Is spanking wrong?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If your argument is that not smacking under any circumstances is a bad parenting strategy, please show me some evidence.

Sure. MisterOJ's post, where he talked about his youngest engaging in destructive behavior, and exhausting everything else in their bag of tricks. When they finally spanked, the behavior stopped. So, I would say that if parents are in a situation where nothing else has worked, and the alternative is to either have the behavior continue or try corporal punishment, it would be a bad parenting strategy to let the behavior continue.

When you're making absolute statements, you open yourself up to being disproven anecdotally.

Spanking is quick, easy, and short-lasting solution.

That's quite the absolute statement as well. It is quick, but if done correctly, it is not easy, and it is not short-lasting. If done poorly, you may be correct. Interestingly, I think that's also true of non-corporal punishment as well.

[Roose Seal]

Nope. Not in every case. I haven't spanked my daughter in two years. And yet, if she's doing something she should be "like arguing with her sister" and I tell her to stop she may or may not do what I tell her. If she continues and I remind her that I am not afraid to spank her if she doesn't do what I tell her, that always ends the bad behavior right there.

From what you're saying, you make it sound like the bad behaviour stops out of fear of spanking and not out of understanding of why that behaviour is bad in the first place, which imo, is very different.

Even though the end result is the same --the bad behaviour stops--, the mental process that goes behind stopping the bad behaviour is very different in either case.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Where do you guys stand on having kids stand in a corner as punishment? Some people say it's psychologically damaging. I disagree. To me, it's a not so easy method of discipline from both sides.

[Greywolf2375]

And I have never in my life seen one single situation where smacking was the only thing that worked. Not once.

You said this, which is that you had never experienced a situation. I said I had experienced a situation like that.

The best you can suggest is that there are situations so extraordinarily rare that they haven't been experienced by any of the hundreds of millions of parents worldwide who don't smack: and in that case, those situations are so rare that the average parent who does smack will never encounter them either. They would have to be so incredibly rare that they are basically irrelevant to the whole discussion.

Here, you try to say that because other parents didn't experience what mine did that it invalidates what happened? No, the fact that it WAS such a unique situation is what merited my smack, not that I had just done something my parents didn't like. I have 0 problem with how it was handled and in looking back at it, it was the fact that my action forced the response that had the impact on me - that I had caused my parents to go to what they'd always said was the last resort of discipline.

Let me be clear, I'm not trying to convince anyone of either choosing to spank or not. I just know how I was raised, how it worked for my siblings and I (and my extended family but obviously have more experience with what happened in the house I grew up in), how we have become adults and how we have handled situations with our children.

[Balefont]

I like the tactics employed by Nanny911*. There're free episodes out there. I recommend watching some.

It's like the Dog Whisperer for kids.

(*Time outs using one minute for each year the child is old. E.g. Three year olds get three minutes.)

Mister OJ's daughter sounds like she has Oppositional Defiant Disorderand I wonder when the "fear of being spanked" no longer works.

ETA: Actually Conduct Disordermay be even closer to the mark.

[polishgenius]

From what you're saying, you make it sound like the bad behaviour stops out of fear of spanking and not out of understanding of why that behaviour is bad in the first place, which imo, is very different.

Even though the end result is the same --the bad behaviour stops--, the mental process that goes behind stopping the bad behaviour is very different in either case.

You're assuming that understanding why something is bad is going to stop the child doing something every time. This really isn't the case.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Where do you guys stand on having kids stand in a corner as punishment? Some people say it's psychologically damaging. I disagree. To me, it's a not so easy method of discipline from both sides.

I think it depends so much on the kids, and on the parents. I think one of the risks of non-physical punishment is that it generally depends on the parent being willing to impose that punishment for a sustained period of time without cracking, or relenting. If the parent is not consistently following through, the kid will start to learn that the parent really doesn't mean what he/she says, which can have all sorts of behavioral consequences. Also, some of those punishments are dependent upon the parent being around for their effectiveness. If you have two parents working, or they are otherwise occupied, there isn't any way enforce some of those punishments.

One virtue of corporal punishment, if done correctly, is that it is immediate/instaneous. The child misbehaves, the punishment is imposed, and then the punishment itself is over, though hopefully the memory of it -- and desire to avoid a repetition -- remains.

I think one disconnect here is that folks who have little or no experience with this are imagining a situation where the parents striking the child are a regular occurence. In a great many cases, that is not true. The spanking is intended to send a message that the parents are the absolute authority, whose ability to enforce that authority cannot be doubted. Once that is established, actual physical punishment is rarely, if ever, necessary.

[~ZombieWife~]

Where do you guys stand on having kids stand in a corner as punishment? Some people say it's psychologically damaging. I disagree. To me, it's a not so easy method of discipline from both sides.

I don't see an issue, but I don't necessarily think it's effective. It's just kind of there.

We employ time-outs here and loss of privileges, but we always have a conversation with the child about what happened. If you're not explaining the discipline then what's the point?

And "smacking" can absolutely work in some cases. My daughter found a metal paperclip on the floor when she was 2 and was inches away from sticking that sucker in an electric socket (after she had unwedged the outlet protector). A slap on the hand worked. At that age, "time outs" often took 2, 3, or 4 times to "take."

"Awww, no no, don't put that into the light socket!" VS "NO!" (slap of hand - not a hard one, mind you.)

That made the difference for us. And yeah, I'm sure someone out there is ready to call CPS on me for that "violent, traumatizing, dramatic abuse" that will forever scar my child and ruin her life. As I said in an earlier post, you're going to deal with the extremists on this topic. No getting around that.

[fuseprime]

I got a good spanking on the behind if I ever fought with my brother or would repeat idiotic actions in spite of non-physical punishment. I also got timeouts, things taken away, a bar of soap in the mouth, and other such non-physical punishment. Looking back on it all, I don't feel I was abused. I was never thrown around or punched or choked, or anything of the sort. Sometimes, the non-physical punishment wasn't enough to control me during my rowdy childhood. I would say spanking and then a good, "stay in your room" tactic was the most effective tool my parents used. When I was a teenager, my mother would hit me with the wooden spoon or slap me and what-not. I was also 3 times her size and at that age and I couldn't give a shit what kind of punishment was doled out.

That's not to say I would do the same thing either when/if I have children. I think the punishment meets the crime. Taking public transportation in New York, I have seen parents curse and threaten their children, which I think is far worse as the child will just repeat that behavior. But, spanking or a slap on the hand as abuse? Nope, not buying that,

[Tempra]

I think it depends so much on the kids, and on the parents. I think one of the risks of non-physical punishment is that it generally depends on the parent being willing to impose that punishment for a sustained period of time without cracking, or relenting. If the parent is not consistently following through, the kid will start to learn that the parent really doesn't mean what he/she says, which can have all sorts of behavioral consequences. Also, some of those punishments are dependent upon the parent being around for their effectiveness. If you have two parents working, or they are otherwise occupied, there isn't any way enforce some of those punishments.

My sister-in-law spent three hours one night putting her kid in timeout, taking away her toys (and saying they will be donated), adding chores, telling the kid she couldn't go to a friend's birthday party, etc, before she finally gave up on punishing the kid.

I don't know whether a spanking would have made the girl behave sooner, but non-physical punishment had absolutely failed on that occasion.

[Mya Stone]

Also, fuck these threads.. all we need now is one on circumcision and the downslope into evil will begin.

Seriously. Haven't we had this thread before?

Like 10 times?

Now let's talk about mutilating penises. That'll bring all the fun ones out.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Seriously. Haven't we had this thread before?

Like 10 times?

Now let's talk about mutilating penises. That'll bring all the fun ones out.

I think castration is a touchy subject. It really depends on the dick. If its being used to impregnate woman after woman, that's a much different thing than simply sowing your wild oats. We have to draw the line.

[scotcat]

My sister-in-law spent three hours one night putting her kid in timeout, taking away her toys (and saying they will be donated), adding chores, telling the kid she couldn't go to a friend's birthday party, etc, before she finally gave up on punishing the kid.

I don't know whether a spanking would have made the girl behave sooner, but non-physical punishment had absolutely failed on that occasion.

Yep. My sister in law had a similar experience with my youngest nephew.At one point, he had a bed and a lampshade in his room and that was it. It didn't do one bit of good. For the record, she's not averse to giving a spank if the situation warrants, but - with the youngest at any rate - it did nothing. Matter of fact he's been known to laugh and say 'I didn't feel a thing.'.

As for me, I can count the number of times on one hand that I got spanked growing up and I can tell you, I deserved it each time. My mum was never a fan of spanking, mainly due to the fact that my grandmother was not a gentle parent - in fact she was downright harsh, physically/emotionally/verbally. So when I got spanked, I knew I'd not only crossed the line but spat on it for good measure. But you know what? it worked.

[mormont]

Sure. MisterOJ's post, where he talked about his youngest engaging in destructive behavior, and exhausting everything else in their bag of tricks. When they finally spanked, the behavior stopped.

Um, I asked for some evidence that not smacking is a bad parenting strategy. You say 'sure', as if you are going to present some, and then... you don't. Instead you start talking about a situation where a parent tried some other strategies and finally resorted to a smack, and it worked. That is not in any way, shape or form evidence that not smacking is a bad parenting strategy.

(Maybe, maybe, you might have a point if it was at all realistic to believe that Mr OJ had literally tried every single other strategy. But, with absolutely no criticism of him intended, that is so unlikely as to be pure fantasy. There are dozens of other options in hundreds of variations. And we know that whatever other strategies he tried, he did not persist with them beyond a certain point, so there is by definition always one strategy he didn't try - ie persisting with alternative approaches beyond that point.)

When you're making absolute statements, you open yourself up to being disproven anecdotally.

Well, that was my point, yes. The absolute statement here is that there are situations where no other strategy works - only smacking works. That statement is clearly not true.

Now, people may want to argue that there are occasions on which smacking is merited, or the right strategy, or more effective than alternatives, or whatever. I disagree with those ideas, but that's not the point. The point is that claiming that there are times when there is literally no other option is just not true. There is always another option. Always. If you smack, you should not fool yourself that there are 'no alternatives'. You are making a choice. You are taking a decision to smack. You don't have to do it. You choose to. I'm not saying that's automatically wrong, but I am saying it's very important to this argument: you can't hide behind the 'no alternative' claim, you have to justify your choice.

That's quite the absolute statement as well.

It is. But in general, I think it's true to say that good parents don't have to rely on smacking, and bad parents use it badly. There may be people who can only parent well by using corporal punishment on occasion, but I am willing to bet they're vastly outnumbered by people who could learn to parent better without it. I count myself amongst the latter.

You said this, which is that you had never experienced a situation. I said I had experienced a situation like that.

And with respect, you were wrong, and I alluded to why above - because of the claim you're making. You're not saying that this was a situation where smacking worked, or where smacking was the best option: you're saying that it was a case where literally no other option would have worked. That's an extreme claim. It says to parents who've experienced the same situation, but dealt with it without a smack: "you failed to deal with this." Either that, or you're claiming the situation was not the same, that your situation was so unique it can't be compared to theirs. Either, frankly, is a pretty extreme claim to make, and neither is justifiable to my mind.

Here, you try to say that because other parents didn't experience what mine did that it invalidates what happened? No, the fact that it WAS such a unique situation is what merited my smack, not that I had just done something my parents didn't like. I have 0 problem with how it was handled and in looking back at it, it was the fact that my action forced the response that had the impact on me - that I had caused my parents to go to what they'd always said was the last resort of discipline.

Are you claiming that your situation was so unique that literally no non-smacking parent on the planet has ever faced it and dealt with it?

Either this is true - in which case, as I said above, it's such an incredible outlier in human experience that it's basically irrelevant to the discussion - or, and with all due respect I consider this more likely, it's not that unique, and it could have been handled another way.

That a smack was in this case a successful tactic does not show that no other tactic could have worked. That other tactics were tried and failed doesn't show that either. If you want to say 'this is an example of how smacking can work', I'd say 'sure'. If you want to claim it as an example of a situation where there was literally no other option? Sorry, no.

[LadyMondragon]

I think the trick to disciplining any child is CONSISTENCY. Whatever punishment you give them, you have to stick with it and be consistent. Whether its time out, taking things away, or a spanking.

As a kid, between my parents it was opposites. My dad's form a discipline was whoopings and lectures. I can honestly say that as I got older, I realized what my father did was abuse. Verbal, mental, and physical.

On the other hand, my mother employed the silent treatment. I can count on one hand how many times my mother smacked me and I can honestly say, I deserved each and every one of those smackings for being a shit.

My 4 year old nephew is the best example I have of this. His mother tells him to do something and he rebels. Hard. He'll throw himself on the floor in an all out temper tantrum. He hits her, bites, kicks... all of that. She tries time out, she tries reasoning, and none of those work. My brother steps in and a few stern words and a moderate open handed swat on his clothed behind and the behavior stops. Period. There are some children who need a "firmer" hand.

Not all children are the same in their disciplinary needs.

Personally, I am not opposed to an open handed smack on the hand or bottom when all else has failed. I can't tell you how many times I go to the store and see (or hear) children acting up and listening to their parents try to reason with them.

ETA: Another example is my step daughter. My husband has never full on spanked her. However, there was one day where she got very rude and disrespectful to me and since she is not my kid, I refused to yell or spank her. My husband came up behind her, reached his hand around her head and gave her a light, but sharp, pop on the mouth and told her "never talk to your stepmother like that again". No mark was left, she didn't even cry. But let me tell you, that child is now 12 and hasn't talked back or been disrespectful to me once since then.

[Monday]

What I have the greatest issue with, though, is this notion that physical pain is some unimaginable evil that children need to be protected from at all cost.

Come now. Is anyone here saying that's what this is about? Aside from a few extreme cases mentioned here, we are talking about effectiveness, appropriateness, ethics, and the message it sends. Personally I think kids should spend a lot of time outdoors being physical and exploring with other kids. Scraped knees and broken arms are the hallmark or a childhood well spent.

God **has** been known to be a pretty cruel taskmaster.

We can do better ;)

Y'know, I'm a little curious. How are S/M/B/Ds ever created if not from the cradle?

Inquiring minds wants to know.

Not going there in the context of this thread, but this totally deserves a thread of it's own.

I've seen kids out of control because they aren't spanked, and I do think in one case the parents are lucky the kid didn't hurt himself playing out some stupid idea.

You see the jump there?

On the flip side, if some parents are able to use corporal punishment sparingly but effectively, without abusing their children, and raise well-adjusted, well-behaved kids, what exactly is the problem? There seems to be an assumption that there is something inherently superior to standing in the corner for 15 minutes versus a swat on the ass, but nobody has explained why a punishment of greater internsity but shorter duration is inherently worse -- or more "cruel" -- than a punishment of lower intensity but longer duration.

Quick answer? Respecting bodily autonomy. IMO spanking undermines clear messages I think we should try to send about valuing bodily autonomy, consent, etc. Aside from spanking imo obviously violating BA and sending mixed messages about it's importance, I worry about kids to associating being hurt and someone putting their hands on them without permission with the shame of doing something wrong.

It's complicated with kids, because practically we can't give them the clear BA we can extend to adults (eg - we have to pick them up against their will, bathe and change them, etc.). I think it's important to respect it where possible though.

I don't have a problem with children experiencing physical ....*snip*

Excellent post.

eta - an 'imo'

[Lupigis]

I think you make a great point here by comparing spanking your kids to being spanked by your boss at work. I agree that spanking anyone at work is a bad idea, so therefore companies/parents should only apply the 3 time-outs/write-up methods, and then if no improvement were made after the final warning, the obvious thing to do is fire the employee/kid and kick them out of the company/house.

That would have been a good argument if I had said that kids should always be treated like adults, but I didn't, so it isn't.

Instead, I simply mean that you should ask yourself the question: "Why would it be wrong for my boss to use physical punishment to reprimand me?"

When I ask myself that question, my answer is simple: "Because it would be so humiliating and demeaning that it would be totally unacceptable, regardless of the situation!"

And what's too humiliating and demeaning for me would be too humiliating and demeaning to my kids as well, so I don't do it.

So here is a question to those of you who think that physical punishment is OK: Why do you think your boss shouldn't be allowed to punish you physically, and why does that reason not apply to kids?

[Tempra]

That's the key phrase with discipline. The parent can't give up and let the kid have or act how they want. The parent has to follow through on threats. So, if you take away a toy and threaten to donate it, you actually have to donate the damn toy. If all you do is threaten but never follow through, then the only thing you're teaching your kid is that they don't have to take anything you say seriously, since you've shown them you'll eventually capitulate to their demands if they bug you long enough.

To clarify, she did follow through on all the punishments except keeping my niece in timeout, which ultimately defused the situation. My niece permanently lost at least six toys that she had to donate to good will, didnt go to her friend's bday party, etc. Keeping my niece in timeout proved to be a bad decision because she refused to obey her mother. Then, the mother had to up the ante by adding more punishment. Each additional punishment enraged the kid more. At some point, the options are give up on punishment for the night or send the kid away to boarding school She chose the former.

There was a discussion the next morning about my niece's behavior, obviously, but continued punishment proved unfruitful and very costly for my SiL.

My ex and I always practiced non-physical discipline. Our rules with each child were that our child would receive one warning if we caught them doing something wrong. We would warn our child what the infraction was and why it was important that they not do what we had seen them doing. Then, if they did it again, they would receive time-out at a ratio of 1 minute for each year. But, that one minute per year ratio would often mean that we would go through 30 minutes of actual discipline, since a time-out of, say, 5 minutes for a 5 year old means that they have to actually stand, facing the corner with no fidgeting or turning around or playing, for a full 5 minutes before we would let them out. So, if they turned around at the 4 minute, 30 second mark to see if mom or dad were still there watching them (we were) then the 5 minute clock would start over.

After they went through the full 5 minutes, we would sit with them on our lap and ask them to articulate to us what the rule they broke was, why it was necessary for such a rule to be in place, and what they would do in the future to avoid breaking that rule. Then the discipline would always end with us hugging them and telling them that we love them very much, and that we weren't disciplining them because they were bad, but because they need to learn to follow their conscience and obey the rules. The last thing we did was give them an opportunity to converse with us about whether they thought the rule was unfair or if it needed to be amended. That way you make them invested in their own discipline.

But yeah, there were times we would spend an hour or more trying to get one of them to stand in the corner for 5 minutes. It's a rough way to discipline your kids, but it's worth it in my opinion.

Pretty much the same style of disciplining as my SiL.

[MisterOJ]

And what's too humiliating and demeaning for me would be too humiliating and demeaning to my kids as well, so I don't do it.

Ah... yeah.

You know what would be humiliating and demeaning to me? Having to go in the women's restroom with my wife because I'm not coordinated enough to wipe my own ass.

So you saying I should not have done that for my daughters when they were like 2-3 years old?

[Tempra]

Ah... yeah.

You know what would be humiliating and demeaning to me? Having to go in the women's restroom with my wife because I'm not coordinated enough to wipe my own ass.

So you saying I should not have done that for my daughters when they were like 2-3 years old?

And should parents not be allowed to take away a kid's toys? If someone takes away my toys, it's generally classified as a crime.

The "if it's not acceptable for adults, then it's not acceptable for kids" argument is patently absurd.