Do you believe in physically disciplining children, yes or no?

If I had any children I wouldn't be above it, I do think it should be a FINAL resort or reserved for severe infractions. Some of the parents I've known who physically discipline their children IMO have been too quick to resort to it. I don't believe kids should live in fear of getting beat if they so much as accidentally break a glass.

Doyen wrote:

Do you believe in physically disciplining children, yes or no?

I'm definitely in favor of it but I don't think it's necessary for every child to get a whoopin' when they do something wrong. Sometimes threats and limiting privileges are equally as effective. Depends on the situation and the personality of the kid.

That being said, there's no way that my nine year old is going to cuss at me, or show out in public, without them getting their little arse tore the hell up. Sometimes corporal force makes the message a little clearer that the misbehavior exhibited is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

There's nothing more annoying than an undisciplined child. I don't think strict physical disciple should be a rule and don't like when I see parents interacting with their kids like friggin DRILL SARGENTS with the "sir, yes sir" approach, but I see nothing wrong with slapping Junior if he steps too far out of line.

As SecHaneNews said, I think physical discipline should be either a final resort or reserved for more severe infractions as well. It's kinda dicey because let's face it, many parents who use physical force tend to do it out of immediate anger, which can turn into abuse, depending on how upset THEY are at that moment...but at the same time, kids are so OOC these days that sometimes the point what they did won't be tolerated again needs to be driven home with a bit of force.

I'm not totally against it, but I think it should be a last resort. By and large, I think physical discipline is best reserved for small children. Spefically toddlers who you can't have much of a rational conversation with. By the time they're old enough to comprehend that what they did is wrong, then really what does a belt accomplish? If that's a parents regular method of discipline and the kid KNOW that getting a strap across the backside is a likely punishment for whatever they're doing that's wrong, but they still do it anyway, then how effective is it? It just becomes a repetitive cycle of kid screws up, parents get the belt...kid screws up, parents get the belt. And so on and so forth. Again, I'm not totally against it but I think there are more effective ways of punishing a kid than that.

A good clack around the back of the head when you step out of line never did any harm to anyone. No discipline or respect for authority - that's the problem with today's yoof...

Time out or star charts don't work, no matter how many pseudo-scientific experiments by educational psychologists are waved about.

A shame that we've become so neutered as a society that we would even have to differentiate the difference between physical discipline and outright abuse.

To answer the question though YES, I DO believe that if a kid decides to forget who is the parent and who is the child that a parent should lay down the law. And if that means a tanned backside, then so be it. Sure, that "Time Out" crap might work for minor infractions (or instances where some kind of trite "life lesson" can be learned from a conversation) but as was mentioned before, there's no way a kid of mine would get away with cursing at me, or setting the furnature on fire and not get his ass majorly roasted.

I don't like the idea of hitting kids as punishment. All it does is send the message that "I'm bigger and stronger than you". The kids then take that same message out of the house with them and use it to bully kids weaker than them.

I come from a family with three boys, of which I'm the eldest. We were hit as punishment growing up, and it did not stop me from acting out. All it did was make me resentful to the point where I would continue to disobey, just to spite them...and if it meant getting another beating, then ok.

If they had taken the time to talk, rather than hit, maybe I would have imbued their POV.


To this day, whenever I get angry - at children at camp, at my brothers, at family - I get silent. I don't yell. I fume.

Therefore, knowing you done wrong is a relatively sufficient deterrent. But, knowing why you done wrong teaches you not to do it again.

Every kid is different and should be handled according to their personality. Taking away privileges may work on one kid, while the next kid might be ornery enough to need the message driven home with a little more force (and that might include physical.) Except for in more severe situations, I don't agree with parents automatically resorting to the physical whenever a kid does anything wrong. There should in general be a sort of grace period, with other options tried, before the punishment goes that far. That being said, though, I definitely don't agree with "time out" being a parents only means of discipline. Especially if the kid openly defiant. If Junior is asking for a slap upside the head, then by all mean give him one.

Depends on the temperament of the child and what they respond to. I don't condone going straight to the belt (something my father did) without seeing if no dinner, or tv or being grounded would do FIRST. I was never offered the option and resent it deeply.

He whipped the shit out of me with his belt and my underwear down. For stupid shit, like if he came home from work tired and all of a sudden my stupid mother would start ragging him about me and my sister fighting all day..that belt came out faster..*shudder... I'd never do that shit to my kids if I had any...and I'd also tell my wife to disipline them and if she needed ME to get involved WAIT TIL I HAVE EATEN AND RELAXED! Anyone coming thru the door after dealing with shit and then hearing MORE shit is gonna snap.

If material punishment didn't work, then I'd go to smacking on the ass pants ON...aint working? Smacking on the ass pants down..I dont think I'd use a belt on my child...its my kid and I don't own any slaves that need whipping. When they hit 12 and up and get outta line.. a nice open smack in the mouth but all controlled.

I'm right there in the middle. I don't think believe that a parent should go corporal on a kid for every infraction; sometimes verbalizing to them how out of line, or inappropriate, his or her behavior was (and punishing with restricted access to certain privileges or leisure activity) is adequate, and more effective. However, I do think that there is a line. I think if a kid behaves in a way that is defiantly flip, then it's time to up the punishment ante with a little brut force to let them know that it won't be tolerated again....and yes, that can mean tearing their little behind up.

My nephew is 2 years old and is a terror. He does not listen to his parents and they constantly have to run around with him all day long to keep him out of mischief. He is destructive and disrespectful in other peoples homes. This includes jumping on top of tables, pulling everything in sight, throwing things all over the floor and he even kept turning a dishwasher on when his mother kept yelling at him to stop. This kid needs a good whack so that he learns respect and discipline. His parents are going about it in the wrong way, they will yell at him and then give in to him when he starts to cry. When I was a kid my dad would think nothing of giving me and my other brothers and sisters a good whack when we did something disrespectful or wrong. Im not for brut force on a kid but a whack on the butt or hands never hurt.

I'm ol' school. I believe in belts. Sorry. But I can't stand those "earth mother" types that don't believe in spankings or punishments...thinking that it'll halt creativity or expression or whatever. If a kid fucks up in a way that he knew he shouldn't have, then a whoopin' is a very real option. Not saying that he HAS to get his behind beat. Depends on the situation (I guess). But the option is there.

AtownPeep wrote:

I'm ol' school. I believe in belts. Sorry. But I can't stand those "earth mother" types that don't believe in spankings or punishments...thinking that it'll halt creativity or expression or whatever. If a kid fucks up in a way that he knew he shouldn't have, then a whoopin' is a very real option. Not saying that he HAS to get his behind beat. Depends on the situation (I guess). But the option is there.

I got my butt beat with the belt more times than I care to remember.

I am about to violate two of my personal "rules" for my online posting!

First, I steer clear of parenting topics, and second, I don't reply when I have not read all the responses to any particular thread.

All that stated, here is what I have to say on the subject...

It depends on the child and the parent and how everyone feels. And by "everyone" I mean everyone in any situation. Spanking can become dysfunctional in a heartbeat, if one parent is for and one against...then it sends a whole other type message of parent vs. parent. While many kids benefit from a good ol swat on the pooper, they don't benefit if the parent doing the swat is riddled with guilt from his or her past of childhood punishments, when doing the swatting.

I have a child, and spanked him about three times. It never was what was best in my situation. But I really do have a pretty good kid, though I am a strict parent. When I was younger, I would have responded to a thread like this with, "If you parent the right way, spanking is never necessary."

Since then, I realize that not one thing works for every child, and maybe I got lucky, and maybe in three years, when my son is a teen, I will have wished I had spanked him. Parenting is the hardest job one will do...believe me, having a tween, I totally subscribe to that theory, which I once thought was a bunch of b.s.....

I agree with those who say that it depends on the personality of the kid and the size of the misdeed. You generally can't reason with a willful toddler. They're the one's who generally need physical discipline the most, but at the same time they also need to be calmly explained to why they just got swatted. After toddler stage is when parents can try other things. I would never suggest that parents shouldn't ever whoop their kids, but I think it should be a near final resort. I have a cousin who is quick to merciless whoop his kids over every little infraction (to the point where it borders on abuse)...and I have another cousin (his brother) who lets his kids get away with all sorts of tantrums and ornery disrespect. Some sort of middle ground is needed.

I do not believe in physical punishment for children. I think its a sign of lazy parenting. Its important to enforce respect early on if you dont you cant really blame the child. If you let them get away with everything they are not going to respect you. I think many problems can be solved by taking away what a child loves instead of hitting them. There are other alternatives.

Jazzde wrote:

I do not believe in physical punishment for children. I think its a sign of lazy parenting. Its important to enforce respect early on if you dont you cant really blame the child. If you let them get away with everything they are not going to respect you. I think many problems can be solved by taking away what a child loves instead of hitting them. There are other alternatives.

I agree!

Sorry, but there just is no logical way to argue that hitting your child is a way to "teach" them. If that was the case, then instead of sitting in math class, why don't we just spank a child into learning?

Teaching is about giving information in a logical format and help the child process, understand and apply the knowledge. Spanking ONLY instills fear and is more of a Pavlovian form of teaching.

Does it work? I guess it does.

Does it leave terrible psychological damage? Probably not (unless there is some more abuse going on)


But what I am really wondering, and maybe someone out there can answer this for me, as a parent what could a child do that is so terrible that would make you choose physicial violence and cause harm to your child as opposed to teaching right from wrong in a non-violent way?

Totally against it.

A good ass whoopin' is nothing but a good attitude adjustment. Everybody needs one every now and then!

Anybody else not get the logic of these kinds of people? I don't know what spanking means to them, but when I was a kid and screwed up, spanking meant your dad smacked your butt a couple of times with his hand. HOW does that constitute as child abuse? Child abuse, it shows in most of its victims, either early on, or later on, and they're in therapy, and they're in support groups, and what more, it is illegal. Abuse is illegal but all 50 states in this country will allow parents to spank their kids, what part of this are these bleeding hearts not getting?

The majority of people who were spanked, as adults admit that it helped them, and they deserved a lot worse than they got. You don't really hear that in too many cases of ACTUAL abuse, that this guy is the success he is because his father broke his ribs, or that this woman is the loving mother she is because her mother burned her with cigarettes. And, as I said before, a lot of victims of abuse later on wind up in therapy, and WHERE is the guy in therapy because his whole life is screwed up because when he was 8 and broke a window, his dad smacked his behind?

I am not anti-spanking, but I understand their logic. Everybody is different. There are people who feel like they are being violent if the smack their child on the butt. If the parents have qualms about it, or think it is abusive, they shouldn't do it.

Of course there is that demographic that has no discipline at all, and then the kids run amok and those are the parents I don't understand.

There is a big difference between spanking and abuse. No child should ever be abused but a good spanking when they do something that they should not have will teach them respect and discipline. So many kids today need a good spanking but their parents are afraid to touch them.