. I honestly hadn't thought people really did that much any more. Clearly, I was wrong. I do wonder now what made me think that. Lack of evidence either way, probably.

Me, I don't really care what other people do so long as it's working out for everybody involved. That's their life, and everybody is different. If what they're doing crosses the line into actually being bad for one person or another, I think everybody agrees that shouldn't happen, and otherwise I don't think it's anyone's business except the family's.

[Shyftir]

Did you grow up in a household with physical discipline? Yes, my parents were firm believers in various sorts of punishments depending on the "crime." I was even given spankings at school a few times early on, (private school) and if I got one at school I was gonna get one at home too, every time. (I quickly learned to behave at school.)
I have been spanked with belts and paddles as well as hands. (To this day the sound of a leather belt sliding through pants makes me sit up a bit straighter and want to act a bit more "right.") Never was I ever welted or cut by any of it, and it never left more than a red mark and a tender tush. One of the most important things about the process my dad shared with me later. He never ever spanked me while he was angry. If he was angry, he'd wait until he wasn't anymore before he'd spank me. If you have any plan to use physical punishment on your children, please, please follow that rule!

Did your parents ever change their stance on using it or not?
Nope, but they stopped using it on children at the age of 12 or so, I don't remember my last "whoopin" but I certainly remember a few times when I deserved one, but didn't get one.

Is there a no-spanking law where you live? I don't think so, but it's never really come up for me since I moved here in Highschool.

If there is, where do you live, and (if you know) when was it enacted? I live near Chicago, but grew up in Missouri.

Are you shocked that I even have to ask the question?

No, I've been involved in children's work (teaching and religious ministry) and it's a subject that must needs be dealt with in those situations, especially since "Spare the rod, spoil the child." is basically a paraphrase of a verse in the book of Proverbs.

[Brother Oni]

Something I found that might be of interest: Lenny Henry standup routine (from 7.10 onwards) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_pwt9_AgbA).
It's a humorous view of physical punishment, but the comedian seems to have turned out fine. :smallbiggrin:

I guess it's not just Asian cultures that have a history of using it.

[Thajocoth]

A horrible parent would enforce and solicit the use of tasers :smalltongue:

That would be horrible, yes. Not that I see a difference between that and any other form of pain as punishment. Pain is pain, where and how are irrelevant.

EDIT: I'm assuming the same quantity of pain here... Low enough voltage to be equal to a spanking session. Sorry for any confusion.

As for guns... There's always an alternative to killing someone. Always an alternative to wars. I don't pretend to always know what these alternatives are... But there's always a peaceful solution to every situation. Even if you do have to shoot someone, you can shoot to disarm or incapacitate... Or shoot with a tranquilizer... Or something. There's always a viable alternative to murder.

[Quincunx]

Well. . .it seems the contradictory arguments that come up around the discipline of children are all still well-rooted in experience; no one is just parroting a stance they took as a hypothetical situation (yes, a few of us came from bubbles of isolation that are more often found in works of fiction--but they still occurred). No wonder the arguments are so intractable. Reality is difficult to argue against and every side can use reality in their support. :smallfrown:

Thanks, everyone, and especially to the ones who went and found the current laws. There's one place where an overarching reality is definitely going to contradict a few of our personal realities.

[742]

the effectiveness probably comes down to the child, the relationship with their parents, the culture they are brought up to participate in and how its done; the amount of anger menace and pain that occur. from my personal observations (i tried something similar a long time ago but i had too small a sample size to be useful for anything other than anecdotal evidence and didnt take steps to ensure the accuracy of the information) it works very well on normal-ish children brought up to participate in a fear based culture.

[Helanna]

That would be horrible, yes. Not that I see a difference between that and any other form of pain as punishment. Pain is pain, where and how are irrelevant.


This is just flat-out ridiculous, and you know it. Tasering your child is in no way parallel to giving them a smack across the bottom. "Pain is pain" is a ridiculous sentiment - different types of pain most certainly ARE different, unless you see no difference between, say, stubbing a toe and breaking an arm.

Tasering a child as punishment will probably lead to severe, severe issues later in life. You have yet to provide one source that says spanking has any effect NEAR that severe. You've dodged issues, refused questions, and are currently hiding behind "Pain is a bad thing to discipline a child with, and anyone who does it is an abusive parent!" without providing any sort of facts, references, or sources. You are entitled to your opinion. You are NOT entitled to calling half the people in this thread abusive and then refusing to back it up.

So knock it off and address the freakin' question - WHY physical punishment is a bad thing - without hiding behind ridiculous parallels and unsupported statements. I'm really sorry if this came off as too harsh, but you've been pretty harsh yourself in your condemnations, and I'd really like to see some proof.

[Thajocoth]

This is just flat-out ridiculous, and you know it. Tasering your child is in no way parallel to giving them a smack across the bottom. "Pain is pain" is a ridiculous sentiment - different types of pain most certainly ARE different, unless you see no difference between, say, stubbing a toe and breaking an arm.

Tasering a child as punishment will probably lead to severe, severe issues later in life. You have yet to provide one source that says spanking has any effect NEAR that severe. You've dodged issues, refused questions, and are currently hiding behind "Pain is a bad thing to discipline a child with, and anyone who does it is an abusive parent!" without providing any sort of facts, references, or sources. You are entitled to your opinion. You are NOT entitled to calling half the people in this thread abusive and then refusing to back it up.

So knock it off and address the freakin' question - WHY physical punishment is a bad thing - without hiding behind ridiculous parallels and unsupported statements. I'm really sorry if this came off as too harsh, but you've been pretty harsh yourself in your condemnations, and I'd really like to see some proof.

No, I'm not being ridiculous. I'm assuming a low enough voltage to be the same quantity of pain. (Edited my post to be clear on that.)

Why is hitting someone's butt any different from hitting their face? Or kicking them? Same amount of pain is the same amount of pain. What makes the butt special?

I REALLY do not see a difference here. If we accept that hitting a child in any other spot is bad, than hitting them on the butt is equally as bad, and equally as inexcusable.

So tell me how it's NOT the same to cause the same quantity of pain in, say, the child's shin, for example.

EDIT: "calling half the people in this thread abusive" - This, I think, touches on why something so obviously barbaric can still be widely accepted. People don't like to admit that they've done something wrong, or that something wrong was done to them by their parents, so they'll make excuses and claim to be perfectly fine in ways they're not (and sometimes repress all memory of the event as well). Just like a beaten wife will often believe she deserves it and never go to the police. Same effect... And so the act is continued through the generations, to justify that it's already been going on. When so many people in society are aggressive and/or depressed as much as they are, to the point where we need a million ways to vent these things, and even then so much crime goes on... I'm not seeing "most people are fine and perfectly healthy." I'm seeing "The average person needs a great psychologist." The average person has "severe, severe issues later in life."

[Sholos]

As for guns... There's always an alternative to killing someone. Always an alternative to wars. I don't pretend to always know what these alternatives are... But there's always a peaceful solution to every situation. Even if you do have to shoot someone, you can shoot to disarm or incapacitate... Or shoot with a tranquilizer... Or something. There's always a viable alternative to murder.

I would love to start a thread about this very topic, but as it would necessitate going into board-forbidden zones, I can only say that I think you're wrong, and that I have good reasons to believe so.

Well, I guess I can talk about "shooting to disarm or incapacitate". It's generally a myth. If you are firing on another human being with lethal ammunition, "shooting to incapacitate-but-not-kill" is almost impossible in a tense situation, and in many cases can lead to more death than just that of the target if he is left able to respond. So, when given the choice between the possible death of innocents and the more certain death of the weapon-wielding maniac, the better of the two tends to win out.

[Thajocoth]

I would love to start a thread about this very topic, but as it would necessitate going into board-forbidden zones, I can only say that I think you're wrong, and that I have good reasons to believe so.

Well, I guess I can talk about "shooting to disarm or incapacitate". It's generally a myth. If you are firing on another human being with lethal ammunition, "shooting to incapacitate-but-not-kill" is almost impossible in a tense situation, and in many cases can lead to more death than just that of the target if he is left able to respond. So, when given the choice between the possible death of innocents and the more certain death of the weapon-wielding maniac, the better of the two tends to win out.

Perhaps that part is incorrect, but I very much believe the core of what I was saying. It is never ever necessary for a human to kill another human. Situations where it becomes necessary are avoidable. I don't claim to be able to figure out the solution to every situation, and I don't fault someone for taking the murder option when they're unable to figure out one of the alternatives (assuming a bad enough situation to warrant it). I simply know that such an alternative always EXISTS.

[THAC0]

Perhaps that part is incorrect, but I very much believe the core of what I was saying. It is never ever necessary for a human to kill another human. Situations where it becomes necessary are avoidable. I don't claim to be able to figure out the solution to every situation, and I don't fault someone for taking the murder option when they're unable to figure out one of the alternatives (assuming a bad enough situation to warrant it). I simply know that such an alternative always EXISTS.

You are wrong. Alternatives are not always possible nor are they always acceptable.

[Krade]

I don't claim to be able to figure out the solution to every situation, and I don't fault someone for taking the murder option when they're unable to figure out one of the alternatives (assuming a bad enough situation to warrant it).

It's not murder if there are no other reasonable alternatives. You're applying inherently negative terms to bias your argument. It's EXACTLY like calling all physical discipline abuse. It's wrong and damaging to your own position.

[Thajocoth]

You are wrong. Alternatives are not always possible nor are they always acceptable.

The most either side of this argument can say is, essentially: "uh-huh!" "nuh-uh!". I know that not many agree with my opinion, but it really can't even reach a debatable level either way. Even if you used examples, I'd say that that "just because none of US can see the solution doesn't mean one doesn't exist, and if it doesn't, the situation itself was likely avoidable." So there's really nothing more to say on that topic.

Basically, I'm aware that a lot of people disagree with me on that issue, and unlike the thread's main topic, I don't really mind or care. It's WAY too far outside what is practical to hope that humankind as a whole ever agrees with my stance on murder and war, so I don't worry about it.


It's not murder if there are no other reasonable alternatives. You're applying inherently negative terms to bias your argument. It's EXACTLY like calling all physical discipline abuse. It's wrong and damaging to your own position.

The only time people don't call it "murder" is when a soldier kills another soldier (war), or someone accidentally kills someone else (manslaughter, I think). Murder in self defense is still called murder... It's just not punished (I think it's not, at least). And I'm fine with that.

Personally, I see no reason not to call a soldier killing another soldier "murder", so I do. That's the only difference between how I use the term and the norm.

And I'm not arguing this side topic. I'm merely stating my opinion on it. I couldn't care less if you agree with it or not.

[KnightDisciple]

It is not called murder if it was a killing in self defense. Murder is specifically the unlawful, "malice aforethought" killing.

Self-defense would be referred to as lawful homicide.

Now, you can, personally, call it "murder", but that is not the legally accepted definition. Or culturally accepted.

It's what Krade was talking about: you're applying inherently negative terms to bias your argument. And Krade's right: it severely damages and diminishes your position.

[Krade]

The only time people don't call it "murder" is when a soldier kills another soldier (war), or someone accidentally kills someone else (manslaughter, I think). Murder in self defense is still called murder... It's just not punished (I think it's not, at least). And I'm fine with that.

Personally, I see no reason not to call a soldier killing another soldier "murder", so I do. That's the only difference between how I use the term and the norm.

And I'm not arguing this side topic. I'm merely stating my opinion on it. I couldn't care less if you agree with it or not.I've already stated that I'm not saying anyone's stance was wrong. My problem is with incorrect methods of getting your point across. Also: Murder (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder). Note that if the killing of another human being is NOT considered unlawful (such as self defence or soldiers during wartime), it is NOT murder. So the definition of murder varies depending on what is considered lawful in any given area.

Edit: Aaaand ninja'd. Oh well...

[Marnath]

As for guns... There's always an alternative to killing someone. Always an alternative to wars. I don't pretend to always know what these alternatives are... But there's always a peaceful solution to every situation. Even if you do have to shoot someone, you can shoot to disarm or incapacitate... Or shoot with a tranquilizer... Or something. There's always a viable alternative to murder.

Spoken like someone who's life has never been in danger. Assuming that there is always a non-violent solution is in my opinion dangerously naive. There are numerous occasions where lethal force is the only defense. I'm not even going to get into how wrong it is to call all killing murder, because I don't see any way to not take it to a political level.

[KnightDisciple]

Now, that all said, I think most anyone could agree, if we could produce something like Star Trek's phaser, with a semi-magical "stun" setting, that would be vastly preferable.

Problem is, nothing close to that exists yet. There's tasers, but there's plenty of issues there...

[Marnath]

Now, that all said, I think most anyone could agree, if we could produce something like Star Trek's phaser, with a semi-magical "stun" setting, that would be vastly preferable.

Problem is, nothing close to that exists yet. There's tasers, but there's plenty of issues there...

I agree! Gimme a phaser and a lightsaber(yes, I know they're from different shows) and I'll be happy as a clam. :smalltongue:

[Thajocoth]

It is not called murder if it was a killing in self defense. Murder is specifically the unlawful, "malice aforethought" killing.

Self-defense would be referred to as lawful homicide.

Now, you can, personally, call it "murder", but that is not the legally accepted definition. Or culturally accepted.

It's what Krade was talking about: you're applying inherently negative terms to bias your argument. And Krade's right: it severely damages and diminishes your position.

I am not saying that killing in self defense is wrong. You generally don't have enough information or time in such a scenario to know an alternative... I'm just saying that there IS one. As far as I knew 15 minutes ago, murder, killing and homicide were synonyms with the exact same attached connotation. Guess I was wrong about that. I used the one that came to my mind first.

I am saying only that there always is another solution, not that it always needs to be taken. And I guess I'm also saying that war is inherently wrong, but I really cannot get into that further on this board.

Also, this is simply a personal opinion, not a side in an argument. I am NOT saying that you should all agree with me on this... I'm NOT trying to argue it... So I don't HAVE a position to damage and diminish!

EDIT: Even after reading your posts, I still used the word murder in this one when I meant killing... Fixed that.

[Marnath]

Hypothetically speaking, what would an alternative be to killing someone threatening you that doesn't lead to you getting shot or stabbed? I can't think of any alternatives in a situation where you'd be justified using lethal force that wouldn't get you seriously hurt or dead.

[Thajocoth]

Hypothetically speaking, what would an alternative be to killing someone threatening you that doesn't lead to you getting shot or stabbed? I can't think of any alternatives in a situation where you'd be justified using lethal force that wouldn't get you seriously hurt or dead.

The other half is that I don't always know what the solution is. It could be saying the right thing about something you couldn't possibly know about that would effect the attacker on an emotional level. It could be to dive behind something and run away. I don't claim to know, and I don't claim that killing the individual instead is unjustified... Especially since many alternative solutions will be impossible to know or more risky than simply killing the person, and doing so has the added benefit of likely preventing another from being in the same position later, as it removes the attacker from being able to attack another later.

EDIT: Are we done with this side-topic? Because I really don't think there's anything more I could possibly say on it than what I already have... And if there is, perhaps PMs are a better place for it. I think it only spawned from my tendency to not make what I mean as obvious as I think it is.

[Xyk]

Hypothetically speaking, what would an alternative be to killing someone threatening you that doesn't lead to you getting shot or stabbed? I can't think of any alternatives in a situation where you'd be justified using lethal force that wouldn't get you seriously hurt or dead.

There are several alternatives. The preferred but requiring the most preparation is to avoid being threatened. Most threatening situations are seemingly random. To avoid those, you stay in safe numbers, make yourself look like a difficult target or one of low value.

Another is to non-lethally incapacitate your threat. Martial arts programs can help you there.

Also running away. I heard somewhere that someone running away from a gun has only a 10% chance of being shot. But that's probably wrong.

Edit: Whoops. I have a nasty habit of getting into side topics. Feel free to disregard this post and get back on topic.

[Helanna]

EDIT: "calling half the people in this thread abusive" - This, I think, touches on why something so obviously barbaric can still be widely accepted. People don't like to admit that they've done something wrong, or that something wrong was done to them by their parents, so they'll make excuses and claim to be perfectly fine in ways they're not (and sometimes repress all memory of the event as well). Just like a beaten wife will often believe she deserves it and never go to the police. Same effect... And so the act is continued through the generations, to justify that it's already been going on.

See, now you're applying this to not only half the people in this thread, but many, many people throughout the world. Frankly, you are not even remotely qualified to speak for everyone. Claiming that every single person who supports physical discipline is just trying to justify what was done to them is just unfair. Especially as has been shown in this thread, not everyone who supports physical discipline had it done to them as children.


When so many people in society are aggressive and/or depressed as much as they are, to the point where we need a million ways to vent these things, and even then so much crime goes on... I'm not seeing "most people are fine and perfectly healthy." I'm seeing "The average person needs a great psychologist." The average person has "severe, severe issues later in life."

And not everyone was physically disciplined as a child, so I don't see how this supports your point at all - if anything, it weakens it, since you've just admitted that issues later in life has basically no basis in being spanked, since virtually everyone has them, and NOT everyone was spanked. Unless you are seriously trying to claim that spanking is responsible for all the wrongs in the world, all the crime, and all the mental issues - and also that kids who weren't spanked never grow up to commit crimes or see psychologists.

Edit: But yeah, this side-discussion should stop - I don't think it's really board-legal. At the very least it should be moved to its own thread.

[Thajocoth]

I don't think it's the only factor for that stuff... But I think it's a big factor. I really don't think the average never-spanked person is as aggressive as the average spanked-a-lot person.

I don't look up info for debates. If I don't know something off the top of my head, I'm not going to go through the trouble of Googling it. There might be studies. I don't know. If not, somebody should do some.

Also, seeing a psychologist is in no way a negative thing. It's been helpful for me before, and probably will be again. Most people can benefit from it.

I am NOT referring to a psychiatrist... There are very very FEW people who can benefit from a psychiatrist in my opinion. If you'd like, I could explain the difference...

EDIT: And what about my question as to why slapping the butt of a child is any different from slapping the face of a child? Or the arm? Or the foot? What makes the butt so special? I am REALLY curious to know how pro-spanking people justify the difference.

[THAC0]

EDIT: And what about my question as to why slapping the butt of a child is any different from slapping the face of a child? Or the arm? Or the foot? What makes the butt so special? I am REALLY curious to know how pro-spanking people justify the difference.

Well, the butt has a lot more "padding," for one. :smallsmile:

Also, I could be wrong, but I think there's fewer nerve endings as well, compared to face or extremities.

[Helanna]

I don't think it's the only factor for that stuff... But I think it's a big factor. I really don't think the average never-spanked person is as aggressive as the average spanked-a-lot person.

I don't look up info for debates. If I don't know something off the top of my head, I'm not going to go through the trouble of Googling it. There might be studies. I don't know. If not, somebody should do some.

So you're basically just saying stuff that you have exactly no evidence for, and expect us to just take your word for it?


Also, seeing a psychologist is in no way a negative thing. It's been helpful for me before, and probably will be again. Most people can benefit from it.

I am NOT referring to a psychiatrist... There are very very FEW people who can benefit from a psychiatrist in my opinion. If you'd like, I could explain the difference...

No, thank you, I know the difference if I concentrate, I just don't really bother to work out the distinction most of the time.


EDIT: And what about my question as to why slapping the butt of a child is any different from slapping the face of a child? Or the arm? Or the foot? What makes the butt so special? I am REALLY curious to know how pro-spanking people justify the difference.

Well, for one thing, the butt is more padded - it really doesn't hurt as much. A similar force applied to other parts of the body would hurt a lot more. Ninja'd! And in very nearly the same words!

Also, slapping the arm/hand of a child isn't exactly unheard of - it might be MORE common than spanking, since it's also not very painful and is generally easier for everyone. But it is a good point, and I'll think about it.

I feel I should stress, though, that I'm not exactly supporting hitting children every time they do something wrong. I just don't think that smacking a child once in a while (if they're misbehaving, obviously) counts as abuse, or severely traumatizes them. It's a tool in helping children develop properly, and like any other tool, can certainly be misapplied. It's also not the best option for every child. I just object to your claims that it severely traumatizes children and counts as child abuse.

Also, a question for you: If you have a small child (say, two or three) that often runs into the street, or plays with knives, or some other very dangerous behavior, what do you suggest? They're not old enough to reason as to why it's bad, other punishments (reprimands, time outs) either don't work or don't have a strong enough effect, and they're too young to remember if they ARE spanked. If it'll be enough to stop them, why not do it?

[Thajocoth]

Well, the butt has a lot more "padding," for one. :smallsmile:

Also, I could be wrong, but I think there's fewer nerve endings as well, compared to face or extremities.

So, for a larger child, would the belly be an acceptable alternative?

I would think that the butt would hurt worse, as sitting afterward would apply pressure to the area, causing further extended pain, whereas pain on the arm need not be anything more than what it initially was.

Personally, I don't remember the pain from being spanked at... 0-2 years old was the range, I think... Possibly 0-3. But I do know that quite often after using the toilet it is very difficult for me to sit at all from the pain of it for a while, making it very difficult to be productive. (I know, I know... Change my diet...) So I really don't think it's all that... non-sensitive? Is that the word I'm looking for?


Also, a question for you: If you have a small child (say, two or three) that often runs into the street, or plays with knives, or some other very dangerous behavior, what do you suggest? They're not old enough to reason as to why it's bad, other punishments (reprimands, time outs) either don't work or don't have a strong enough effect, and they're too young to remember if they ARE spanked. If it'll be enough to stop them, why not do it?

Street:
Why do you not have a tight grip on their hand?

Knives:
Why are they not in a locked drawer or out of reach?

Basic childproofing.

[THAC0]

So, for a larger child, would the belly be an acceptable alternative?

I would think that the butt would hurt worse, as sitting afterward would apply pressure to the area, causing further extended pain, whereas pain on the arm need not be anything more than what it initially was.

Personally, I don't remember the pain from being spanked at... 0-2 years old was the range, I think... Possibly 0-3. But I do know that quite often after using the toilet it is very difficult for me to sit at all from the pain of it for a while, making it very difficult to be productive. (I know, I know... Change my diet...) So I really don't think it's all that... non-sensitive? Is that the word I'm looking for?


I think that toilet pain and smacking pain are probably not the same thing.



Street:
Why do you not have a tight grip on their hand?

Knives:
Why are they not in a locked drawer or out of reach?

Basic childproofing.

There is no completely-always childproof-childproofing. Children are remarkably clever when it comes to finding ways to do things they shouldn't do.

[Elfin]

As for guns... There's always an alternative to killing someone. Always an alternative to wars. I don't pretend to always know what these alternatives are... But there's always a peaceful solution to every situation. Even if you do have to shoot someone, you can shoot to disarm or incapacitate... Or shoot with a tranquilizer... Or something. There's always a viable alternative to murder.

I can't express how much I agree with this.

[Helanna]

So, for a larger child, would the belly be an acceptable alternative?

Not at all, have you ever been hit/punched in the stomach? There are tons of nerve endings there, it's extremely painful and nauseating. That's not true of being smacked across the butt. And if it seriously hurts to sit for more than about a minute after being spanked, then it was done too hard.



Street:
Why do you not have a tight grip on their hand?

Knives:
Why are they not in a locked drawer or out of reach?

Basic childproofing.

That's not really the point here, I'm just talking theory. But yeah, like THAC0 said, it is not possible to childproof every single thing that could ever possibly cause harm to a child. For one thing, if nothing else, children are perfectly capable of harming themselves - running, jumping, climbing, basically doing anything that they're not supposed to be doing in certain places could lead to serious injury, even death.

[Thajocoth]

I think that toilet pain and smacking pain are probably not the same thing.

Maybe... There's certainly a directional difference.


There is no completely-always childproof-childproofing. Children are remarkably clever when it comes to finding ways to do things they shouldn't do.

True. But if it takes them sufficient time to do, they should be checked on before they're successful.

I'd probably be a bit neurotic with checking on any kid I potentially have from the moment I first see them crawl or roll in a direction...

Honestly, I kinda hope I don't. I used to want kids, but realized that wanting kids merely because I think I have a responsibility to have them due to a perceived better parenting ability than the average is not a good reason to want kids. So now I don't.

[Marillion]

So, for a larger child, would the belly be an acceptable alternative?
There are sensitive vital and squishy organs very close to the surface behind a belly. There are not behind the buttocks. That said, a light slap on the stomach isn't necessarily a big deal. I'd rather be given a pink belly than an indian burn :smallbiggrin:



I would think that the butt would hurt worse, as sitting afterward would apply pressure to the area, causing further extended pain, whereas pain on the arm need not be anything more than what it initially was.
Nothing more serious than minor discomfort.



Personally, I don't remember the pain from being spanked at... 0-2 years old was the range, I think... Possibly 0-3. But I do know that quite often after using the toilet it is very difficult for me to sit at all from the pain of it for a while, making it very difficult to be productive. (I know, I know... Change my diet...) So I really don't think it's all that... non-sensitive? Is that the word I'm looking for?
:smallconfused: You do realize we don't apply spankings directly to the sphincter, don't you? The buttocks are a lot less sensitive to pain than the sphincter, and it's an entirely different kind of pain being applied.




Street:
Why do you not have a tight grip on their hand?
Ignoring for the moment that children are stronger and more slippery than we give them credit for, there are plenty of valid reasons that a guardian may have to let go of the child's hand for a second, and a second is all it takes for the child to think "OOH SHINY" and run off.


Knives:
Why are they not in a locked drawer or out of reach?
Again, there are valid reasons for having a knife out. For example, I would find it very difficult to prepare dinner without having a knife out.

[THAC0]

True. But if it takes them sufficient time to do, they should be checked on before they're successful.

I'd probably be a bit neurotic with checking on any kid I potentially have from the moment I first see them crawl or roll in a direction...

Honestly, I kinda hope I don't. I used to want kids, but realized that wanting kids merely because I think I have a responsibility to have them due to a perceived better parenting ability than the average is not a good reason to want kids. So now I don't.

You'd be surprised at how fast kids can do stuff. Even the best parent is not constantly at their most observant and focused on their kid at all times. It's physically impossible. The bottom line is "things happen." We can do our best to prevent them, but also need to be aware that they might happen anyway.

[Thajocoth]

If a child is young enough that time out can't work, they're likely young enough to be in one of those child-walker things with bumpers... Where they can walk around the room all they want, but can't realistically reach anything.

You shouldn't release the child's hand for even a second if near a road. If you need your other hand, you switch hands, briefly holding both their hands.

[Trog]

I used to want kids, but realized that wanting kids merely because I think I have a responsibility to have them due to a perceived better parenting ability than the average is not a good reason to want kids. So now I don't.
Ah. This explains it then.

There's a great deal of people who, before they have children are of the opinion that they would be superior parents - often coupled with the same attitudes you seem to put forth in this thread.

Never ever seen that attitude survive actually being a parent though. Having a child is a lesson in patience as well as humility. Idealism is fine and all. But you'll find there's a bit of a rift between that and reality, I'm afraid.

[THAC0]

If a child is young enough that time out can't work, they're likely young enough to be in one of those child-walker things with bumpers... Where they can walk around the room all they want, but can't realistically reach anything.

You shouldn't release the child's hand for even a second if near a road.

I don't have kids, but many of my friends do, and none of them have child-walker-bumper things.

[Thajocoth]

Ah. This explains it then.

There's a great deal of people who, before they have children are of the opinion that they would be superior parents - often coupled with the same attitudes you seem to put forth in this thread.

Never ever seen that attitude survive actually being a parent though. Having a child is a lesson in patience as well as humility. Idealism is fine and all. But you'll find there's a bit of a rift between that and reality, I'm afraid.

This doesn't work when what I'm saying is practiced by and works for plenty of parents. This belief doesn't come simply from "I think x, y & z". It comes from a combination of having a bother who's 8 years younger than I, living in a day care through most of high school/college, and taking various psychology courses, including developmental psych.

[Trog]

This doesn't work when what I'm saying is practiced by and works for plenty of parents. This belief doesn't come simply from "I think x, y & z". It comes from a combination of having a bother who's 8 years younger than I, living in a day care through most of high school/college, and taking various psychology courses, including developmental psych.
The map is not the territory.

[Thajocoth]

The map is not the territory.

My brother and the children in the day care were never spanked, and every last one of them behaved well enough. As stated earlier in the thread, almost every child who came in was a complete brat for the first week, and through applying time out properly, they started behaving well enough not only at the daycare, but eventually at home as well when their parents started using the same methods.

I think there was something like 8 kids at a time, generally. Initially 2 and up. She eventually switched to 3 and up. Today she doesn't run a day care, but instead provides services that make things easier for other day care providers.

[Trog]

My brother and the children in the day care were never spanked, and every last one of them behaved well enough. As stated earlier in the thread, almost every child who came in was a complete brat for the first week, and through applying time out properly, they started behaving well enough not only at the daycare, but eventually at home as well when their parents started using the same methods.
*Ahem* To stick to my point, your parenting skills will only ever be proven once you /actually raise/ a child. Parenthood ideals, ambitions, and theories are all fine and good but in reality you'll find that the actual process of raising a child to be vastly different than ideals, ambitions and theories.

Perhaps you may succeed in holding both you and your child up to your high expectations. Perhaps you will not. Best of luck to you either way. :smallsmile:

EDIT: @^ I don't need any parenting advice, thanks. I've already raised my kids well past the spanking age. :smallsmile:

[Thajocoth]

Checked my mother's site and found what she links to for advice on disciplining toddlers: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1529C.pdf

The answer to the "dangerous situation" question:

Remove or isolate
When a child is running out into the street or about to get into the household bleach, there is no time for negotiation. Parents MUST remove a child from a dangerous situation. Picking up, holding, or putting a child in the crib for a few minutes until things can be made safe is perfectly OK. Your child may protest loudly, but your primary responsibility is to keep him or her safe.

And, to the topic:

Is it ever OK to spank?
Toddlers often respond well to physical action when you need to discipline them. Touching them on the arm, taking them by the hand, picking them up, holding, or restraining them are all good ways to get their attention. Spanking will also get their attention, but doesn’t do a very good job of teaching them how to behave. In fact, it generally distresses children so much that they can’t pay attention to your explanations or directions. It’s hard to reason with a screaming, crying child.
Some parents who frequently slap a toddler’s hand are dismayed to find their toddler slapping back. Or worse yet, slapping and hitting others. Spanking and slapping can quickly get out-of-hand for both parents and children. Most reported cases of abuse involve loving, well-meaning parents who just lost control. Studies show that children who experience or witness a great deal of spanking, slapping, or hitting are much more likely to become physically aggressive themselves.
Toddlers love to imitate. Most parents find it more successful to teach a child what to do rather than what not to do. It may help to think of behavior problems as opportunities to teach your child new skills. After all, the word discipline comes from the word disciple, which means “to teach.”

EDIT: I should've looked up and linked to this article pages ago...

[Amiel]

Many who physically discipline their children still do so from a position of love; they lovingly reprimand their children so their misbehaviour does not lead them astray later in life.
This why the butt is preferred, it does not nearly hurt as much as the face or head, nor does love usually cause you to target a body part as obviously vital as the head.

[Thajocoth]

Perhaps you may succeed in holding both you and your child up to your high expectations. Perhaps you will not. Best of luck to you either way. :smallsmile:

I'm very stubborn. I know hitting a child for any reason is always child abuse, so I would absolutely never do it under any circumstances.


Many who physically discipline their children still do so from a position of love; they lovingly reprimand their children so their misbehaviour does not lead them astray later in life.
This why the butt is preferred, it does not nearly hurt as much as the face or head, nor does love usually cause you to target a body part as obviously vital as the head.

I'm well aware that it's usually out of love rather than malice in most cases. However... "Most reported cases of abuse involve loving, well-meaning parents who just lost control." Best not to risk it.

[Amiel]

Statically speaking, one is also likely to get run over, stung to death by bees, drown, get crushed by heavy objects and a million other things.
Risking it is better than being paralysed by fear.

[Thajocoth]

Statically speaking, one is also likely to be run over, stung to death by bees, drown, get crushed by heavy objects and a million other things.
Risking it is better than being paralysed by fear.

Not when there are good alternatives.

[Amiel]

Research shows that no physical discipline can lead to behavioural problems.

[Thajocoth]

Research shows that no physical discipline can lead to behavioural problems.

"Studies show that children who experience or witness a great deal of spanking, slapping, or hitting are much more likely to become physically aggressive themselves. Toddlers love to imitate."
- Article from Iowa State University (linked earlier)

[Amiel]

Physical Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a Moderator (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766084/); "Countries with the lowest use of physical discipline showed the strongest association between mothers' use and children's behavior problems."

A child walks into their parent's bedroom whilst they are having sex, will said child also imitate the parent's behaviour?

[Trog]

I know hitting a child for any reason is always child abuse
No it isn't. You'll not find a jury in the U.S. here that will agree to this outright. Each accusation of child abuse is investigated and some of them are found not to be as such /despite/ hitting happening. So, obviously, hitting your child is not /always/ child abuse. So you're wrong.

[Thajocoth]

A child walks into their parent's bedroom whilst they are having sex, will said child also imitate the parent's behaviour?

They'll probably try to, I would think. Assuming the image sticks with them...


No it isn't. You'll not find a jury in the U.S. here that will agree to this outright. Each accusation of child abuse is investigated and some of them are found not to be as such /despite/ hitting happening. So, obviously, hitting your child is not /always/ child abuse. So you're wrong.

Not legally... But morally it is.

[Amiel]

Think or know; play fighting is part and parcel of a child's existence, this is irregardless of whether they experienced physical discipline or not.
Some children are physically aggressive despite receiving no physical punishment whatsoever.
I was physically disciplined and I'm not aggressive at all.

You may have been conflating physical discipline with physical abuse all this time.

[Trog]

Not legally... But morally it is.
Morals are highly subjective and therefore open to individual interpretation. So saying it is /always/ abuse is, again, wrong, as not everyone agrees with you.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Street:
Why do you not have a tight grip on their hand?

Knives:
Why are they not in a locked drawer or out of reach?

Basic childproofing.

Street:
Because Billy is a child. Billy is not a prisoner. Billy knows that there are dangerous things out and about, but still needs to run about and excercise to grow into a healthy human. Besides, my hands could be busy doing things that are *important*.

Knives:
Because Billy understands and respects knives for what they are. He understands how they are dangerous in the same way a gun is dangerous. As a child. I was intimately familar with the combat knives, swords, and kitchen knives in the house. I was slightly less familar with the nine millimeter, but I knew where the key to the lock and the spare ammunition was. I knew how to saftey-check the weapon. I had held it in my hands - both loaded and unloaded.

[Thajocoth]

Street:
Because Billy is a child. Billy is not a prisoner. Billy knows that there are dangerous things out and about, but still needs to run about and excercise to grow into a healthy human. Besides, my hands could be busy doing things that are *important*.

Knives:
Because Billy understands and respects knives for what they are. He understands how they are dangerous in the same way a gun is dangerous. As a child. I was intimately familar with the combat knives, swords, and kitchen knives in the house. I was slightly less familar with the nine millimeter, but I knew where the key to the lock and the spare ammunition was. I knew how to saftey-check the weapon. I had held it in my hands - both loaded and unloaded.

Then he's old enough for Time Out or another method of punishment to be effective.

[Krade]

You can't argue with someone who is right.

[Amiel]

Then he's old enough for Time Out or another method of punishment to be effective.

When has time out ever worked?
Although there is that one time on Nanny McPhee :smalltongue:

[Thajocoth]

When has time out ever worked?
Although there is that one time on Nanny McPhee :smalltongue:

On every child I've seen it applied to... Which is several dozen... And a great many that I haven't. You have to know how to do it right.

[Amiel]

On every child I'VE seen it applied to... Which is several dozen... And a great many that I haven't. You have to know how to do it right.

And physical discipline that is applied in a way that is done right can also work wonders, and that is on every child I've seen it applied to.

[Thajocoth]

And physical discipline that is applied in a way that is done right can also work wonders, and that is on every child I've seen it applied to.

And I'm quite certain they all bear mental scars from it, even if repressed. I don't call that success.

EDIT: I think we're repeating posts now (as is to be expected in any debate that's like this one...), so I'm gonna stop checking this thread. PM me if you have something to say to me here.

[Amiel]

A child can also gain mental scarring from time out. In fact, as I've said, verbal reprimands can be potentially more damaging than physical discipline.
Again, you are conflating physical discipline with physical abuse; they are entirely separate.

[Krade]

And I'm quite certain that sleeping and eating cause mental scarring. So everyone be sure to listen to me and never eat or sleep again.

[Amiel]

Especially when eating is associated with both anorexia nervosa and bulimia, and sleeping is associated with night terrors.
Oh god, we can never eat or sleep again!

[Krade]

Okay, back to serious.

Technically, every single kind of mental conditioning is the same kind of thing as "scarring". Everything that you learned and the way you learned it scarred you mentally. It all stays with you one way or another. You call it bad. I call it good. You call it good. I call it bad. It's all the same, really.

[Amiel]

Hey, I was entirely serious; anorexia and bulimia especially are quite serious psychological disorders; caused by an aversion to eating, or severe gluttony followed by purging.
To use the vernacular, they have been emotionally scarred.

[The Grue]

The problem is that "stand in a corner" is not something that is easy to enforce without taking up 100% of a parent's time in order to do so, nor does it work in any "outside" situation. You can't punish a toddler acting out in a store by saying that he can't play, because it is unlikely they'd understand that concept, and you certainly can't stand them in a corner. As I said earlier in this, it also takes all of the parent's attention to keep a toddler standing in a corner, compared to the relatively minimal effort it takes to make sure an older kid isn't playing video games or on facebook or whatever.

Just thought I'd jump in way at the start here with my own anecdotal evidence. Screw reading the rest of the thread I say!

My parents' solution to Young Grue is Misbehaving at the Grocery Store was for one parent (they'd take turns) to pick me up, take me back to the car, and buckle me into the child seat out of reach of anything I could play with. I'd (presumably, i don't remember) flail and cry until I was blue in the face while Parent A sat up front with a crossword and Parent B continued shopping.

Sure, it tied up Parent A's time and meant they couldn't do anything else, but let's stop and think for a moment. Raising a child is not a hobby. If a parent is concerned about having to devote their full attention to discipline a child during a time-out, then that parent has some pretty strange ideas about their responsibilities as the kid's caregiver. If you can't spare that kind of time, you either need to hire a nanny or you shouldn't have a kid in the first place. Believe it or not, the parents' responsibility is to literally babysit their child until his/her critical thinking skills and personal experience are sufficient to keep them out of danger. The kid can't do it himself, so until he can it's your job to do it for him.

As for physical discipline versus other methods, I can't speak to that much. I only know that my parents did not (to my knowledge) practise physical discipline, barring two incidents. The first, when I was about six, is the only actual time I remember being spanked, and it was over pretty quick. The second, I was quite a bit older and was actively trying to provoke my dad - which takes quite a bit of doing, because my father is as gentle as a lamb and except for that pop on the mouth (after which he was extremely upset and teary-eyed) has never in twenty-three years raised a hand against me or my sister.

And we turned out alright, my sister and I. I one day want to have youngins of my own, but I think my parents would be a tough act to follow. I'm not sure I could do as good a job as they did with us.

[jmbrown]

I got my ass whooped as a kid. If you acted up at a friend's house, their parents whooped your ass, sent you home, called your parents, and then you got a second ass whooping. To be frank, I still acted like a hellion because I craved the attention and the pain of a butt whooping was fleeting. When they took a toy away, I went behind their back and took it. It resulted in an ass whooping and even longer punishment but the game of deception was more fun than the results. The joy of acting out superceded the pain of getting my ass beat.

When I reached high school I mellowed out. It was at that point that I realized what I was doing was pointless. My parents loved me so what kind of child was I to repay their love with foolishness? I was punishing them more than they were punishing me. It was also around this time that I started meditating and seriously working out (I ended up dropping 85lbs in order to join the military). It was the combination of spiritual and physical growth that helped me transcend past the pleasure of acting like a total **** and in hindsight I was a rotten awful bastard as a kid.

I do believe in physical punishment but at the same time the child needs to be made aware of why they're being punished which I think some parents miss. I liked to test people and see where their breaking point was because, call me sadistic, I liked seeing people frustrated. My little sister (when she was 4 or 5) used to smack people in the face just to see their reaction. One time she smacked me and I just looked at her in the eyes with a stoic expression for a minute straight and she broke down and cried. She never hit anyone in the face ever again.


Okay, back to serious.

Technically, every single kind of mental conditioning is the same kind of thing as "scarring". Everything that you learned and the way you learned it scarred you mentally. It all stays with you one way or another. You call it bad. I call it good. You call it good. I call it bad. It's all the same, really.

Can you call something a "scar" if it healed properly or was never damaged in the first place? I certainly wouldn't call weight lifting, which literally tears your muscles, physical scars.

[Thanatos 51-50]

And I'm quite certain they all bear mental scars from it, even if repressed. I don't call that success.

This is clever.
Now I can't say I don't have mental scars, because, according to you, I've repressed them. Nice cover, there.

[Quincunx]

. . .I stand corrected, one of the participants wasn't speaking out of reality after all. Even after that viewpoint was put in the "can be safely ignored" bin though, there is still enough contradiction for everyone.


I don't have kids, but many of my friends do, and none of them have child-walker-bumper things.

They were recalled around the time my youngest sister was getting out of them because they could turn turtle and then you had a baby with a concussion. Don't know if they are still in production.

[Brother Oni]

. . .I stand corrected, one of the participants wasn't speaking out of reality after all. Even after that viewpoint was put in the "can be safely ignored" bin though, there is still enough contradiction for everyone.

I'm of the opinion that the poster is just inexperienced, with only ancedotal and second hand information to work form, rather than first hand experience.

Their comments on there ALWAYS being an alternative to lethal force being the most telling in my opinion.



They were recalled around the time my youngest sister was getting out of them because they could turn turtle and then you had a baby with a concussion. Don't know if they are still in production.

Do you mean baby walkers (http://www.toysrus.co.uk/Babies-R-Us/Toys/Walkers/Graco-Explore-and-Play-Walker-Bubbles(0030712)?cm_mmc=Feed-_-Google%20Base-_-N%2FA-_-Graco%20Explore%20and%20Play%20Walker%20-%20Bubbles)?

The one my son had couldn't be flipped, although the little monster had great fun slicing your feet with the edges or rolling over your toes as he strolled past, plus he could climb out of it just after he learnt how to walk. :smallsigh:

[Murdim]

Ah. This explains it then.

There's a great deal of people who, before they have children are of the opinion that they would be superior parents - often coupled with the same attitudes you seem to put forth in this thread.

Never ever seen that attitude survive actually being a parent though. Having a child is a lesson in patience as well as humility. Idealism is fine and all. But you'll find there's a bit of a rift between that and reality, I'm afraid.
This is blatantly untrue :smallannoyed: The number of people here who were raised without physical discipline should be enough to show that the young, "idealistic" parents who disapprove of it are not always proven wrong by the sick, sad reality of child raising.


Some children are physically aggressive despite receiving no physical punishment whatsoever.
I was physically disciplined and I'm not aggressive at all.

You may have been conflating physical discipline with physical abuse all this time.
I do not see the point you're trying to make. Not all children who are/were physically abused become aggressive either. And I'm pretty sure by this point that Thajocoth's conflation of physical discipline with physical abuse isn't out ot ignorance or thoughtlessness. It is an informed, legitimate moral stand, regardless of whether one agrees with it or not. And for that matter, I do not completely agree with Thajocoth.


And physical discipline that is applied in a way that is done right can also work wonders, and that is on every child I've seen it applied to.
Which bring us to the question : while spanking can be an effective way to discipline a child, why should one use it preferentially over other parenting methods that are also effective ? Why the "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality ?

[jmbrown]

Which bring us to the question : while spanking can be an effective way to discipline a child, why should one use it preferentially over other parenting methods that are also effective ? Why the "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality ?

The question is how effective which none of us know.

[Helanna]

And I'm quite certain they all bear mental scars from it, even if repressed. I don't call that success.


I know Thajocoth isn't checking the thread anymore, but for reference for further conversation in case anyone's going to try to extend this: I am willing to bet the most small children will not remember being spanked. Not because they "repressed" it. Because they can't remember it, because they were too young, and it's not a big deal, even for the child.



Which bring us to the question : while spanking can be an effective way to discipline a child, why should one use it preferentially over other parenting methods that are also effective ? Why the "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality ?

Well, a lot of people here - like myself - aren't arguing that it's the best form of punishment, ever. I think most of us agree that it should only be used in certain cases where it would be most effective, or more effective than other forms of punishment. I believe that if a quick spanking is going to work faster, with less fuss, and more permanently than, say, a time out, it's not child abuse.

Edit:


The question is how effective which none of us know.

There's also this - it'll be different for every child. Some children, you can spank all you want and it won't affect them in the least. Some, a spanking every once in a while might improve their behavior and keep them safer. And others would react very, very poorly to it, and it would probably be a very bad choice of punishment.