What are your thoughts on good old fashion whoopins?

I'm for it. When I was a kid my dad spanked me and my mother stood me in the corner for half an hour, I hated both but I would've rather taken the spanking and gotten it over with because both served the same purpose as to whatever I did wrong, I usually didn't do it again.

I think we need to distinguish between a light smack on the hand/tush and smacking the shite out of a kid. There IS a huge difference. For light spanking when it's deserved(it only works in younger children), but against smacking the shyte outta them.

I am all for it, kids today are so out of control and spoiled they need a good whack now and then. Parents today don't seem to know how to discipline their children. Smacking the shit out of them is not an option, I am for a good whack on their bottom.

I got spanked. I will spank my children too. But.....I would only do it as a last resort. If I had to tell you something numerous times and you still didn't listen, then yeah.....I'm breaking out my belt.

I am definitely against anyone smacking the shit out of a child. I imagine spanking works for some, but I never felt it was something I wanted to do. He hot firm grips on the hand as a toddler when touching the stove or going by the street.

Totally against it. Just about every hoodlum or thug I ever knew was "whooped" as a kid, and look how they turn out! All it does is teach them to use strong arms & violence to get what they want. There's gotta be a more mental way of discipling a child than hitting him.

Yeah well every screw up I know who will never amount to anything was never spanked as kids, their parents always thought they were perfect little angels, or finally resorted to taking away Nintendo which had little effect save for the kids pounding the floors like 2 year olds to get it back.

Supernova wrote:

Yeah well every screw up I know who will never amount to anything was never spanked as kids, their parents always thought they were perfect little angels, or finally resorted to taking away Nintendo which had little effect save for the kids pounding the floors like 2 year olds to get it back.

Lack of spanking doesn't influence a high majority of kids to be screw ups who will never amount to anything. It is lack of follow through with repercussions. All too many parents are guilty of handing down a loss of privilege punishment, and then caving early.

Well the fact remains, some kids just don't care if they lose TV or Playstation...my parents tried that with me once when I was 7 and it had no effect on me whatsoever. Spanking me, or standing me in the corner, THAT had an effect, but I couldn't have cared less if I didn't get to watch TV...which is odd because at that time, I was always trying to catch every show that came on Nickelodeon.

My only problem with corporal punishment is that most parents tend to do it out of anger and frustration, as sort of a knee-jerk response to a kid acting up. What my mom used to do was threaten us with it. We'd be out in public and my brothers and I would be misbehaving and she'd very calmly inform us that if we didn't stop right then, as soon as we got home our hides would be tanned.

Most of the time that worked.

Yeah, the threat worked because the kids knew the parents meant business. But today, every time you go into a store there are little brats screaming and crying at the top of their lungs because they can't have something...and I just have to wonder, is THIS supposed to be the picture child of good parental discipline in the 21st century? Because if it is, I'm all for going back to being a 'barbarian'.

I don't know.

On one hand there is nothing more annoying in the world than being at a store and seeing a mom beg her 2 hellion kids to behave as they totally ignore her and keep on being obnoxious. I want to personally take off my belt and beat them like I'm their dad. On the other hand, my own dad had(has) anger management issues and would sometimes clobber us until we screamed bloody murder for so much as accidentally breaking a glass and not be slightest bit sorry for it after.

I think when kids have unruly personalities, it's because of EARLY parental error. They spoil their kids to death and let them get away with hissy fits when they're 2 yrs old, from there it sets this bratty pattern that continues. I would try to be verbally firm with what goes and what doesn't go and not cave in to toddler tantrums...while also being reasonable and fair. From there I think you'll have a decent acting kid.

I mean if he or she is deliberately disobeying and has ignored all the previous warnings, then I would go ahead and force the issue with my hand upside the backside but I would go out of my way to avoid that if possible.

Now one that just HONKS me off is when I go to the library to be where it's QUIET to read, and some dumb mother brings in her kids who scream the whole time and every five seconds she has to tell them 'shhhhh' which they pay no attention to anyway. It used to be they'd throw you out for that kind of stuff and I think they need to reinstate that policy.

^^^^Kids aren't taught to be quiet anymore.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Today I went to school to register for my fall semester and there was this lady with a baby, probably about a year old+ but not yet a toddler. I don't know what was happening, but every five minutes the lady would snap "cut it out," followed by a loud smack. Naturally this made him scream for about two or three minutes after that. I'm sitting there thinking to myself, "why are you hitting a baby?" As if that was going to do anything other than irritate him into screaming more.

^^^^Hitting a baby for screaming is dumb. That doesn't mean there's never a use for hitting at all.

I think 90% of the parents who have bad ass kicks need to get the shit slapped out of them, because they're most likely the reason why.

kinetic wrote:

Maybe yes, maybe no. Today I went to school to register for my fall semester and there was this lady with a baby, probably about a year old+ but not yet a toddler. I don't know what was happening, but every five minutes the lady would snap "cut it out," followed by a loud smack. Naturally this made him scream for about two or three minutes after that. I'm sitting there thinking to myself, "why are you hitting a baby?" As if that was going to do anything other than irritate him into screaming more.

I'm totally against hitting babies under the age of two. It serves no purpose at all; the babies absolutely don't understand anything except the pain being inflicted, and it is just an example of the adult acting out of frustration.

However, I do think that toddlers are a little bit more advanced for smacking a hand or butt, while sternly declaring no at something they're doing wrong to have a learning effect.

Exactly, if the kid is old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong and does what he knows he's not supposed to do anyway, then he's old enough to get spanked because he's old enough to understand it's the consequence for his actions.

All kids have their hellish moments, but I think if a parent does their job correctly, then there will be little need for smacking the shit out of a bad ass kid because the kid will generally not be bad.

Over and under disciplining kids is usually what contributes to delinquency. Growing up we all knew kids whose parents were either total flakes who could be walked over, or tyrannical oppressors who wouldn't think twice to beat their ass in front of their friends. IA with Stonestatic about most bullies being smacked around by their parents. They learn that anger and rage and take it out on other kids, girlfriends/wives and later their own kids.

Not to say that I don't believe in the belt, because I do, but seriously, it should be a last resort (or saved for extreme fuckup's). I don't like the idea of drill sargent parents who raise their kids with such an iron strap that the kids basically live in fear of doing the slightest thing wrong.

stonestatic wrote:

Totally against it. Just about every hoodlum or thug I ever knew was "whooped" as a kid, and look how they turn out! All it does is teach them to use strong arms & violence to get what they want. There's gotta be a more mental way of discipling a child than hitting him.

My father literally beat the living shit out of me and my brothers and sisters as kids and none of us turned hoodlum or thug, we certainly learned respect but it was done in the wrong way.

Basically what you said, JB.

Chris wrote:

I'm totally against hitting babies under the age of two. It serves no purpose at all; the babies absolutely don't understand anything except the pain being inflicted, and it is just an example of the adult acting out of frustration.

However, I do think that toddlers are a little bit more advanced for smacking a hand or butt, while sternly declaring no at something they're doing wrong to have a learning effect.

I agree. It all starts during toddler stage. If you let them get away with tantrums at 2 and 3, by the time their 10 they'll be little terrors. I'm 100% for popping a toddler on his butt when he acts out or does something indulgent. Physical discipline is at its learning peak during this stage IMO. They associate fork in the electrical socket with getting their little legs tore up and are less likely to try that again. A 10 year old getting the belt I think doesn't "teach" much by then. It's more about retribution for having done wrong.