Corporal punishment for children

[Psalad]

Originally Posted by Twelvefret

The purpose of discipline in to have the child obey and thus live.

I don't believe that corporal punishment is the sole way of achieving that discipline. It wasn't necessary with my kid. But that said.. I am not claiming universal truth either.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by Teleman52

I believe in corporal punishment, but there is never a reason to break skin or leave a bruise, at that point you are going to far.

In Texas, I believe the rule is that spanking must be applied with a belt no wider than 1 inch and only in the butt area.. I think that is reasonable

I agree almost 100%

The rule is in our house (and this applies to grandchildren also), if the child does something that can cause them bodily injury (like our youngest son did when he rode his bike into the street and without looking when he was about 9 years old), they get smacked.

If a smack can prevent a kid from getting his butt hurt or killed, then smack 'em, but the big rule is that it has to be immediate, not "wait til your father gets home" kind of thing and you smack them just once or twice on the butt, bare handed, no belt, sticks or whatever. And of course you have to get in their face about it too AND they lose their bike riding for a week.

We were/are lucky with our kids and grandchildren that there wasn't/hasn't been any talking back issues or general disrespect sort of things with them (maybe cause we're scary looking )

[sdelsolray]

Corporal punishment is not something we ever used with our children (5 children). Instead, we used time outs, grounding, use restrictions, etc., all non-violent intervention.

It didn't always work, but it usually worked, and usually worked rather well.

[Chicago Sandy]

When I was a kid, the universal threat of parental reprisal for willful misbehavior was “a potch in tuchis” (Yiddish for a slap on the butt). For most parents in my circle, it took quite a bit of provocation to earn that, and it consisted of a single swat administered with the palm of an open hand against a fully clothed derriere. None of us in my acquaintance ever were formally disciplined with an object such as a “switch,” belt, or the stereotypical back-of-a-hairbrush; nor did any of us have to expose our bare posteriors for infliction of this indignity. In my family it was never a matter of “wait till your father comes home” (that particular threat usually preceded not a swat but a far more traumatic tag-team two-parent lecture in stereo with weeping, lamentations and profound infliction of guilt feelings), but usually immediately followed the infraction--so that cause (misbehavior) and effect (the sting of a slap, even the embarrassment if done in front of others) would be linked and, one hoped, remembered as a deterrent.

But even this non-injury-inflicting variety of corporal punishment had two drawbacks. On the one hand, for the kids who were more formally spanked later in the day, the immediacy was lost and thus the cause-effect link was broken; I don’t doubt some kids were somewhat confused (especially kids with short attention spans) and others grew up believing that even a good kid needed to be hit every now and then because they were.

But the more dangerous use of the “potch” was when administered in the heat of anger, out of proportion to the infraction (years later I was shocked to witness a friend of mine slap her toddler daughter on the arm at lunch because the kid dared tap her face to get attention: “How many times did I tell you you DON’T touch Mommy’s face when she’s wearing make-up!”) or in frustration--sometimes even for acts that oughtn’t even merit disapproval. I contend this is more dangerous because it imprints upon the kid the notion that physically lashing out is the appropriate response to any form of displeasure.

There have been times we’d been tempted to hit our son when he was little, but thought better of it. Legions of comics have ridiculed exile to one’s room, or the “time out;” but I can tell you that one of the things a young child dreads most is being excluded, even shunned; and it is as effective as being deprived of a privilege or something that had been eagerly anticipated. The key is proportionality and consistency.

I don’t know what it was that Peterson’s little boy did to incur his wrath--but IMHO NOTHING a four-year-old can do warrants being beaten, naked, to the point of infliction of physical injury. And I can’t imagine what if anything any child would do to deserve being injured either, especially to the extent Peterson’s kid was. It’s pretty darn telling that the stated justification (“If I don’t hurt him, the streets will”) usually is a non-sequitur, since the prisons are full of people who got the living daylights beaten out of them by parents who were adding a link to a self-perpetuating chain of violence.

[Chicago Sandy]

Originally Posted by TBman

I agree almost 100%

The rule is in our house (and this applies to grandchildren also), if the child does something that can cause them bodily injury (like our youngest son did when he rode his bike into the street and without looking when he was about 9 years old), they get smacked.

If a smack can prevent a kid from getting his butt hurt or killed, then smack 'em, but the big rule is that it has to be immediate, not "wait til your father gets home" kind of thing and you smack them just once or twice on the butt, bare handed, no belt, sticks or whatever. And of course you have to get in their face about it too AND they lose their bike riding for a week.

We were/are lucky with our kids and grandchildren that there wasn't/hasn't been any talking back issues or general disrespect sort of things with them (maybe cause we're scary looking )

I think that just as effective is to take the bike away for a truly meaningful length of time. That teaches the kid that until you can use something properly and safely, you’re not ready for it. The smack can, if a child is later hurt through no fault of his own, induce completely unfounded guilt feelings--in effect, the victim blaming him-or-herself, reasoning he or she must have deserved being injured.

I often see kids in stores being smacked by their moms for throwing a tantrum (often a behavior literally beyond a fatigued toddler’s control) or wandering off. Once when my son was four and we were in Sears, I turned my back for a moment to return a dress to a rack. I looked around and saw him happily trotting toward the escalator. I ran over and grabbed him, sternly and loudly declaring “You do NOT walk away when we are out together. Do you know why?” He replied, to my surprise, “Because hard people could hurt me?” I told him, “You know how I told you we were going out for ice cream after shopping? Well, now we’re not. Do you know why?” He replied, “Because I went to play on the escalator.” Even little kids are smart enough to learn safe from dangerous and right from wrong without it being beaten into them.

[harmonics101]

My children deserve better than to receive corporal punishment, I would DEMAND punishment from a General at the very least

H

[Teleman52]

Originally Posted by harmonics101

My children deserve better than to receive corporal punishment, I would DEMAND punishment from a General at the very least

H

That makes me wonder, where does the term "corporal punishment" come from?

[random works]

My wife and and have raised our children- large number of them :-)- and as youngsters they were well adjusted and well behaved both at home and in public. We did spank when needed and I found the results were so much better when done like this:

Use as little means as possible. The fact that a dad or mom is spanking is awesome enough not much 'oomph' is needed
Be serious and calm; make sure the child is ready and understands why he or she is being spanked. Usually they can tell you.

After the spanking, and this is mandatory, hug the child. Many times both parent and child had a few tears.
Do not allow any other child to gloat ( sometimes the hardest thing)

If the child does something that really upsets you, do not spank, period.
Do not fail to spank just because you are bone tired or have to stop doing something you like.

[harmonics101]

Good question !! I did a bit of research and corporeal is as it relates to the body, so I read a bit further and I guess corporal is just a derivative of corporeal, so its bodily punishment is what it means,

H

[Teleman52]

Originally Posted by harmonics101

Good question !! I did a bit of research and corporeal is as it relates to the body, so I read a bit further and I guess corporal is just a derivative of corporeal, so its bodily punishment is what it means,

H

Ah makes sense, I guess the word corpse would be related.

Good because If it was corporal as it relates the military officer title, I would have thought "rear admiral punishment" would be a more appropriate term

[seannx]

I got spanked as a child for minor misbehavior, and my father would also use his belt. While the severity was probably normal for the 50's, I think today it would be considered physical abuse. It did nothing long term to change my behavior, with the exception of fearing my father. Taking away a privilege, or restrictions on tv would have been far more effective, but spanking and the belt were quick and traditional. I think it hurt our relationship when I was growing up. Later in life when I was an adult, he told me he regretted having used corporal punishment, and said that he didn't know better at the time, because that's what he had grown up with.

Having feared and suffered corporal punishment as a child, I was very reluctant to use it on my first son. He was energetic, but very easy to reason with, and discipline was rarely an issue. A friend at the time said kids needed a swat to learn good behavior, and that I should use corporal punishment when appropriate. So one day, when we were about to leave for work, and drop him at day care (he was 4 at the time) on the way, my son kept playing instead of coming to the car. Thinking about my friend's advice, I gave him a single, not at all hard, swat on the butt. This was the first time in his life that I had ever done that. The look on his face, of utter shock, and incomprehension of why I was hurting him, was enough for me to know that I would never do that again.

And I never spanked or physically punished my other three kids either. Time outs, restrictions, or loss of privileges were always effective, and we rarely had to use them, anyway. IMO, corporal punishment is unnecessary, and mainly teaches kids that bigger and more powerful people dominate through physical force and pain. Then when they grow up, they use the same technique to control their kids.

[Fatstrat]

One of my co-workers is a former school teacher. According to him "former" because in his opinion the kids were a bunch undisciplined brats who he was not afforded the ability to control enough to actually teach a class.
I wonder how many of these kids grew up in households where discipline meant you don't get a twinkie today?

[harmonics101]

I bet dollars to donuts, nowadays, children would rather receive corporal punishment than restrictions on their I-Phones Ahhhhhhh progress

H

[Twelvefret]

Originally Posted by Psalad

I don't believe that corporal punishment is the sole way of achieving that discipline. It wasn't necessary with my kid. But that said.. I am not claiming universal truth either.

Me either, and I am not suggesting that spanking is the right way, all the time, for all children. What I am saying is children, for their own sake, need to obey.

If it had been your child on the roof and you said sit down, would he have obeyed?

[Twelvefret]

Originally Posted by TBman

The rule is in our house (and this applies to grandchildren also), if the child does something that can cause them bodily injury (like our youngest son did when he rode his bike into the street and without looking when he was about 9 years old), they get smacked.

Can to clarify, was he disciplined for being disobedient in not looking or just that he did not look? Anyone can forget, right? Why was he allowed to ride on a public street. Just questions, no judgment.

Our three year old twins recently threw some landscaping pea gravel into the garage. They were made to put them back. It took them 2 hours. To me this is more instructive and disciplinary than a quick spanking. Next time they will know it is not worth the fun of throwing the rocks.

If spanking is used, it should be preceded by an understanding of why it is being applied and followed by instruction, correction, and understanding of parental love and devotion. If fact, all discipline should be a process, not an event.

I hate to see a parent whack or raise their voice in public. I cannot stand a loud mouth parent start counting "1,2 3". Last week I heard a woman respond loudly and sarcastically toward her teen ager. What was her intent, to tell me something?