And the thing that makes no sense to me is that the majority of bleeding hearts who insist it's abuse and you're a horrible parent if 'you have to resort to violence because you're incapable of parenting your kids any other way', were NEVER spanked as kids. And the ones who were admit they needed it, SO, if it's abuse, where are all the victims? You can't be a victim if it didn't happen to you and if you're not complaining about what happened, who gets to make the call on that it's abuse? The ones who NEVER had to endure it? That'd be like making the Pope a specialist on birth control.

My siblings and I were victims of child abuse and we never talked about it as kids because we were afraid to. Only as adults we discussed the horrible way our father would beat us up, in a sense I think it helped either to ease our anger towards him or fuel it further for what he did to us. As an adult I know the difference between abuse and spanking and I would never subject a child to what I went through but I would not spare the rod if the child deserved it.

Exactly, some kids DO need to be spanked. I don't know why people think timeouts and taking away TV works on EVERY kid. When I was 7 and mouthed off, my parents tried the no TV thing, I didn't care at all.

Now, you take Bill Cosby's son. In his book Fatherhood he explains when his son was 12, he was cutting school all the time, lying about everything, they tried every punishment with him and NOTHING worked, so he takes his son and spanks him a few times, the boy is screaming, crying he's sorry, he'll be good. Bill lets him think it's over, then he spanks the kid once more and tells him 'I'm sorry, I lied, are you going to lie to me again?' and his son never did and his school performance improved immensely. Now, by his own admission nothing else worked, so are these mamby pambys saying he should've just let his kid drop out of school and run away because he had to spank him to make him straighten up?

Some kids you can send them to their room and they'll learn to behave, but some kids you can, and some people have talked about this, they tried literally EVERY other form of discipline, nothing worked, they spank their kids, THEN they get the message. You take all those screaming whining brats in stores who pound the floor with their fists because they can't have something, do we really think these kids are looking at a spanking when they get home or maybe a 'sit there until you're sorry' thing? Of course that's assuming they're punished at all but still...

I will never disagree that some kids need a good spanking now and then. I have a classic example in my own family of 2 kids that really need a whack. My niece, love her to death has 2 boys ages 7 and 3. She or her husband have never laid a finger on them and as a result, these two kids scream and whine and carry on when they want something. They don't stop until the parents give in and go get them what they want. They give in all the time, no matter what time of day or night it is. The little one is very destructive, when he goes to other people's houses, he touches everything, picks things up, throws them and the parents never say a word other than the classic "stop it". Now they have absolutely no respect for either parent and they know when they scream, whine, stomp their fists and feet, they are going to get what they want. If they had given them a good whack here and there and take away the TV privileges and toy privileges I guarantee these two boys would be angels and not mis behave like they do.

Amen to that. I can't STAND kids like that and I grew up around one all my life. It's one thing when a child is 3 and when he comes over for the Christmas party you have to hide things that he might pick up and steal, but when he's 10 or 13 and you STILL have to hide everything, you know his parents screwed up a long time ago.

I don't got the idea that a small wallop on the bottom is child abuse. There is a difference between a tussy spank and beating a kid within an inch of his life. Sometimes kids NEED a spanking. I do agree that it can become ineffective after a certain age. But a little spanking for legitimate reasons is not child abuse.

I don't like to see kids living in fear of their parents slapping them if they so much as spill a glass of milk on the table, but what I dislike almost as much is being at a store and seeing a mother practically beg her unruly nine year old to behave. Corporal punishment shouldn't be the only, or first, choice–but I'm not at all against it being one of the methods used to keep kids in line.

My belief is more than a hand on the butt is too much. Every kid needs a good spanking once in a while. The notion now of "Now don't do that again", "now lets talk about this" to a 2 year old is stupid. Guarantee ya, beat their butt a couple times and they are going to think twice about doing it again. I was in the ER a few months ago, with a migraine, and there was this mother and 2 year old there. He was running all over the place, screaming and yelling, throwing things and all kept saying is "Now don't do that!" R u kidding me? Smack him on the butt a couple of times and but his ass in the chair. My kids always knew what "Do you want me to take you to the bathroom?" meant.

It's a matter of degree, IMO. Obviously a swat is different than a punch in the face.

That doesn't make it right though.

It used to be legal to "discipline" your wife as well, but now that law has changed. The AAP already is opposed to spanking, as is almost every single child rearing expert and psychologist.

There is no other situation where it is legal to hit someone, yet it's legal to hit someone way smaller than you?

Not to mention, it doesn't teach them any thing other than "If I do this, I'll get hit...I better not get caught doing it." OR "It's okay to hit sometimes."

I'd like to see people that spank their kids take some parenting classes and then see if they still think it's necessary, because I've never hit any of my kids and they are well behaved. They probably wouldn't be had I not taken parenting classes though, because the way I was raised, I didn't have any alternative tools or understanding of child development.

Supernova wrote:

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?

There actually are plenty of people who were spanked who don't spank because they feel it damaged their relationship with their parents. They probably just aren't where YOU see them because you aren't frequenting anti-spanking websites and stuff.

Chris wrote:

I don't like to see kids living in fear of their parents slapping them if they so much as spill a glass of milk on the table, but what I dislike almost as much is being at a store and seeing a mother practically beg her unruly nine year old to behave. Corporal punishment shouldn't be the only, or first, choice–but I'm not at all against it being one of the methods used to keep kids in line.

90% of parents in America admit to spanking their kids, so chances are, all those kids you see running around all crazy are kids who have been spanked.

Tony Marino wrote:

I will never disagree that some kids need a good spanking now and then. I have a classic example in my own family of 2 kids that really need a whack. My niece, love her to death has 2 boys ages 7 and 3. She or her husband have never laid a finger on them and as a result, these two kids scream and whine and carry on when they want something. They don't stop until the parents give in and go get them what they want. They give in all the time, no matter what time of day or night it is. The little one is very destructive, when he goes to other people's houses, he touches everything, picks things up, throws them and the parents never say a word other than the classic "stop it". Now they have absolutely no respect for either parent and they know when they scream, whine, stomp their fists and feet, they are going to get what they want. If they had given them a good whack here and there and take away the TV privileges and toy privileges I guarantee these two boys would be angels and not mis behave like they do.

Not spanking doesn't mean lack of discipline though. Those parents should be using other methods of discipline and then their kids probably wouldn't act that way.

Supernova wrote:

Exactly, some kids DO need to be spanked. I don't know why people think timeouts and taking away TV works on EVERY kid. When I was 7 and mouthed off, my parents tried the no TV thing, I didn't care at all.

Now, you take Bill Cosby's son. In his book Fatherhood he explains when his son was 12, he was cutting school all the time, lying about everything, they tried every punishment with him and NOTHING worked, so he takes his son and spanks him a few times, the boy is screaming, crying he's sorry, he'll be good. Bill lets him think it's over, then he spanks the kid once more and tells him 'I'm sorry, I lied, are you going to lie to me again?' and his son never did and his school performance improved immensely. Now, by his own admission nothing else worked, so are these mamby pambys saying he should've just let his kid drop out of school and run away because he had to spank him to make him straighten up?

Some kids you can send them to their room and they'll learn to behave, but some kids you can, and some people have talked about this, they tried literally EVERY other form of discipline, nothing worked, they spank their kids, THEN they get the message. You take all those screaming whining brats in stores who pound the floor with their fists because they can't have something, do we really think these kids are looking at a spanking when they get home or maybe a 'sit there until you're sorry' thing? Of course that's assuming they're punished at all but still...

If you have tried literally everything else and nothing has worked, then you need professional help. Spanking is not a magic cure all. I saw a kid in Target throwing a fit and his mom spanked him and then do you know what he did? He kicked her.

That's a mom who needs to learn some parenting tools and use them consistently, not a mom whose kid needs a whack.

Tony Marino wrote:

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.

I'm not afraid to touch my kids, I think that it's wrong. It's wrong to hit adults, it's wrong for kids to hit kids, and imo it's wrong for adults to hit kids.

I'm not afraid to discipline, because discipline means "to teach" and it's my job.

Sorry for the spamming...It's a cause close to my heart.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

It's a matter of degree, IMO. Obviously a swat is different than a punch in the face.

This I agree with and moderation is best.

I only had one kid that I had to discipline physically and all it took was on smack to his butt to make him do what he was supposed to do. He was testing limits, one of those things 8-year-old kids do - and I showed him where those limits were.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

It used to be legal to "discipline" your wife as well, but now that law has changed....There is no other situation where it is legal to hit someone, yet it's legal to hit someone way smaller than you?...

Way bad analogy. Hitting "someone" implies that you are comparing a thinking, independent, rational adult with a dependent, unruly, irrational child. If children were such a "someone" they would not need any discipline - you could send them a memo.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

Not to mention, it doesn't teach them any thing other than "If I do this, I'll get hit...I better not get caught doing it." OR "It's okay to hit sometimes." ...

No, unless they are mentally defective, it teaches them that "my parents are an authority figure that I MUST listen to and do as I'm told or they will exert why they are in charge."

Speaking of mentally defective, most of the kids I have had experience with were in institutions. We are not allowed to hit them in any way, but we have to prevent them from hurting themselves or others, or tearing the place apart so there was a lot of throwing them down on the floor and holding them until they calmed.

I learned with one boy that it was a ritual - he acted up and as soon as I put him on the floor he was alright. There is a security in knowing that someone is in charge - even if physically in charge - to guarantee that you do have limits which will not be crossed.

Shale wrote:

thepossiblepolice wrote:

It used to be legal to "discipline" your wife as well, but now that law has changed....There is no other situation where it is legal to hit someone, yet it's legal to hit someone way smaller than you?...

Way bad analogy. Hitting "someone" implies that you are comparing a thinking, independent, rational adult with a dependent, unruly, irrational child. If children were such a "someone" they would not need any discipline - you could send them a memo.

Got to agree on this one. If an adult reaches for something hot on the stove, you don't yell NO at them and smack their wrist so they learn not to touch it, because they're grown and they already know it, a baby doesn't know it, and sitting down a toddler to explain to him about hot and cold and burns is not going to do much good because he is not going to get it, being more 'aggresive' is going to teach him don't touch hot things.


And I have to agree it's a poor analogy because women used to not have rights to education, careers or property, but even today you wouldn't grant those rights to a 2 year old because they're not old enough for any of it. You wouldn't let a 2 year old drive a car, and you don't give an adult a bedtime, there's still a world of difference in raising a child and dealing with an adult.

Shale wrote:

thepossiblepolice wrote:

It's a matter of degree, IMO. Obviously a swat is different than a punch in the face.

This I agree with and moderation is best.

I only had one kid that I had to discipline physically and all it took was on smack to his butt to make him do what he was supposed to do. He was testing limits, one of those things 8-year-old kids do - and I showed him where those limits were.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

It used to be legal to "discipline" your wife as well, but now that law has changed....There is no other situation where it is legal to hit someone, yet it's legal to hit someone way smaller than you?...

Way bad analogy. Hitting "someone" implies that you are comparing a thinking, independent, rational adult with a dependent, unruly, irrational child. If children were such a "someone" they would not need any discipline - you could send them a memo.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

Not to mention, it doesn't teach them any thing other than "If I do this, I'll get hit...I better not get caught doing it." OR "It's okay to hit sometimes." ...

No, unless they are mentally defective, it teaches them that "my parents are an authority figure that I MUST listen to and do as I'm told or they will exert why they are in charge."

Speaking of mentally defective, most of the kids I have had experience with were in institutions. We are not allowed to hit them in any way, but we have to prevent them from hurting themselves or others, or tearing the place apart so there was a lot of throwing them down on the floor and holding them until they calmed.

I learned with one boy that it was a ritual - he acted up and as soon as I put him on the floor he was alright. There is a security in knowing that someone is in charge - even if physically in charge - to guarantee that you do have limits which will not be crossed.

I respectfully disagree with you. Study after study show that spanking is NO MORE EFFECTIVE than any other method of discipline and is possibly harmful. The only study that showed any benefit to spanking compared it with children who were not disciplined at all.

eta:
My point about the husbands being allowed to discipline their wives is not that children are rational (that's another reason that they shouldn't be hit, imo) it's that laws change and what is viewed by society as okay behavior changes as well.

Supernova wrote:

Shale wrote:

Way bad analogy. Hitting "someone" implies that you are comparing a thinking, independent, rational adult with a dependent, unruly, irrational child. If children were such a "someone" they would not need any discipline - you could send them a memo.

Got to agree on this one. If an adult reaches for something hot on the stove, you don't yell NO at them and smack their wrist so they learn not to touch it, because they're grown and they already know it, a baby doesn't know it, and sitting down a toddler to explain to him about hot and cold and burns is not going to do much good because he is not going to get it, being more 'aggresive' is going to teach him don't touch hot things.


And I have to agree it's a poor analogy because women used to not have rights to education, careers or property, but even today you wouldn't grant those rights to a 2 year old because they're not old enough for any of it. You wouldn't let a 2 year old drive a car, and you don't give an adult a bedtime, there's still a world of difference in raising a child and dealing with an adult.

When a kid hasn't been hit or yelled at all the time, grabbing him suddenly and scooping him away with an alarmed voice and face is enough to keep them from danger. Also, parents should baby proof so that their kids aren't around a hot stove when they are infants. My kids aren't allowed to be in the kitchen when I'm cooking until they are 3, unless they are on my back or strapped into a high chair.

For the analogy, my point is that laws regarding what is acceptable and what is abusive change. Spanking is legal in the USA now, but it may not always be. It's illegal in other developed nations and they don't have more violence or crime than we do here, they have less. I'm sure that when men had their right to discipline their wives taken away, they said all the same stuff about their spousal rights as parents do now about their right to discipline their children.

That spanking is seen as abuse by some, I find totally ridiculous. As parents grow more and more lenient with kids, creating ever gentler punishments that border on non-punishment, what happens to the kids? All you have to do is go to a kid-friendly restaurant to see. Parents might wearily say, "Stop it, kids," in that monotone that absolutely no riled up child ever listens to, and when the kids don't change their behavior after a few mindless warnings, they just let it go. Absolutely no discipline. Now, I never spank my kids as an angry reaction. I would consider that striking out, and try to avoid this. But yeah, I punish them pretty severely--which sometimes includes a well-thought-out spanking--when they act up in ways they KNOW they shouldn't. My rules tend to be very few, but those few I do establish must be obeyed.

Impact wrote:

That spanking is seen as abuse by some, I find totally ridiculous. As parents grow more and more lenient with kids, creating ever gentler punishments that border on non-punishment, what happens to the kids? All you have to do is go to a kid-friendly restaurant to see. Parents might wearily say, "Stop it, kids," in that monotone that absolutely no riled up child ever listens to, and when the kids don't change their behavior after a few mindless warnings, they just let it go. Absolutely no discipline. Now, I never spank my kids as an angry reaction. I would consider that striking out, and try to avoid this. But yeah, I punish them pretty severely--which sometimes includes a well-thought-out spanking--when they act up in ways they KNOW they shouldn't. My rules tend to be very few, but those few I do establish must be obeyed.

I'm exactly the same way. If my kids were acting out while eating out, they'd be in the car having a time out, not ignoring me and disturbing everyone around them. If they still didn't behave, they wouldn't be eating out with us the next time we went out and they would be reminded of why.

Spanking is banned in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Cyprus, Croatia, Latvia, Israel, Germany, Bulgaria, Iceland, Romania, Ukraine, Hungary, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Uruguay, Venezuela, Spain, Republic of Moldova, Costa Rica, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Tunisia, Poland, and Kenya...

When spanking isn't an option, parents learn other methods of discipline. Even if spanking isn't considered to be physically abusive (it is in all those countries), there is still a case to be made that it is emotionally abusive, which is why so many psychologists, psychiatrists, and parenting experts don't recommend it.

Impact wrote:

That spanking is seen as abuse by some, I find totally ridiculous. As parents grow more and more lenient with kids, creating ever gentler punishments that border on non-punishment, what happens to the kids? All you have to do is go to a kid-friendly restaurant to see. Parents might wearily say, "Stop it, kids," in that monotone that absolutely no riled up child ever listens to, and when the kids don't change their behavior after a few mindless warnings, they just let it go. Absolutely no discipline. Now, I never spank my kids as an angry reaction. I would consider that striking out, and try to avoid this. But yeah, I punish them pretty severely--which sometimes includes a well-thought-out spanking--when they act up in ways they KNOW they shouldn't. My rules tend to be very few, but those few I do establish must be obeyed.

Agreed, if a child is doing something he KNOWS is wrong, the parents specifically told him NOT to do, he already had a verbal warning. So how is 'well think about what you've done' going to effect him when 'don't do this in the first place' didn't?

I think it's ironic that I'm in here, the only one who thinks spanking is not okay, and in another forum I'm being blasted for using time out, which they are saying is "conditional parenting" and is psychologically harmful.

I don't agree with them, but I did consider what they had to say for the last 2 days.

Supernova wrote:

Impact wrote:

That spanking is seen as abuse by some, I find totally ridiculous. As parents grow more and more lenient with kids, creating ever gentler punishments that border on non-punishment, what happens to the kids? All you have to do is go to a kid-friendly restaurant to see. Parents might wearily say, "Stop it, kids," in that monotone that absolutely no riled up child ever listens to, and when the kids don't change their behavior after a few mindless warnings, they just let it go. Absolutely no discipline. Now, I never spank my kids as an angry reaction. I would consider that striking out, and try to avoid this. But yeah, I punish them pretty severely--which sometimes includes a well-thought-out spanking--when they act up in ways they KNOW they shouldn't. My rules tend to be very few, but those few I do establish must be obeyed.

Agreed, if a child is doing something he KNOWS is wrong, the parents specifically told him NOT to do, he already had a verbal warning. So how is 'well think about what you've done' going to effect him when 'don't do this in the first place' didn't?

Is that what you think people do if they don't spank? They just say "think about what you did wrong?" Because I don't think that I've ever said that to any of my kids. Time out when they are under five, is an attention getter...They act out, get a warning, have a time out (I use it really rarely, like once every 2 weeks or so) and then we talk about what happened. After about age five, we have a reward and consequence system and we don't use time out any more. When I catch them being good, they get a quarter in their cup (we start with nickels when they are younger and work up to quarters as they get older), when they do something that is against the rules, they lose a quarter. They are motivated by earning more quarters and they don't want to lose a quarter. If they do something really bad like hit someone or something like that, they lose a dollar.

I rarely have to actually take a quarter, because a warning is enough. I don't use time out with my twins yet, because they are too young to understand it. I redirect, I remove them from the situation, I praise positive behavior...But they are too young to understand consequences like time out yet. They just think it's funny.

Ultimately, I think it depends on the situation.

If the child is mild mannered, easy to reason with, and if their infraction was minor or common/non-severe, then by all means talk it out. If the heart to heart works, and a 'learning' moment can come out of it, via conversation, then that's terrific–honestly; that's what every parent should hope for. If they love their video games more than life itself, and if confiscating them as punishment is enough to leave a lasting impression, then go that route. But I'm sorry, a two year heading for the outlet with a fork needs to have his hand spanked. A seven year old who decides to scream and break dishes in a temper tantrum because you decided to take his video game from him needs to have his behind slapped.

Some people believe that all children need to be spanked to establish parental 'order' (my old school grandparents thought that) and others believe that no child should ever be hit, no matter how outstandingly bad their transgression is.

I don't agree with either extreme.