Out of curiosity, and I don’t mean to pick on you, but I don’t want to start another topic if not necessary, but if you had a spouse who insisted on drinking and driving, and nothing you say could deter them from their goal, would you (or anyone advocating spanking), similarly recommend a little short-term physical pain deliberately administered by a spouse in a controlled manner?
My mom did most of the spanking when I was growing up, it was rare and it was deserved most every time. I learned my lesson and moved on.
I think spankings in moderation can be an effective discipline tool. A few smacks on the butt can get a kids attention much more than words. Especially if you need to get their attention over something dangerous. It depends on the kid too.
You mean something like:
I’m surprised nobody has referenced the research. Let’s shine some science on the issue…
Oops.
Did you read the whole article?
The trouble with these type of studies has always been that they fail to distinguish between spanking and beating.
You can call the cops on your spouse if they choose to drive drunk; that’s generally not a helpful option for an obstinate 4YO.
I think the obvious reason is that she can call the cops on you, while the kids can’t.
Good point, but I think you are underestimating the effectiveness of an actual policeman telling a 4yr NOT TO TOUCH THE STOVE! 
This is the part I don’t get, if a husband (wife) smacks his (her) wife (husband) because dinner wasn’t ready at 7, that’s a potential for cops, arrests, etc.
But spanking a child for any reason is fine, i guess if it doesn’t leave any marks or even if it does sometimes. I will never understand this.
In some cases, with some children, very well thank you.
That would have worked for 2 of my three kids, but not the eldest. He would have said “Cool! I want to try!”. At times there was no reasoning with him. Time outs worked for one, just talking usually worked for another. He required, on rare occasion, a more aggressive approach.
Surely you don’t mean you allowed them to burn their fingers on the stove as oppposed to stopping them. I couldn’t for the life of me see how that would be better than a quick preventative swat on the behind. If you meant that they burned their fingers when you weren’t around, I don’t think anyone is arguing that corporal punishment would help there.
This^. Corporal punishment is one tool in the disciplinary tool box. A good parent uses the most effective tool for that child/issue combination. I agree that corporal punishment is, as was stated above, the nuclear option. Even the nuclear option has it’s time and place.
In this society, spouse is not the disciplinarian for spouse (or any other adult). Parents (or their designee - teacher, principal, grandparent, etc) are the disciplinarians for children.
That is not what I meant, as I’m sure you can figure out.
My guess is you got better at parenting and were able to use non-corporal punishment on your younger kids more effectively
No I didn’t ALLOW them to do it, it was an accident. My point was they were not disfigured or scarred for life, as referenced in the poster’s response to me. As for not being around, I’m sure MANY people got spanked for things that happened when their parents weren’t around, do you really doubt this? And don’t call me Shirley!
I believe the argument is that spanking is NEVER the most effective tool in the disciplinary tool box. For example, spanking your child for hitting another child would seem to me to send a mixed message. Kind of hard to get the message of “Keep your hands to yourself” across while spanking your child. And in my view, a good parent can find non-physical means to discipline their children. Again, I believe that is the crux of the argument.
So I guess you don’t consider the “silent treatment”, or being forced to sleep on the couch, punishment? And in your view, spanking your children loses it’s effectiveness when they turn 18? Or do you simply stop doing it because it becomes against the law?
So who are the authorities that you consider it appropriate to inflict corporal punishment on you?
If you screw up at work should your boss take you over his knee? Your boss is a disciplinarian whose job it is to enforce the rule of the workplace. Can he spank you?
Should HR send you out to get a switch for telling an off-color joke?
Should a bouncer be able to paddle you for being too rowdy at a bar?
Should a Police Officer be able to give you “a swat on the behind” for speeding?
If you can’t think of a situation where it is acceptable to teach you through inflicting pain as an adult, why would you consider it acceptable to hurt a child who has no recourse to defend themselves from your aggression?
I have a 3.5 year old daughter, and neither my wife or I have ever hit her. When punishment is called for, she gets put in time out, or she has things she likes taken away and has to earn them back through consistent good behavior. I was spanked occasionally as a kid, as was my wife. While I don’t believe that an occasional swat delivered calmly makes someone a child abuser, it’s still not something I personally will ever do, for multiple reasons.
First of all, as I see it, spanking a kid teaches them a lot more than just to avoid behavior X. It also teaches them that their parents see violence as a solution to problems. It teaches them that authority ultimately derives from power – might makes right – and that they are expected to defer to someone willing to hurt them in order to avoid pain. None of those things are lessons I want to ingrain in my daughter.
Second, there have been plenty of times when my daughter was throwing a fit and not responding to anything I tried when, in a moment of anger and frustration, I felt the temptation to hit her. I didn’t, because I knew I would immediately regret it if I did, but the impulse was there. I strongly suspect the circumstances under which most parents dole out corporal punishment are very similar, no matter how firmly they later insist that it was done calmly and soberly, and that seems bad for a lot of reasons – not least of which is that it shows your kid that you think it’s OK to hit people when you lose your temper.
It also seems to me that most people who use corporal punishment do so because it was done to them, and they “turned out OK.” A lot of the same people also seem to take any criticism of corporal punishment as an indictment of both themselves and their parents. “My parents hit me and I turned out OK in my own opinion” seems like a pretty damn weak justification for hitting a small child to me.
The fact that the there are countless people online at this very moment passionately defending a huge football player who beat his four-year-old son bloody is mind-blowing to me. If it had been anyone other than his own child, he’d be universally vilified. But because he chose to beat the one small child who looks up to him and depends on him for guidance and support, many people defend him. That just seems completely fucked up to me.
Yep, I never see anybody advocating corporal punishment for adults, but if it works for kids, why wouldn’t it work even better for adults?
If my buddy does something stupid, why can’t I beat him up? If a guy cuts me off in traffic, why can’t I force him off the road and give him the business? If my wife doesn’t have dinner ready when I get home, why can’t I pop her one?
Depends on if they’re hot.
Touching the stove is a vastly better lesson. My parents didn’t spank me much, but when they did, the only lesson I learned is that I should try harder not to get caught. The lesson isn’t “stoves cause pain and injury”, it’s “attempting to touch a stove when my parents are around causes pain”.
It seems to me that a better approach is to find a way to let the kid touch the stove in a controlled fashion that causes pain without serious risk of injury. Put it on a low setting, make sure there’s no oil that could stick to the fingers, etc. The kid learns that the stove itself is the danger, not the parent.
This 1000 times!
Sometimes when a child will not listen a swat on their ass gets their attention much the same way an elbow nudge will get your buddys attention in a noisy bar.
I don’t see the equivalence of this at all. Is your buddy afraid of you? Do you hold a position of authority over your buddy? Does he think you might “nudge” him to the point of bleeding if he doesn’t answer?
As stated above, the fact that people are defending the practice of hitting a small child when they won’t defend hitting other people is crazy to me.
Why would my buddy be afraid of me?
I am saying tactile simulation is immediate where noise might not be.
You seem to think a swat on the butt is the same as kicking him.
Sometimes attention is needed immediately and a quick swat not only gets the attention now it also does not actually physically damage the child.
Anti-childbirth.