Page 1 of 2
Spanking - For or against?
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:46 pm
by luminousnerd
Just wondering what the general consensus is.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:51 pm
by mr_thebrain
i was spanked once as a child.
anyway, it took one time, i learned. never had to be spanked again. so yeah, while i don't think it should be the only way for disciplining your child, i'm not against it.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:53 pm
by hive_king
A small amount of corporal punishment has been shown to be effective disciplining children, as long as it wasn't too much or too often, without psychological scarring later in life. (I once read so in TIME). Just as long as you don't abuse the kid.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:56 pm
by Eaquae Legit
I prefer positive reinforcement. I prefer verbal warnings and time-outs.
But small kids are right contrary little bastards and sometimes their behaviour is dangerous to themselves or others. If the warnings and time-outs don't work, I am not opposed to spanking.
But never if you are still angry, and only, ONLY as that last resort.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:56 pm
by Jebus
I'm not too concerned about the pain inflicted by spanking, only the aggression and frustration of the parents that gets vented onto the child by causing them pain. I don't think it's healthy.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:28 pm
by Qing_Jao
I said no for other reasons. There are more effective and more gentle ways to discipline. Right now, we're doing time-outs. When they get older, it'll probably be loss of privileges or whatever. It's easier on me, because I have a hard time not being angry at them, and yeah, spanking in anger is not good.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:01 pm
by Hegemon
I said yes, but only as a last resort.
I think that some kids cannot be dealt with any other way. Probably because I was one of those kids.
EDIT
Okay, that didn't work either... Kids are impossible.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:26 pm
by Rei
I'm generally against spanking, although, as has been said often enough in here, if it must be used as a last resort it is never to be done in anger. I do sometimes have issues with the people who are a hundred percent against spanking. A while back I saw signs in the subway advertising against spanking and the damage it does to children. This may have all been fine, but the alternatives it suggested to spanking was basically bribery and would let the child run rampant all over you. The basic attitude was reward good behaviour and bad behaviour will never happen, which I think is about as blind an opinion as can be, especially where children are involved.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:48 pm
by AnthonyByakko
The whole "positive reinforcement" thing only works up to a point. You have to teach ____ (be it a dog, a kid, a student, etc) both that doing whatever is considered good will be rewarded, and that doing what is considered bad will be punished. They have to learn to associate right with reward, and wrong with pain. I'm for spanking, and I was spanked growing up. (look how great I turned out, amirite?) Because in real life, you don't get a goddamned cookie every time you stop at a red light. But if you run it, you will be punished.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:09 am
by Firegirl
since i don't have children and one of my parents was not particularly healthy mentally in terms of raising children, I can only say that corporal punishment can easily become physical or emotional abuse. Especially if the child does not understand why they are being punished or if the parent is hypocritical. The child because of the punishment may later on resent the parent for the treatment. Personally I know that I would have been more cooperative with incentives, rather than corporal punishment. Rei, positive incentives are not bribery when used correctly and when a child is feeling scared, ill, or needs attention incentives work better than ssay spanking or other forms of punishment.
AnthonyByakko your comparison of kids, dogs and students does not work, dogs and humans have nothing in common in terms of learning methods.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:18 am
by AnthonyByakko
That's a logical fallacy, and egregious at that. Both young children and dogs learn the same way - reinforcement, either positive or negative. BOTH need to be used to provide a balanced approach. When a dog s***** on the carpet, you drag it over there and punish the dog, so it is aware of not only the punishment, but WHY it happened - both dogs and children need to connect, mentally, the punishment with the crime.
I don't resent my parents for spanking, because I always knew why I was being punished, and because it was never done in retaliation but rather to enforce, in my young mind, the pain of punishment with the act that had gotten me in trouble. Children are smarter than people give them credit for, and positive reinforcement can work against a parent who isn't approaching it with both techniques.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:21 am
by Rei
Oh I know that all positive incentives are not bribery, at least, not in a negative sense. In fact, I'm all for rewarding good behaviour. I just don't think that rewarding good behaviour and ignoring bad behaviour is a good way to raise a child. It leads to spoiled children. That said, I don't think that punishment has to mean something painful either. A time-out session can be just as effective, for example, or even removing a reward for a while and explaining to the child why it is being removed, and these are not violent actions, nor cruel in other ways (barring abuse, of course).
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:19 am
by Hegemon
AnthonyByakko your comparison of kids, dogs and students does not work, dogs and humans have nothing in common in terms of learning methods.
I dunno about that.... I have strong recollections of having to teach AB not to drink out of the toilet
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:26 am
by AnthonyByakko
HEY, it was always clean water. It's not like it should go to waste.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:58 am
by lovesonia
I was spanked - switches and belts, mainly - as a child. I didn't know why I got a good deal of them; a few of them were because I was simply at the scene of the crime and wouldn't rat out my siblings so we all had to get spankings. Some I know perfectly well why I got the spanking, and it is what it is.
Knowing how I thought of the parental units that spanked me, I couldn't do the same to my kids. I don't intend to raise my kids to fear me as I feared those raising me.
Like many have said, I would give time outs and take away privileges. Along with those I would talk to the kids, assuming they're old enough, and explain what they're being admonished for, etc. Or, if things are broken after they'd been told not to do something, they'd get extra chores to pay for it. Other than that, I don't know.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:05 am
by AnthonyByakko
Just because your parents did corporal punishment incorrectly does not negate the usefulness (and in some cases, necessity) of the form. You may find that your opinions change when you actually do have children. I never had to fear my parents, because I knew why I got them when I did, and I knew that I wasn't supposed to do whatever I did beforehand. Obviously, I didn't do anything like that very often, because I knew what the punishment would be - if I knew I was gonna get a "time out" or some privilege taken away, I might have done more wrong; it wouldn't have been as effective a deterrent. Something to think about.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:45 am
by lovesonia
It's true, I might change my mind. I doubt it, though.
I learned a more important method of punishment from my mom, it started when I was about 8. Try not to mess up. Try not to do anything stupid. If you do, come clean right away. You'll live. That's the only way. If we messed up, we got "The Lecture." The Lecture being 45 minutes of her talking about in great length, and possibly crying, about how disappointed she was, how we're smarter/better than that and how she expects us to learn from it and not let it happen again. Any time we weren't responsive to what she was saying, she brought us back to and told us that if we paid attention it would be over sooner rather than later.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:14 am
by Fish Tank
I'm against spanking children. Teaching them that violence can solve problems is a very bad influence. I think even being spanked once sends a very clear message. And children do not forget it.
Spanking should only be between two consenting adults.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:20 am
by AnthonyByakko
Logical fallacy. The concept that "violence is not the answer", that oft touted ideal, is flawed. Violence certainly is not a primary resource, but when faced with violence, or otherwise egregious behavior, violence can be the answer. You're not "solving problems" with violence by spanking, you're connecting the idea of pain with the idea of breaking the rules. Some people may be misinterpreting the idea of spanking through their own experiences; but being spanked as a child by a parent/guarding who did it improperly, and without the necessary steps, does not, as I said before, negate the importance of corporal punishment for certain behaviors. Now, are you to spank a child for staying up too late? Certainly not. But I remember the first time I swore in public was my first spanking - and yes, like you said, I remembered - I remembered that swearing was wrong. Until I came to PWEB.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:38 am
by Fish Tank
Violence isn't the answer. There are worse punishments than violence, especially to a child.
Spanking is the parents way of saying, "I no longer have control". Of theirself or their child.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am
by luminousnerd
And now for my opinion. I'm beginning to agree a little bit with some of you that it could possibly be beneficial in some cases, when it is used properly. However, I doubt anyone's ability to maintain the level of self-control necessary for it.
I know that in my own life, I have been over-punished, both corporally and otherwise, and punished for many things that I simply did not do, and punished violently far beyond an acceptable age. I have a lot of problems with the person I am today, and have zero respect for the people responsible. I'm aware that a lot of teens will say that, but when pressed they will admit they love their parents. I really, really wish I was one of those. I have huge anger management issues (imagine that), and I'm not that easy to get along with. Who knows if this is all a direct result of the way I was raised or if I'm just a lame jerk by nature. Still, I'm blaming the former.
Most of the time I would learn a lot more from a simple scolding than violence. Violence gets me angry, and I never stop being angry. I'm angry at the whole world, I get angry at my friends for stupid things. I hate them for that.
I make no claims to know more than you about raising a kid. In fact, I know I'm not nearly as smart as a lot of you here and I'm still in my "rebellious rotten teen" years (although I think I've got more reason than some to be rebellious.
But, I feel like my life has been very negatively altered by corporal punishments (I would say spankings, except lately it's a little more since I fight back). I can never do it to my child(ren).
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:33 am
by Eaquae Legit
After the age of about 10, spanking becomes inappropriate and abusive. It is sometimes impossible to reason with a small child, but as they get older, other forms of punishment become more appropriate.
If you are being injured or abused at home, I do urge you to speak to a guidance counsellor or call a help line.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:41 am
by luminousnerd
After the age of about 10, spanking becomes inappropriate and abusive. It is sometimes impossible to reason with a small child, but as they get older, other forms of punishment become more appropriate.
If you are being injured or abused at home, I do urge you to speak to a guidance counsellor or call a help line.
I'm not trying to drum up sympathy here, just saying it for my argument's sake. That and it feels pretty good to put into words, I've never done so before.
But anyway the Utah law says they got to break your bones before it is abuse.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:19 am
by mr_thebrain
for those of you who were spanked as children, and refuse to do it to your own future children. lemme pose to you these questions:
do you hate who you are? are you screwed up solely due to the spankings of your youth? do you hate your parents for having spanked you when you were bad? did you learn to not be bad?
the way i figure things, perhaps my parents didn't raise me perfectly. but i turned out perfectly. so for me, the ends justify the means... *shrug*
besides, most people who are screwed up don't know that they're screwed up.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:17 am
by Sibyl
I voted "Last Resort", and I think even that really depends on the child, and the age of the child. At the extremes of the personalities they're born with (and I do believe that they have their own personalities even in the womb: it's _not_ a blank slate), some will burst into tears and feel terribly punished at a mere frown, and others are so hard-headed and self-willed that I'm not sure it's possible to instill anything like discipline or obedience. Maybe at neither end of that spectrum does spanking do any good at all, but in between sometimes it's the only thing to do.
On "age", probably after about five or six they know the difference between rights and privileges, and have a sense of time, and taking away a privilege for a serious length of time will be more effective than even spanking.
I never had any good results at all with "Time Out", but maybe that was just mine. But trying to enforce the "Time Out" was worse than whatever envoked it in the first place.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:28 am
by jotabe
My dad used to say: "Children are like tree saplings. When they are young, you can tame them if they curve, and make them grow straight. If you let them grow twisted, when they are old, you can't make them straight again anymore."
In extreme situations, there might be other solutions than spanking. But an occasional spaking has proved, though many generations of human beings, that it traumatizes noone, and serves as a good corrective. That's why parents resort to it, because their own parents did, and it works. And raising a child is a very delicate matter, and you really don't want to let your child grow up twisted.
btw, what is that "time out"?
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:37 am
by mr_thebrain
for most children it's having to go sit in their room to watch TV and play video games...
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:03 pm
by jotabe
Ah... punished to your room!
yeah, a very outdated punishment... especially since many kids would rather be closed in their rooms.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:12 pm
by Sibyl
My dad used to say: "Children are like tree saplings. When they are young, you can tame them if they curve, and make them grow straight. If you let them grow twisted, when they are old, you can't make them straight again anymore."
....
btw, what is that "time out"?
In English, it's a proverb: "As the twig is bent, the tree's inclined"
"Time Out" is a method of "punishment" or "training" much pushed by social workers and pop child psychologists, especially of the anti-spanking school. For most, it's making the child sit in a chair and do absolutely nothing, except maybe think, for a period of time varying mostly with the age of the child, perhaps as little as 2-5 minutes for very young children. Enforcement of the "Time Out" itself was a trick that as a parent I never mastered. When I was a child myself, it hadn't yet come into fashion, or the term hadn't been coined, and my parents didn't use it. (I was spanked occasionally, very occasionally, with the hand only). In school, something resembling the "Time Out" was used, "Go stand in the corner (face to the wall: some teachers would draw a circle on the blackboard with chalk, if it was that kind of corner, to which you had to keep the tip of your nose connected) until I tell you you can come back". "Go to your room! (and stay there)" isn't really close to the "Time Out". "Stand in the corner", however, had the added element besides calm and thinking about your misdeed, of shame and being singled out in front of your classmates.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:12 pm
by fawkes
A better punishment would be to send them outside.
Time Out
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:20 pm
by Sibyl
http://www.george-macdonald.com/lindskoog3.htm
"Time Out is an ingenious replacement for spankings, a most effective means of producing rapid decreases in the occurrence of problem behaviors; if a parent uses Time Out consistently, the effect is usually noticeable in three or four days. Time Out means removing the child from the situation where all of the reinforcers for inappropriate behavior are located; "she is placed In a new situation where there are few, if any." Patterson reports that five minutes alone in the bathroom is the best form of Time Out for a child in most families. (He tells why and discusses both medicine cabinets and fiooding.)"
The whole page of the URL is worth reading: it's in reference to the works George MacDonald, a Christian writer of mostly fiction, Scottish, of the early twentieth or late nineteenth century, to whom CS Lewis looked as a mentor.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:15 pm
by Wil
I think spanking a child should only be done if they just aren't getting the idea that doing something is wrong. After yelling and time outs don't work, spank em.
Above 10 years old, though, butt spanking isn't exactly viable and in some places is considered abuse (or even sexual abuse if you pull the pants down like some parents do).
I think in most cases it is required because kids who are pampered usually turn out to be snobby brats. In timeout, it teaches kids to be patient as well.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:09 pm
by hive_king
Though its alright to spank occasionally and sparingly as a last result when the parent does it right, it can lead to a slippery slope. "I spanked them, and they didn't do it again. I gave them a slight smack upside the head, and it worked." Untill it leads to a cycle of violence in the parent, who increasingly uses physical punishment as a cure-all, and becomes abusive- like my stepmom who would hit me because I cried when I hit my side on a coffee table. Apparently it was interrupting her soap opera, and she was going to "give me something to cry about"
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:45 pm
by Eaquae Legit
I'm not trying to drum up sympathy here, just saying it for my argument's sake. That and it feels pretty good to put into words, I've never done so before.
But anyway the Utah law says they got to break your bones before it is abuse.
Just throwing it out there.
And I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the Utah laws, but I'd have to check.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:17 pm
by anonshadow
I think Ali's right.
http://www.cjcslc.org/report.html
Under Utah Code 62A-4a-403:
(1) Except as provided in Subsection (2), when any person including persons licensed under Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act, or Title 58, Chapter 31b, Nurse Practice Act, has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to incest, molestation, sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, physical abuse, or neglect, or who observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in sexual abuse, physical abuse, or neglect, he shall immediately notify the nearest peace officer, law enforcement agency, or office of the division. On receipt of this notice, the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall immediately notify the nearest office of the division. If an initial report of child abuse or neglect is made to the division, the division shall immediately notify the appropriate local law enforcement agency. The division shall, in addition to its own investigation, comply with and lend support to investigations by law enforcement undertaken pursuant to a report made under this section.
(2) The notification requirements of Subsection (1) do not apply to a clergyman or priest, without the consent of the person making the confession, with regard to any confession made to him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he belongs, if:
(a) the confession was made directly to the clergyman or priest by the perpetrator: and
(b) the clergyman or priest is, under canon law or church doctrine or practice, bound to maintain the confidentiality of that confession.
(3) (a) When a clergyman or priest receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, he is required to give notification on the basis of that information even though he may have also received a report of abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator.
(b) Exemption of notification requirements for a clergyman or priest does not exempt a clergyman or priest from any other efforts required by law to prevent further abuse or neglect by the perpetrator.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsh ... tiscan.cfm
And, under the minimum standards under federal law:
Physical abuse is physical injury (ranging from minor bruises to severe fractures or death) as a result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, shaking, throwing, stabbing, choking, hitting (with a hand, stick, strap, or other object), burning, or otherwise harming a child. Such injury is considered abuse regardless of whether the caretaker intended to hurt the child.
http://library.adoption.com/child-abuse ... 677/1.html
I don't think that you need to break bones in Utah. I'd really like to know where you heard that.