Corporal Punishment

[Aqualung]

There is a big difference between a swift swat to a kids wrist or butt versus using a belt (which my dad used on me once).

I disagree. Both send a very strong message. "Adults aren't allowed to solve problems by hitting each other. Children aren't allowed to solve problems by hitting each other. But adults have so little regard for children that they are allowed to solve any problem they have with a child by hitting them."

As discipline, it measures from being something he likes because he gets away from his younger brother for a while, to only being a minor annoyance.

That's awesome. It looks like he is getting the deeper meaning that if you can't handle being around somebody you should take time away from them.

And honestly, how many of us here were spanked as kids and turned out ok

How much better would they have turned out if they hadn't been hit? You'll never know the answer to that question - your point is moot because it can't be tested at all. Yes, you may have turned out "ok", but that doesn't mean you wouldn't have turned out ridiculously incredible if you hadn't been spanked.

 

[ChristineES]

As a person who was hit by a belt or switch a lot as a kid (on which now seems like very trivial reasons), I don't like corporal punishment. It did me more harm than good.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's awesome. It looks like he is getting the deeper meaning that if you can't handle being around somebody you should take time away from them.

To him, it's more like if I punch him then he can't bother me anymore, and when he is told to go to the corner he is happy. That obviously isn't the way to learn how to avoid someone.

How much better would they have turned out if they hadn't been hit? You'll never know the answer to that question - your point is moot because it can't be tested at all. Yes, you may have turned out "ok", but that doesn't mean you wouldn't have turned out ridiculously incredible if you hadn't been spanked.

True that it can't be tested, but I really doubt it would have made that much of a difference. The whole argument that corporal punishment makes people more violent doesn't seem very strong when you consider that so many people who are now in there 30's and on up, and many people in there 20's were spanked as kids. And while there is alot of violence, it's not like everyone who was spanked is violent. There are so many factors to take into consideration that it would be very difficult to pin it down to corporal punishment.
No one has mentioned it, but another common argument against spanking is that a kid will learn to just misbehave when the parent isn't around and the child won't get caught. Well, when just a small amount of logic is applied to that one, it's easy to see that a child will misbehave when the chances of getting caught are low even when some other method of discipline is used.

As a person who was hit by a belt or switch a lot as a kid (on which now seems like very trivial reasons), I don't like corporal punishment. It did me more harm than good.

When my dad hit me with his belt, I not only remember the details (I don't remember the actual pain itself), but I never even thought about back talking my mom after that. I really don't even actually remember any instances in which I was spanked, I just know it did happen on a few occasions.
But really, it comes down to actual discipline, which isn't more than a slight sting at worst, and abuse. That and using what works best for each individual kid. There just is not one method that works better overall, but rather what works best for the child. Sometimes you even have to go as far to scare the crap out of a kid, send them to military school/boot camp, therapy, juvenile detention centers, and some other more extreme measures are sometimes needed for some kids.

 

[Aqualung]

To him, it's more like if I punch him then he can't bother me anymore, and when he is told to go to the corner he is happy. That obviously isn't the way to learn how to avoid someone.

What?

The whole argument that corporal punishment makes people more violent doesn't seem very strong when you consider that so many people who are now in there 30's and on up, and many people in there 20's were spanked as kids.

THat's not my argument. I think it lowers their self worth, gives them a dangerous sense of authority (ie, authority is the person who is allowed to hurt me, as opposed to authority as the person who knows better than I do), doesn't teach reasoning skills, and doesn't teach self control.

No one has mentioned it, but another common argument against spanking is that a kid will learn to just misbehave when the parent isn't around and the child won't get caught. Well, when just a small amount of logic is applied to that one, it's easy to see that a child will misbehave when the chances of getting caught are low even when some other method of discipline is used.

Not really. If your discipline is a LOGICAL consequence, that won't be the case. It's not logical to say "do your homework or I'll spank you". What? Why does spanking logically follow from not doing homework? It's much more logical to say "No watching TV until your homework is done". That makes much more sense. It's hard to concentrate on homework while watching TV. It's a punishment because the kid wants to watch TV instead of doing homework, but at least it's logical. They may be rebellious for a short period of time, but since the consequence is logical, they are MUCH more likely to self regulate after a bit.

When my dad hit me with his belt, I not only remember the details (I don't remember the actual pain itself), but I never even thought about back talking my mom after that.

It's a shame that your thought process was "don't back talk to my mom because I will be physicaly hurt" not "don't back talk to my mom because it emotionally hurts her". Another unintended consequence of spanking: selfishness.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

This has got to be one of the best online discussions of child-rearing that I've seen in quite some time. Forty-plus posts in and I have yet to see a bad post. Kudos to everyone.

Aqualung, I do agree that we must not raise children to blindly trust authority. There are times when it is necessary to openly question those in positions of power, and we need to teach them when and how is the right time and manner to do so. However, I gotta go with Kathryn on this. Aqualung, the fatal flaw in your arguments is that kids will necessarily respond positively to appeals to morality, and not authority. I have personally witnessed situations where parents tried to reason with their kid, and the kid completely took control of the argument; or a parent told their child to do something, and the child didn't immediately obey.

I'll give you a real-life example of the latter. A few months ago, I was going to the pet store to buy some cat litter. They had several dogs in individual cages in front of the store, and they were up for adoption. While on my way in, I saw a boy who appeared to be about four years old start to pet a rather large dog on its face, while it was chewing on a bone. Predictably, the dog started to growl and bared its teeth--a clear warning sign for the child to back off. The parents, who were nearby but out of arm's reach, saw this and urgently called for their son to come. He did not, and he continued to pet the growling dog. Hell, I very nearly ran over to physically pull the boy back, but it was too late. The dog bit the boy on his fingers. The boy pulled his hand back in pain and started to cry. As I left the scene, I saw that there was some blood running down his hand, though there didn't seem to be any large gash on his hand. Instead, the real damage was probably psychological, as there is a chance he'll have some kind of lifelong fear of dogs. And all of this, Aqualung, could have been prevented, had the boy simply followed directions the first time they were given, without hesitation or questioning.

Of course there is a flip side to this. Parents need to be held accountable for potentially or clearly abusive behavior, which I believe spankings can fall into. There's all sorts of evidence to indicate that spankings can destroy children's trust (in everyone, not just their parents), teach them that war and violence is the answer, and even sexually stimulate them. We can't ignore this. Still, it's frankly naive to think that we can just raise our children to be unconditional questioners of authority and that there won't be some serious negative consequences for them.

 

[Aqualung]

This has got to be one of the best online discussions of child-rearing that I've seen in quite some time. Forty-plus posts in and I have yet to see a bad post. Kudos to everyone.

I like you.

Aqualung, I do agree that we must not raise children to blindly trust authority. There are times when it is necessary to openly question those in positions of power, and we need to teach them when and how is the right time and manner to do so. However, I gotta go with Kathryn on this. Aqualung, the fatal flaw in your arguments is that kids will necessarily respond positively to appeals to morality, and not authority. I have personally witnessed situations where parents tried to reason with their kid, and the kid completely took control of the argument; or a parent told their child to do something, and the child didn't immediately obey.

(a) What do you mean respond positively? Do you mean "do what you say"? Yes, sometimes they won't. But I think they'll still learn a heck of a lot more through reason than through physical pain.

Also, your examples of parents having their kids over take an argument - I would bet that 100% of those parents are really bad at consistenly using logic. I bet a majority of the time when they discipline their kids, they use arguments like "because I said so", "because if you don't you'll get spanked", "because if you don't I'll take away your TV".

And all of this, Aqualung, could have been prevented, had the boy simply followed directions the first time they were given, without hesitation or questioning.

What lesson would he have learned? "Oh no, I have to do what my parent says or I will get hit! Ah... but my parent isn't here right now... and this dog looks soft!" He learned a very valuable lesson by the small bite.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What?

My nephew has mistreated his little brother to get away from him. He goes to the corner, and his little brother isn't allowed to play with him, because he was being bad.

Not really. If your discipline is a LOGICAL consequence, that won't be the case. It's not logical to say "do your homework or I'll spank you". What?

Of course you can't spank for everything. It not only depends on the child, but also the age and circumstances.

I think it lowers their self worth, gives them a dangerous sense of authority (ie, authority is the person who is allowed to hurt me, as opposed to authority as the person who knows better than I do), doesn't teach reasoning skills, and doesn't teach self control.

It really depends on how assertive and what the parent is spanking for. To use the pot of boiling water scenario, your child is reaching for it, and you quickly swat the child's wrist. This serves to not only get their hand out of harms way, it's practically painless, and you can easily explain the whys to the child. Which also can instill the since that the child's parents know better, rather than being under an authoritive figure.
Again, I am not talking about beating or hurting a child. Rather what is at worse a sting, and certainly not nearly as bad as a scrapped knee.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I like you.

Why thank you.

(a) What do you mean respond positively? Do you mean "do what you say"? Yes, sometimes they won't. But I think they'll still learn a heck of a lot more through reason than through physical pain.

Also, your examples of parents having their kids over take an argument - I would bet that 100% of those parents are really bad at consistenly using logic. I bet a majority of the time when they discipline their kids, they use arguments like "because I said so", "because if you don't you'll get spanked", "because if you don't I'll take away your TV".

Are the only alternatives threats vs. unrestricted freedom? Don't forget the land in the middle. You've got to (1) train your kids that if they don't do as you say, there will be consequences; (2) consistently enforce the consequences when they do so; (3) act in a way such that this scenario rarely occurs.

Case in point. I was at one of my friend's house a couple months ago. He kindly asked his 10-year-old daughter to come to him, and she pretended not to hear him. So he calmly began counting out loud, "5...4...3...2..." She whined a little, but by "2" she was on her way.

This demonstrates the style of parenting that today's psychologists note is the most effective: the Authoritative style. This involves setting clear, consistent, but rather lenient boundaries for the child, and gently but firmly enforcing them when they are violated. Your position, by contrast, appears to advocate the Permissive style: Let kids do just about anything, say just about anything, and only learn from natural consequences. Incidentally, there is a third position, on the other end: Set very tight limits and enforce them, always harshly and often inconsistently.

What lesson would he have learned? "Oh no, I have to do what my parent says or I will get hit! Ah... but my parent isn't here right now... and this dog looks soft!" He learned a very valuable lesson by the small bite.

The lesson he learned is that dogs are very, very dangerous. I am not exaggerating when I say that this kid may well be scarred for life. At the age of four, the mind is still very impressionable.

Aqualung, my position on child-rearing a few years ago mirrored what yours is now. I used to think that it was so important, as part of learning to grow and think for oneself, for children to openly challenge authority whenever they saw fit, and to break the rules that made no sense. But then I got mugged. I got mugged by this thing called: Reality. I woke up. I realized that my views were terribly naive. I realized that permissive parenting was just as much a recipe for disaster as authoritarian parenting is. I came to understand that, just like almost everything else in life, the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Aqualung]

My nephew has mistreated his little brother to get away from him. He goes to the corner, and his little brother isn't allowed to play with him, because he was being bad.

Is hitting really the only alternate punishment in this case though? You could take something away from him, some privilege that he has. You don't have to resort to violence. Again, yes, hitting can solve some problems. But it's not the only way to solve that same problem, and so it's absolutely not justified. If you can solve a problem without violence, do it.

Are the only alternatives threats vs. unrestricted freedom? Don't forget the land in the middle.
...
Your position, by contrast, appears to advocate the Permissive style: Let kids do just about anything, say just about anything, and only learn from natural consequences.

No, and I'm not sure how you got that I was trying to say that at all. This is what I'm trying to say: A parent shouldn't ever ask a child to do something without having a reason for asking it. If you have a reason for asking a child to do something, TELL THEM! If they don't do it, apply non-violent consequences. I'm not saying let them get away with anything.

It really depends on how assertive and what the parent is spanking for. To use the pot of boiling water scenario, your child is reaching for it, and you quickly swat the child's wrist.

That's not the same thing AT ALL. Spanking is used for punishment. Swatting a kid's hand away is used to remove their physical being from harm's way. It's not a punishment at all.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

No, and I'm not sure how you got that I was trying to say that at all. This is what I'm trying to say: A parent shouldn't ever ask a child to do something without having a reason for asking it. If you have a reason for asking a child to do something, TELL THEM! If they don't do it, apply non-violent consequences. I'm not saying let them get away with anything.

But it came across that way, Aqua.

In the heat of the moment is not always the right time to question. Sometimes the answer will present itself later; sometimes it won't, and only then should the parent explain. But a child should NEVER assume the right to ask Why right after receiving an order (unless obedience would cause immediate danger to the child or someone else); to enable children to act like that holds just as much potential danger for them as abusing them does.

 

[LuisDantas]

(...) And all of this, Aqualung, could have been prevented, had the boy simply followed directions the first time they were given, without hesitation or questioning.

There is a flip side to that too; children must learn to question their parents if they are to truly trust them. Although I guess it is not supposed to happen at such an early age.

But mostly I wonder why you posted that example in thir thread. Do you believe that corporal punishment would help in avoiding such dangers? I respectfully disagree.

Of course there is a flip side to this. Parents need to be held accountable for potentially or clearly abusive behavior, which I believe spankings can fall into.

I have no doubt, myself. If there is ever a healthy spanking, I simply can't conceive of it. The closest I can imagine is that it may be less harmful than, say, letting a child run away to some known danger. But that is no excuse.

There's all sorts of evidence to indicate that spankings can destroy children's trust (in everyone, not just their parents), teach them that war and violence is the answer, and even sexually stimulate them. We can't ignore this.

We shouldn't, but way too often we attempt to. Which is a shame in and of itself.

Still, it's frankly naive to think that we can just raise our children to be unconditional questioners of authority and that there won't be some serious negative consequences for them.

Why go to such an extreme, however? Except perhaps for frankly abnormal situations, corporal punishment is not at all needed to establish authority.

 

[LuisDantas]

But it came across that way, Aqua.

In the heat of the moment is not always the right time to question. Sometimes the answer will present itself later; sometimes it won't, and only then should the parent explain. But a child should NEVER assume the right to ask Why right after receiving an order (unless obedience would cause immediate danger to the child or someone else); to enable children to act like that holds just as much potential danger for them as abusing them does.

Which age range are we talking about? I can see giving you this point for children around five, perhaps ten years of age. After that, it is very much a necessity for the parent never to assume that he will not be contested. If we are aiming for a healthy family, anyway.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

There is a flip side to that too; children must learn to question their parents if they are to truly trust them. Although I guess it is not supposed to happen at such an early age.

But mostly I wonder why you posted that example in thir thread. Do you believe that corporal punishment would help in avoiding such dangers? I respectfully disagree.



I have no doubt, myself. If there is ever a healthy spanking, I simply can't conceive of it. The closest I can imagine is that it may be less harmful than, say, letting a child run away to some known danger. But that is no excuse.



We shouldn't, but way too often we attempt to. Which is a shame in and of itself.



Why go to such an extreme, however? Except perhaps for frankly abnormal situations, corporal punishment is not at all needed to establish authority.

Like you, I see no benefit and grave dangers to corporal punishment. The more one dissects the methods and actions associated with spankings, the more the action comes into grave question.

Which age range are we talking about? I can see giving you this point for children around five, perhaps ten years of age. After that, it is very much a necessity for the parent never to assume that he will not be contested. If we are aiming for a healthy family, anyway.

As an expectation, yes. As an allowance, no. Adolescents need clear limits as well, but generally they should be afforded the privilege of discussing why their parents did what they did, so long as the time, manner, and choice of words are appropriate.

 

[ChristineES]

I was once told by a therapist that the reasons weapons like a belt, switch, paddle, etc. shouldn't be used because it would hard to tell how hard you are hitting the child. The same therapist doesn't believe in spanking at all.

 

[jtartar]

My paternal 'born again' grandmother constantly beat religion in her six children screaming, "Spare the rod and spoil the child!" My parents weren't so violent but one could expect a thrashing for stepping out of line. To be fair in my youth it was normal for parents, of all faiths and none to beat their kids, and it would have been unusual to have gone through childhood without corporal punishment. Similarly schools were permitted to cane children, and I have seen children beaten black and blue by our head teacher, just because he didn't like them!

I admit to smacking my children when they were small, not of course in a violent way. I think sitting children on the 'naughty stair' or removal of privileges better punishments, and what I use on my grandchildren if they misbehave.

Nowadays in the UK a parent is permitted to administer a mild slap to their child, but if they leave a mark they could well see themselves up in court. There have been several prosecutions. Corporal punishment of any kind is not permitted in any school, even grabbing hold of a pupil could be construed as a physical assault, which is a little over the top.

How do you discipline your children?

Misty,
For sure your grandmother was misguided, but where did she get the idea that she should use corporal punishment so often?
Christians should go by what the Bible says. The Bible shows that corporal punishment is justified at times, Prov 10:13, 23:13,14, 29:15. These scriptures make it clear that the Bible is talking about corporal punishment. Of course these act were to be administered in love, as discipline, which is a teaching tool. Punishment should not be administered in anger. Discipline should be given after calm is reached.
It is very true that everyone has a different personality, so discipline should be administered to fit the child. Some children respond better when their emotions are reached, some need stronger discipline.
I can say that my parents did not understand me very well. If my dad had set me down and tried to reason with me, especially telling me that I had disappointed him, it would have broken my heart. My dad was one who believed in corporal punishment, and often. I even have had my dad beat me before he went someplace, because he said that I was going to disobey him, when he left, and he knew it.
If you stop to think about it, would you rather administer a little corporal punishment to you child, in love, or would you rather have the state use a more harsh form of discipline. Think about it, the government tells you not to spank your child, but they are very willing to put your child to death, because he has not learned proper behavior. Which is worse, a little corporal punishment with love or death at the hands of the government???
If your child responds to discipline without corporal punishment, by all means use what works, to bring you child to be a responsible adult.

 

[Misty]

Misty,
For sure your grandmother was misguided, but where did she get the idea that she should use corporal punishment so often?
Christians should go by what the Bible says. The Bible shows that corporal punishment is justified at times, Prov 10:13, 23:13,14, 29:15. These scriptures make it clear that the Bible is talking about corporal punishment. Of course these act were to be administered in love, as discipline, which is a teaching tool. Punishment should not be administered in anger. Discipline should be given after calm is reached.
It is very true that everyone has a different personality, so discipline should be administered to fit the child. Some children respond better when their emotions are reached, some need stronger discipline.
I can say that my parents did not understand me very well. If my dad had set me down and tried to reason with me, especially telling me that I had disappointed him, it would have broken my heart. My dad was one who believed in corporal punishment, and often. I even have had my dad beat me before he went someplace, because he said that I was going to disobey him, when he left, and he knew it.
If you stop to think about it, would you rather administer a little corporal punishment to you child, in love, or would you rather have the state use a more harsh form of discipline. Think about it, the government tells you not to spank your child, but they are very willing to put your child to death, because he has not learned proper behavior. Which is worse, a little corporal punishment with love or death at the hands of the government???
If your child responds to discipline without corporal punishment, by all means use what works, to bring you child to be a responsible adult.

What are you talking about? There is no capital punishment in the UK!

 

[davidthegreek]

I always say don't judge the way the child turned out till they turn 30.

Or until you are too old and paralyzed and depend on them for survival. That is when you can actually find the truth out.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Or until you are too old and paralyzed and depend on them for survival. That is when you can actually find the truth out.

That's the point many people finally find out how poor of parents they were.

 

[davidthegreek]

That's the point many people finally find out how poor of parents they were.

finally someone agrees with me on this. Jesus must have come back. I can't explain it any other way.

 

[NocLue]

I always say don't judge the way the child turned out till they turn 30.

I am 27 and I am ****** up since I remember getting my first spanking. Will I be any worse in 3 years?

I am already living with medication for my depression, and for panics when I am near people. I can't trust them. In fact they scare the hell out of me.