Is corporal punishment ultimately effective?

[Red XIII]

I think Schools should get back into corporal punishment, kids running riot doing what the f*ck they want while their mums too god damn busy on her f*cking iPhone or whatever. If parents aint gonna do sh*t the schools should.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2013 by Red XIII

[GTA_stu]

Just because a child knows it was wrong to do something, doesn't mean they know why it was wrong. I find it just lazy that instead of implementing guidance, showing why something is wrong you just hit them. For example: If a kid doodles all over the wall with a crayon and you just hit them, you haven't made the message clear. The kid saw a blank canvas and decided to let out some inspiration, is it annoying as f*ck that its all over the wall yes so you give him a stern talking too. You explain that its good to be creative, to express but you teach that vandalism is wrong, how would he like it if you went and draw sh*t all over his toys etc. Getting a child to realize they are not only wrong, but why they are wrong is far more powerful then hitting them. Even if you give them a good talking to, you still used fear and pain for control. Just because something works doesn't mean its right.

To be fair I'm sure nearly all parents that give their child a smack do explain why they got a smack. It's not like they see their kid drawing on a wall, get up out of their chair, give them a slap, then go sit back down without saying a word. I was only ever hit when I did something really bad, and getting smacked does send a much stronger message. You have to know that there are serious consequences for doing something really bad, and sometimes knowing that you've disappointed your parents and that you're grounded simply isn't enough.

[H. León]

Kids should get a little bit spanked once they are 4 years old. That's when a kid can perceive the right and the wrong.

I got spanked in my days, and I know I deserved it. If you don't spank your kid when he doesn't listen, he will just turn into another yoloswagidon'tlistentomyparentscuzthey'relame piece of trash. Of course, they should not get spanked by no reason.

[DeeperRed]

 

Just because a child knows it was wrong to do something, doesn't mean they know why it was wrong. I find it just lazy that instead of implementing guidance, showing why something is wrong you just hit them. For example: If a kid doodles all over the wall with a crayon and you just hit them, you haven't made the message clear. The kid saw a blank canvas and decided to let out some inspiration, is it annoying as f*ck that its all over the wall yes so you give him a stern talking too. You explain that its good to be creative, to express but you teach that vandalism is wrong, how would he like it if you went and draw sh*t all over his toys etc. Getting a child to realize they are not only wrong, but why they are wrong is far more powerful then hitting them. Even if you give them a good talking to, you still used fear and pain for control. Just because something works doesn't mean its right.

To be fair I'm sure nearly all parents that give their child a smack do explain why they got a smack. It's not like they see their kid drawing on a wall, get up out of their chair, give them a slap, then go sit back down without saying a word. I was only ever hit when I did something really bad, and getting smacked does send a much stronger message. You have to know that there are serious consequences for doing something really bad, and sometimes knowing that you've disappointed your parents and that you're grounded simply isn't enough.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think its old fashioned and pointless. It works, but then so do other non-violent methods. It also sends mix signals, such as if another kid took his candy at school, he would still get in trouble for hitting him. It's clearly wrong that the kid took his stuff, but then you have to explain to the kid that its not aright for him to retaliate in violence. Confusing when the other day you were hitting him. I got smacked a few times but it was never a staple-hold of my discipline and I thank my dad for it. Taking away prized possessions, carting away the tv all are still not the prefect solutions but they far better then using physical pain.

 

Anyway this is just my opinion, I will never lay a finger on my child. I would rather spend the time trying to perfect other, far better methods that attack the source of the problem. I can't fully explain it, but I think just teaching "disobedience is wrong", "do as I say because I am the authority" is wrong and a weak, easy way to put yourself in charge. It's the difference between a teacher who earns his classes respect then the one who enforces it.

Edited June 7, 2013 by DeeperRed

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Kids should get a little bit spanked once they are 4 years old. That's when a kid can perceive the right and the wrong.

I got spanked in my days, and I know I deserved it. If you don't spank your kid when he doesn't listen, he will just turn into another yoloswagidon'tlistentomyparentscuzthey'relame piece of trash. Of course, they should not get spanked by no reason.

But spanking isn't the only form of punishment. In fact, it's not even the only form of harsh punishment. For every instance where a child is spanked, there is an equally-effective alternative punishment that doesn't involve physically attacking the child. It might take a little brainstorming to handle a misbehaving child; but that's what being a parent is all about. No one ever said it was going to be easy. Especially with all of the parental resources we have at our disposal these days, there is no reason to stick to such a primitive half-measure such as spanking.

 

 

Anyone can say, "I'm tired of problem solving. I'll just beat the problem out of them." In fact, even a child can do that. It takes an intelligent problem-solving parent to properly reach their disciplinary goals without the use of CP. A child shouldn't have to physically suffer for his/her parent's intellectual shortcomings.

 

 

 

[.2D]

Stu pretty much said what I was going to reply with.

 

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not defending it and saying it's right and should be allowed, I'm just saying that it does indeed work in many cases. It is of course very hard to draw and line and say "This is how hard you're allowed to hit your children, any harder than this and it's illegal", so it is far easier to just call it child abuse, however sometimes a light smack on the wrist if for example a child knows they're in the wrong and just needs a bit more than stern talking to in order to emphasise that what they're doing is wrong shouldn't exactly be classed as abusing your child and leading to punishment, but like I said, where do you draw the line?

 

I'm sure it's a lot easier for me to say this as I'm not a parent, however it's how I was raised (although it wasn't always a stern slap on the wrist, I must admit) and I believe it did help, because I was a little sh*t when I was young and there's no way any number of stern talking to's would have set me straight.

[GunWrath]

Discipline is key to a lot of things. Though there are different forms of discipline, I for one vote for corporal. Why? Because they need to be disciplined when you're not able to do be there to do so. The kids now a days are getting a bit out of hand and it's not because of bad parenting but technology, food, etc. But what can you do? If you're one of those that says, 'How can you whip a child?', then you should have your ass paddled, effective immediately.

[DeeperRed]

Taking away TV for a night (If the child likes TV) is far more effective then hitting and no where near as damaging. It is only entertainment, but it carries high importance to the child plus it gives the child reflection time. I still think its very rudimentary, but still better then hitting. Even "the naughty step" is better and pretty simple.

 

You can't hit a kid for doing something wrong and have a go at him when he hits another kid for doing some wrong. It creates double standards and confusion, and simply answering "well I am the adult so I am allowed" is just as childish as the kids behavior. As Canttakemyid said parents have so much information and help for alternative methods and ideas, hitting is just old fashioned.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

It is of course very hard to draw and line and say "This is how hard you're allowed to hit your children, any harder than this and it's illegal", so it is far easier to just call it child abuse...

This is key. I see CP as abusive and senseless due to the nonviolent alternatives. But in a legal sense, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that someone who slaps the sh*t out of their son/daughter for shoplifting is often put in the same boat as some lunatic who beats their child with an extension cord for losing a baseball game.

 

 

My question to those who support CP within reason is should female CP be inherently more forgiving? CP seems to be riddled with double standards in American culture at least.

[rudy]

People teach dogs right from wrong by hitting, true, and it definitely works. It's not right at all, but it does work. People and animals learn through consequences, good or bad.

You threaten a pet with corporal punishment because they aren't smart enough to reason, let alone biting, and that's what they respect. You threaten me with it and all you're going to do is provoke me with the insult. I'm sure there are kids that corporal punishment would work wonders for, and there are also kids like I was. There is no one method of punishment that is right for everyone. It all depends on the parents and child. Its up to each person individually to punish their own child the way they see fit.

 

I was just having a discussion about this with one of my asian friends and I came to know that one of the most cruel forms of corporal punishment practised across Asia is heating an iron rod and placing it on a kid's palm/lap. Seriously?

[fgcarva1]

Hey, it worked on me. It's how I knew what I did wrong was the real deal.

 

Watching people trying to control their children by shouting and using ever emptier threats is frustrating.

Yeah I really hate to see kids who need to be told more than once by their parents to do something.

 

Hell if worked for me but a lot of people dont consider that children need to be punished according to what they respond to and not what the parents responded to. Some children are not the kind of children that can be put in line with a little smack on the head and some children do not respond to timeouts or having things taken. It all depends on the child and I think its ignorant to say that one or the other should never be used. Just never let your own emotions get into it.

 

 

Can we get a tally of how old everyone is? I'm very interested to see if the type of punishment supported has anything to do with the times people grew up in.

I'm 18 years old and I did get smacked once in a while. Usually smack across the bum... once I got a belt and it hurt like a bitch. But now my dad and I just laugh at it. He apparently regrets doing it and it was because he grew up that way.

 

People have to learn what corporal punishment by parents is. There is a difference between "beat up" (this term was mentioned by a user) and a smack on the bum, or light smack on the face that at most will leave a mark for a few minutes. I feel like I'll probably do the same to my child, not "punishment" per se, but keep him in line. I don't want my kid to grow up a spoiled brat.

[CygnusX1]

I personally think it's unnecessary. In fact, I'm strongly against it. On the other hand, many people I know think it had a positive effect on them in the long run. In some cases, it effectively instills obedience in children. But it seems like a quick-fix half measure in other cases. What do you think?

There are too many variables to create any generalizations. It works in some situations, does damage in others. I remember at about 8 I got a 'spanking' with a belt from my father after a false accusation at school. That was when my relationship ended with my father.

[Tchuck]

It really works on a case by case deal. Some kids will only ever respond/behave when hit, others just a talking to will suffice. My father had a different strategy; whenever one of us would misbehave, he'd act cold towards us for a period of time, making it known that we had disappointed him, sounding distant. Maybe some kids wouldn't care and keep doing whatever, but it had a very strong effect on me and my siblings.

[H. León]

 

Kids should get a little bit spanked once they are 4 years old. That's when a kid can perceive the right and the wrong.

I got spanked in my days, and I know I deserved it. If you don't spank your kid when he doesn't listen, he will just turn into another yoloswagidon'tlistentomyparentscuzthey'relame piece of trash. Of course, they should not get spanked by no reason.

But spanking isn't the only form of punishment. In fact, it's not even the only form of harsh punishment. For every instance where a child is spanked, there is an equally-effective alternative punishment that doesn't involve physically attacking the child. It might take a little brainstorming to handle a misbehaving child; but that's what being a parent is all about. No one ever said it was going to be easy. Especially with all of the parental resources we have at our disposal these days, there is no reason to stick to such a primitive half-measure such as spanking.

 

 

Anyone can say, "I'm tired of problem solving. I'll just beat the problem out of them." In fact, even a child can do that. It takes an intelligent problem-solving parent to properly reach their disciplinary goals without the use of CP. A child shouldn't have to physically suffer for his/her parent's intellectual shortcomings.

I was spanked a long time ago, and as long as I recall, it did not hurt at all. My parents did not hurt me, but I was scared of the fact that they would spank me, purely psychological.

There's a line between punishment and pure evil, though.

[Finn 7 five 11]

It is of course very hard to draw and line and say "This is how hard you're allowed to hit your children, any harder than this and it's illegal", so it is far easier to just call it child abuse...

This is key. I see CP as abusive and senseless due to the nonviolent alternatives. But in a legal sense, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that someone who slaps the sh*t out of their son/daughter for shoplifting is often put in the same boat as some lunatic who beats their child with an extension cord for losing a baseball game.

 

 

My question to those who support CP within reason is should female CP be inherently more forgiving? CP seems to be riddled with double standards in American culture at least.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh everytime you say "CP" because for me, it just reads as "Child Porn" haha.*

 

I agree with what GTA_stu said. Smacking shouldn't be used really, but on very few serious occasions it can be a good tool and doesn't cause harm. Like In my case when I punched my dad, he punched me back in the arm and caused it to lose function for a while, I learned from then not to ever try that, I only punched him in the chest anyway because I was so angry, but it was a good lesson.

[Secura]

 

Physical punishment is good and bad, If you do it too much it's bad, But do it too little and it's also bad. The new forms of punishment nowadays turns Children into entitled little sh*ts, Because the parents are too afraid to PROPERLY punish their child.

 

The only way to guarentee an end to bad behaviour, Is to beat it out of them.

What the hell are you on about? You do realise that there are some parents out there don't need to resort to violence in order to keep their children under control, in fact I'd make the argument that physical violence towards anyone who's weaker then you is a f*cking sick thing; unless of course it's done in self defense. Though I really can't see how a child, someone who's evidently weaker then you, not as smart as you and certainly not as experienced as you in any sort of combat situation would be able to threaten you in such a way that you'd need to physically harm them to protect yourself from danger.

 

Clearly physical violence and corporal punishment leaves a lasting effect on people, regardless of whether they thought that it did them "good or bad". Therefore it's rather obvious that the least violent approach would be the best one to take no matter what the child might have done, I always felt as though if a child early on in their mental development sees something as violent as being hit or smacked it could have a negative effect on them. Blitz is proof of this as she still remembers the few times that her father hit both her and her brothers, as a result of this I can't imagine her using physical violence on her kids if she ever chooses to have any. I don't believe that violence always breeds violence but I do believe that it can instill things that you don't want to instill in your child, a sense of fear for their parent/s being a prime example.

 

As for your comments regarding how children today are entitled little sh*ts and need beating I'd say that first of all you don't know my child, so how can you then make an assumption as to how they behave and what they deserve as either punishment or reward for their actions? The short answer is that you can't. Making such generalisations is a dangerous thing to do, just because you believe that a child is entitled (and really why shouldn't they be? Childhood's one of the few times in a person's life when they have any semblance of true freedom/happiness so why not let them enjoy it while it lasts?) doesn't mean that they need to beaten for being so.

 

Lastly, you mention how parents are too afraid to properly punish their child, let me ask you a question. Who made you judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the acceptable and proper punishment for children? Surely you realise just how effective non-violent parenting can be, it shows that you as a parent can show restraint and find better, more inventive and potentially more efficient ways of dealing with your child rather than any situation in which you'd have to resort to corporal punishment. Regardless the fact is that "beating bad behaviour out them" isn't the only way to put an end to it, there are many other ways of going about such things and really physical punishment is only really used when the parent's clearly incapable of controlling their own child and at such a point they should wonder if having children was really the smartest decision.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Lightning Strike

[Kevin...]

No one beats my kids but me and my wife...and maybe a select few other family members if they so happen to be in their care.

 

There is a line between punishment and abuse that has been shoved either direction. On one had you have the people that are completely against any forms of physical punishment and the parents/guardians that physically abuse children making a case for no physical punishment. On the other you have parents who were raised getting their asses beat, mouths smacked, and whatnot as a form of punishment, who have grown up to be fine adults and parents, who beat their kids, and are annoyed to no end when they see some f*ckwit parent who is too busy trying to negotiate their 3-18 year old child into listening to them either never ending the child's bitch fit or it ends in the child getting its way and the parent never putting its foot down when it comes to dealing with said child.

 

As you can see, you can tell which side I am on when it comes to parents beating their children. I got a 1 and a 3 year old who are more than willing to completely ignore you, scream at you, and do as they please if you just sit there and try and reason with them. They are children. I will crack my 1 year old in the ass if I have to. The little sh*t is a crafty little turd and, like my 3 year old, while he knows how to sneakily do something he kinda knows he is not suppose to do. They may be smart, but they still do not have the reasoning or logic to pick up on that kind of thing. If I look at either of my kids and say "Don't touch that." there is a good chance they won't. Thing is, there is that slight chance that they just might not listen. Sometimes a crack in the ass or a slap on the hands is what the doctor ordered. Its not about making your kids scared of you or scaring them into respecting you. Its about teaching them the consequences of their actions and doing it earlier is far better than later.

 

But back to the topic at hand: No one beats my kids but me. I could care less how it was done 30 years ago. I could give a f*ck less if your or my parents went to school and had to deal corporal punishment. You are there to teach my kids. If the problem is at the point where you feel the need to hit my kids, give me a call and I will come over and judge the situation myself. If punishment is in order, I will dish it out. Hell, you can watch. But if you touch a hair on my kids head I swear to god I will beat you to within an inch of your life.

Edited June 7, 2013 by κενιη

[ryuclan]

 

physical punishment is only really used when the parent's clearly incapable of controlling their own child and at such a point they should wonder if having children was really the smartest decision.

Thats a broad generalization on your part and honestly a bit brash. As you have said that we don't know your child, you don't know every other child out there, also like I said before punishment should be dealt on a child by child, and situational basis. There isn't much in parenting that is ultimately effective, but you CANNOT say with 100% certainty that passive punishment techniques are completely effective across the entire range of child personalities, attitudes, and mindsets.

 

 

 

Who made you judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the acceptable and proper punishment for children?

Precisely....

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

There seems to be this underlying assumption that not physically attacking children = soft parenting. Out of all my years of punishment both violent and non-violent, there is no clear line dividing which one is more severe. Violent punishment just seemed to be the least necessary and most convenient option for the parent. Kids aren't pricks today because of the lack of corporal punishment. They are little sh*ts because they were raised by the original little sh*ts....the materialistic, debt-ridden, sex-obsessed, TV-addicted, celebrity-worshiping, hedonistic, baby-boomer, self-entitled, punch-drunk (from Vietnam), drug-addicted, counter-culture of the 50s-60s.

 

And those are our good kids. Many of the yoloswagginondisbitch types we see today. Are the kids of their kids who got knocked up too early. Then when today's kids are the original little sh*ts x 10, we retreat to this cop out that kids aren't beat enough. I'll admit that this was on hell of an inconvenient time to stop the corporal punishment, but that's not the root of our problems. The bittersweet element to all of this is the fact that this individualistic deviant attitude (in America at least) is exactly what we owe some of our greatest innovations to.

 

 

 

*In the younger years (toddler-aged) where a child's ability to reason is substantially underdeveloped, a smack on the hand, the rear end, or a flick of the earlobe are all reasonable and not very abusive. All punishment will involve a pain of some sort. The problem is making violence the precedent for punishment in the years beyond that.

[Crokey]

Corporal Punishment isn't effective, however Sgt Slaughter will kick your ass.

 

 

 

As for me, yeah I had my butt whipped a few times when I was kid, so what, didn't do me any harm I even had it a couple times at school as well (f*ck I feel old for saying that). But I don't see any long term harm in it, yes if you go too far and it's regular thing and it's done for trivial things, it is very much a case by case basis and is purely at the parents discretion. Obviously a full blown beating is out of order but a swift slap on the butt, a shout and a wag of the finger will do wonders... problem is these days there is far too many pussies who care about 'feelings' and wanting some hippie hippie bullsh*t Utopia, and then you get all these human rights lot who who just go over protective and start spouting state laws or in the case of Europe, EU directives.