Since this thread of discussion is about personal values and philosophies, the issue of spanking is unarguably something that we all have some deep-rooted feelings about.

The issue? A resolution to ban spanking in a certain city.



Research hasn't proved one way or another the benefits or drawbacks of spanking. From the pro side:



From the anti-side:



I personally do not know where I fall on this issue, I'm a little uncomfortable with the provision telling people how to raise their kids. Along the lines of question #2, I've seen numerous instances in super-markets and other places where spankings were meted out with great frequency, and little effect. After viewing a mother spanking her children more than once in a fifteen minute time span, I wanted to, in my best Dr. Phil impersonation ask: "Now how is that working for you?"

Article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0604/p11s02-lifp.html
Qustions for debate:

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?

IMO no, but this resolution does not seem to be law, only a suggestion not to use corporal punishment.

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?
Yes

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?
No

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?
Not in terms of expressing their opinions that spanking is the wrong way to raise children. Yes in terms of any people trying to ban people from using spanking or looking at a spanking as evidence that cildren's services needs to be called.

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?

Yes, the government has a right, but only beyond the point where the "discipline" is really child abuse. "I threw him down the flight of stairs because he wouldn't stop screaming" is an area where I'd probably want our local police to step in.

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?

Absolutely. If used properly, it's a great way to focus their attention on being a disciplined child.

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?

"Only"? Who said it's "only" lazy people? I use have used it as one tool in the arsenal for creating a self-disciplined child. Another tool is showing up at the child's school once a week to check in with the teacher about the child's progress. What's so lazy about that?

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?

Like any fanatic, anti-spankers need to step off their evangelical view of the world. Just like the ballcap I have that doesn't fit my head: one size does not fit all. I've watched parents try to reason with a 2-year-old who is grabbing food off the shelves of the grocery and throwing it. "Now, now, you shouldn't do that." Like a 2-year-old can understand the explanation of why they shouldn't do that.

Just like in a lot of these type of situations, you have people who abuse kids under the guise of "spanking for discipline". You also have people who if you gently slap you child on the rear, they will want to throw you in jail for 100 years.


I believe there is a whole lot of middle ground which is appropriate. Spanking can be a successful tool for discipline if used correctly. Correctly is basically determined by each parent but should not be used often or resulting in any injury. A spanking should be on the childs bottom and should not be hard enough to bruise.

After saying that, I have never found the need to spank either of my children (ages 3 and 8). This does not mean I am against the idea or will not use it in the future.

There should not be a law to ban spankings.

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?

Well yes, but they crossed the line with this law. They determine what constitutes child abuse, but I consider a moderate patting on the behind not to be child abuse.

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?

Well I admit that I was spanked, repeatedly, while I was a child. I think the main motive for spanking is to put some fear into child, pet, girl friend... By the time I was eight, I was pretty much immune to the effects of of spankings , but it left an emotional scar that still made me fear them. It taught me that there were severe consequences for my actions. The thing with spankings is that people tend to remember and fear physical pain better then being reprimanded. Admittedly this is all based on personal experience and not a scientific study.

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?

Scientifically, I think spanking uses more energy then a stern talking to, especially if there is a chase scene.

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?

I don't think so, if it weren't for the anti-spankers, the people who did spank their kids might be more tempted to cross the line into abuse.

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?
Hmm. Would we be having this conversation at all if the city had said that they didn't want kids to be hit with anything other than an open hand - i.e. no fists, feet, canes, belts, etc.?

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?
Spanking is never the only option. Sometimes it is the easy option, but it is never the only option. I think spanking should be officially discouraged - maybe the city chould restrict itself to a ban on spanking in public places (like smoking)? I'm not sure how effective or useful an outright ban would be, though.

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?
No. But I do think that, rather than a legitimate child development tool, spanking is very rarely representative of anything more than a lapse of discipline, patience or concentration on behalf.
I'd say that the formalised punishment of an "official" spanking which might be useful in teaching children the idea of punishment for wrongdoing is far outweighed numerically by a quick slap or clip around the ear that teaches them not much more than casual violence can be useful in getting one's own way. One is a useful social lesson, the other is somethign we should probably not be teaching anyone, let alone kids.

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?
Yes, but also spankers should think a little harder before lashing out on most occasions.

I think a good rule of thumb is that modern Western thinking no longer permits those acting in loco parentis - teachers, childminders, policemen, other adults generally - from spanking any kids under any circumstances. Clearly there is broad agreement today that spanking should not occur in many circumstances where our parents or grandparents would not have thought twice about permitting it.

I'm sure that in years gone by there were advocates of any adult who happened to witness a child misbehaving being allowed, even encouraged, to mete out discipline with a quick slap. These arguments would now sound a bit hollow, even though this type of child discipline might actually have been more socially useful than only allowing parents to make the decision, as we do today.

My point is that I think society was rather stronger when all adults had to be treated with due respect, and not just parents. At the same time, I think the idea that spanking should be the absolute last resort needs reinforcing.

1).Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?

Only if the city is going to take full responsiblity for said child. A little brazen in my opinion to tell a parent how to raise a child, but not be willing to take responsibility for giving restrictions.

2.) Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?

Yes, but it isn't one that needs to be used every time they do something wrong.
I was spanked as a child, and I usually (in looking back)choose that punishment. Yeah, that is right, I choose it. Think about it for a minute, you know certain behavior will get a certain punishment, and you still Choose to do said behavior. The logical thing then is, you choose the punishment too.

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?

Are you kidding? Ever tried chasing a 2 or 3 year old. Those little legs are like lighting. Not very lazy.

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?

They aren't going to. They think of it as "child abuse". But these same people want to suddenly make a child who never has been taught there is consequents for bad behavior to be held responsible when they do something REALLY bad.

You almost got me in trouble at work for laughing out loud. Priceless.

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?
Nope, last time I checked the government can barely manage themselves much less raise children. The only scope the government should have in this arena is prevention or reconciliation of abuse/neglect. Corporal punishment by itself is not abuse.

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?
Absolutely. Children respond to differing forms of punishment differently. "Time outs" work great on some kids where others do not.

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?
Its only lazy if its the only form of punishment an adult uses. "Chase scene" OMG too funny...

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?
Yes. Contrary to Dr. Spock and friends, child rearing, in my humble opinion, is an art, not a science. Each child will have different needs in order to engender them with the values of respect and discipline. I feel the full arsenal of options should be available to the parent to get the message across as effectively as possible.

Doc

Personal Experience:
I remember vaguely the times I have been spanked as a child (I'm a young adult now). One of the things they did is to use a paddle to separate the use of hands (used for affection--i.ae. hugging) from punishment. I also remember that after the spanking I was irritated, but after a while I still knew that my parents loved and cared for me.

1) A resounding NO!
2) Definitely.
3) No.
4) The government should only care about abusive spanking....

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?

I don't believe so, but as Eeyore pointed out, this appears to be just a suggestion for parents.

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?

Legitimate? Yes. Effective? I don't think so. There is probably a point in a child's life where spanking actually means something and is a valid punishment. Eventually though it loses its effect as a punishment. Parents need to continually strive to make sure any punishment they deal out has an effect on their children.

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?

I don't think it is only lazy people who spank their kids, if anything it is more of a tradition. I'd be willing to bet that every single one of us grew up getting spanked for at least some period of our childhoods, it is just being passed on to the new generation of parents.

I will say that lazy parents are the ones that continue to use ineffective punishments simply because they can't think of anything else. As I said in question #2, parents must always strive to make sure the punishments they deal out are effective with their children. As children get older that usually means taking away things they love as opposed to spanking them. Like this guy that sold his son's playstation 2 on eBay.

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?

The anti-spankers probably have a point on some psychological level, but they are not going to convince parents that grew up with spankings they are harmful. They'll get the response "I got spanked till I was 16 and I turned out fine!" from many parents.

Instead, they should focus their efforts on offering parents alternatives instead of chiding their parenting ability.

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?

Of course my initial reaction to this was "no." But then I started thinking about how our society has progressed and changed over the years. There was a time, and it wasn't too long ago, when it was legal (and indeed expected) for a husband to discipline his wife with corporal punishment. The arguments against writing laws against that were, I am sure, the same as the arguments we see here - what right does the government have to tell me how to run my household? Our progress in recognizing the rights of children in our society is lagging behind our progress in the area of women's rights.

I would say that the city certainly does have the right. This would likely be unconstitutional for the federal government (depending, of course, on one's interpretation), but I 'cannot lay my finger upon anything' which prevents such legislation on a state or local level.

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?

Well, we've debated this before here, and I know I am in the minority on this issue. My answer is no, it is not. It is not a necessary disciplinary tool.

It is my contention that:

1. Those who were spanked as children, who look back and see it as effective discipline, had parents whose spanking was a part of a consistent parenting style - in other words, the scope of punishments and infractions was clear, and consistently applied. These are people who, looking back at their childhood, are likely to see that they were not spanked inconsistently, randomly, or as the 'easy out' punishment - it was a part of a highly structured system which their parents used.

2. This is ineffective parenting, spanking included:
"Go to your room."
"No!"
"Go to your room right now, young man."
"NO!" (runs away)
"GET BACK HERE!!" (chases child)
"Wheeeeee!"
"DAMN IT YOU ARE IN BIG TROUBLE!" (catches child, spanks)
...two hours later...
"Put that toy down right now!"
"No!"
(parent sighs, returns to gossiping with neighbor) "Kids. Sheesh."

3. It is entirely possible to have a clear, consistent style of parenting without spanking. The key to effective discipline is consistency. The spanking is superfluous to whether or not discipline is effective. I have three children, with three wildly different personalities and temperaments. My wife and I have never spanked them - not once - but we have a strict, clear, and consistent disciplinary policy. My children are all very well behaved. They are polite in public. They did not throw as many tantrums as many other kids I have seen. It is the consistency which we have in common with those who remember effective parenting which included spanking.

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?

No, obviously - though there are people who spank their kids rather than make the effort (and it is a lot of effort, whether you include spanking or not) to be consistent, clear, and strict, and that is indeed being lazy - not physically, but mentally. Just as lazy and ineffective, indeed, as those who do not discipline their children at all.

I would say, however, that people who spank their kids are often misinformed about what is the key ingredient in discipline. They remember the spanking, and attribute their own parents' effectiveness to that, when the truth is the key ingredient was consistent, clear, and strictly applied systems.

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?

No. While the studies which link spanking to increased aggression and violence in children are inconclusive at best, I follow this chain of logic, which encapsulates my previous musings:

1. Consistent discipline is the key to raising well-adjusted and well-behaved children.

2. Spanking is not a required part of such a process.

3. Since we don't know whether or not spanking really does have a long-term negative impact on children, why take the chance, since it is not the key ingredient to successful parenting?

I know most parents do not enjoy spanking their children. So, why not take my advice? Stop doing it! The two key words are "follow" and "through."
Follow through, Follow through, Follow through, Follow through! Don't make threats you don't plan on carrying out! (the perfect example of this is "if you don't quit it, I'm turning this car around and going home. Is that what you want? IS IT?!?" If you're not going to do it, don't say it)

1) No. The parents were the one that put in all the effort to make that child part of this world, and it is their choice on how to discipline that child. I am not saying that it is alright for a mother to beat her child for breaking a dish, but if the child does something that merits a spanking, like running away and getting lost in a crowded area where the parent specifically said, don't leave me (and this is under the assumption that the child deliberately ran away).

2) Yes. My father only ever spanked me once, and not very hard, but the way that he did it made it so much worse because he told me beforehand why I was being spanked, and that was the worst part for me, therefore making the spanking that much worse.

Yet, on the other hand, my mother meted out spankings on account of a very short temper (the funny thing is, she always accused my father of being violent), and never gave a clear reason why. I learnt that the most effective way of punishing a child is to TELL them beforehand why they are being punished.

3) The truly lazy people are those who do nothing. If they can't be bothered to discipline their child, then I would suggest retroactive abortion

4) Yes. I never again deliberately did anything that would warrant a spanking after that, and got along on much better terms with my father after that...

I remember a time when I was little and I, well, I did something I wasn't supposed to. Well, my parents told me what I did wrong, to go to a room alone, and that I was going to get a spankin' latter in the day. Well it was effective.

2) Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?Yes, but consistency is the key.

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?

I think I'll take this a step further than quarkhead and say, yes, they do. Just like the government has a right to tell us we cannot hit our spouses, I think they have a right to tell us that we cannot hit our children. I often hear people say "spanking is not hitting". Well, what is it then? A spank/spanking is a form of hitting last time I checked with Webster. I still don't get how we can outlaw hitting of any other adults but we can freely hit our children when it's called spanking/discipline. I'd imagine this sort of thing would be awfully hard to police and people would be up in arms because they would have to consider some other forms of discipline. I also wonder if many of the same people who are opposed to, say, gay marriage (and making it legal at any government level) would be upset if the government tried to invade their privacy in this manner and take away their rights to discipline the way they saw fit. Just a thought.

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?

No, not in my opinion. I, too, have never spanked my daughter (she's almost three) and never will. My husband was raised with switches and other forms of corporal punishment and he has always considered spanking a valid form of punishment. I was spanked I believe twice (my sister maybe four times) and I don't know of any two better behaved children/teenagers than we were (we were pretty much the epitome of the "perfect kids"). It was my mother's use of other forms of punishment/discipline (coupled with our temperaments) that resulted in us being so well-behaved. After thinking about what I believe is right, I decided that I would not employ spanking or any form of physical punishment in my repertoire of discipline. My husband has relented because he now sees that you don't NEED to spank. My daughter is feisty and stubborn (which she gets from both of her parents) so we have to try that much harder to get her attention and to get her to settle down (I have yet to see a child with more energy - and everyone who meets her agrees), but our discipline works, but it takes a whole lot of energy and a whole lot of time. It is often frustrating when we don't see immediate results, but she is two and that is to be expected. Everyone agrees that she is well-behaved. We use time-outs in the form of sitting in "the chair" - which is any chair, couch, whatever. All we have to do is tell her that she should not be doing X or she will have to sit in the chair. Most of the time she listens, but when she doesn't, she has to sit by herself in a chair or on the couch until she calms down. She has, only twice, gotten up without being told to get up and she wholly understands that if she did not do X, she would not have to sit in the chair. After she's had her time-out, I (or my husband) will go to her and tell her that she needs to listen when we tell her something and we always finish it with a hug and "I love you". It may be harder to use other forms of discipline, but I believe there are much more "valid" forms of discipline than physical/corporal punishment.

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?

This is a hard question to answer. On the one hand, I think it's a lazy form of discipline - in that "it's what I'll do because that's the way it's always been". I don't know if the people are lazy or are just resorting to lazy forms od discipline. There are plenty of lazy people who don't use any forms of discipline, and we non-spankers can attest to being lumped into the "lazy"category because many people see lack of spankings as synonymous with lack of discipline (which is in many cases the furthest thing from the truth). I wouldn't rush to call all spankers lazy, but I would call the discipline itself a lazy one (like saying someone did something stupid without the person being a stupid person).

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?

No, I don't think so. I think it would do spankers some good to analyze the positives and negatives of spanking rather than just doing it because it's what you're supposed to do (and my experience tells me that the VAST majority of spankers do it because that's what parents do, not because they think it works). I think it is a mistake to consider hitting a child an okay punishment - I still can't wrap my fingers around the notion of it being okay to hit a child but not an adult (who can fight back). I know people say it's different, but I cannot fathom that difference, and if anything it seems WORSE to be hitting a child who cannot defend him/herself. I think the anti-spankers have every right to be upset about kids being hit in order to enforce some sort of behavior. It's counterproductive. In all my studies toward my B.S. in Family Studies - Human Development, never was spanking encouraged by "the experts" as a positive form of discipline. Now I typically think trusting our instincts is usually more beneficial than listening to experts (since there is never a consensus), but it seems things are dramatically shifting (in the child development world) toward removing physical punishment entirely in terms of the "best" forms of punishment. And just like quarkhead said, parents don't exactly enjoy spanking (at least not the ones I know) - so since the jury is out on whether or not it works, why not err on the side of caution and NOT spank?

The difference between spanking an adult and spanking a child is the mentality of the child. You can always use logic, an argue civilly, with and adult to get a point across. That is the major difference between an adult and a child.



The thing about not spanking is that the jury is still out on the alternative methods of punishment as well. To me, time out is an easy punishment for some offences that a child, that has no idea about the severity of the offence that they have committed. For instance my mom "borrowed" a $100 dollar bill from my fathers wallet, while me and my bro were left with the fall, unknowingly. Now if we actually took the $100 I think it would have definitely be worth the "time out." On the other hand the borderline child abuse that ensued was enough to make me never even look my fathers wallet again. In word of Bill Cosby, "we were grateful" for the $5/week allowance that we received afterward. (even though it wasn't enough for lunch) So why not error on the side of caution and raise a child who fears the consequence sof their actions by spanking a child.

I don't want to talk long on this subgect, but I hate spankings. Truth be told I often think of us people as sheep following norms. I like to think of myself as a person that has been able to think through several norms. I have not accomplished this with spankings. I think if laws were passed to stop spanking, people would eventually get along with out doing it for the most part, however, I would not support such a law.

I think spankings should be used early in a childs life and frequently. I don't know all, but it is my own personal opinion as a young father. When I say frequently, I mean don't make it the last option when they are young save that for when they are older. I see spankings, especially with a belt as a root of discipline. This was my theory and it seems to have worked. If I don't spank I believe myself to be in a constant state of negotiating with my child as I have seen other parents. Maybe this isn't a bad thing, but it is not a road I choose to use. My oldest has just turned five I started using a belt in late three's and fours. In as little as a year and a half I feel like i merely have to threaten the belt now, and rarely have to spank, even with my hand. I may do a time out, but only as a substitute of the threat of a spanking. I love it. I haven't found myself in the position of negotiating, I have gained obedience, and I believe, but don't know, that my child will be strongly afraid of my wrath with out having any vivid memoories of spankings. Hopefully it will be a subconcious voice screaming,"If you don't do as you're told something very, very, bad can happen!!

I'm not knocking people's arguments against spanking, they may be right. By the time a law is ever passed it will be my kids problem, not mine

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?

Well, they have every right to tell them that they cannot abuse their children and to determine what constitutes "abuse". If they determine that this constitutes abuse, then it is within their rights to ban it. I don't personally think that spanking constitutes abuse, but that is their determination.

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?

I suppose it's legitimate. My dad spanked me all of twice, and both were for utterly stupid things that I'd done. I think that the threat of it is much more effective than the actual spanking itself. Spanking is just as legitimate as time out, grounding, etc. It instills a certain amount of fear in a kid, and that helps to keep them in line.

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?

Well, I've never heard this charge leveled. If you use spanking as a blanket discipline to all sorts of problems, then you become lazy and uncaring as a parent. You have to tailor the punishment to fit the transgression. I think that spankings are like fats, sugars, and oils: best when used sparingly.

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?

No, of course not. They have a valid point-- numerous studies have shown that spanking is detrimental to a child's development. (One such study can be found here: Spanking and Antisocial Behavior of Children) Are one or two spanks over the course of a childhood going to turn your kids into loners or murderers? No, that's ridiculous. However, if you develop a regimen of applying spankings, you risk making them more antisocial. The "anti-spankers" have a point, but they may be going a little far to try to stop the occasional spanking.

Interesting point, Rev. Am I then to assume that it's ok to hit a 30 year old retarded woman, whose mind functions on a 6 year old level? Or how about people that just plain refuse to accept logic, or argue civilly? Is it ok to hit them?



Great!! What can be better than instilling fear into your kids? And then people wonder why 90% of people are inert, subordinate sheep.

I for one am 1000% against spankings, and think they should be treated like any other assault, or worse. I do believe that it is a result of laziness on the part of the parents. I have ZERO desire for my son to fear me. Absolutely none. Somehow my parents managed to raise me quite well without spanking, without instilling fear, or a blind respect for authority. Never answering "Why" with "Because I said so".

If a parent is so frustrated that they have to hit someone, I have the prefect solution, banging your head against the wall burns 140 calories an hour.

The link doesn't have any of the graphs, just the text, which includes lots of "the data suggests" and "may have an affect" and such. Very inconclusive without being able to see the actual resulting data. Also, the study doesn't take into account the other methods of punishment that were applied to the kids... who averaged 2.1 incidences of spanking in the week leading up to the study. 2.1? Something's wrong there. That really DOES sound like lazy parenting.

So far, no study has conclusively shown a link between spanking as one part of a disciplinary strategy and aggressive or anti-social behavior. There might be links, but then again, there might not (the link could be the other way, with the anti-social/aggressive behavior being evident BEFORE any spanking took place).

Parents can spank or not. The kid will turn out fine or not. Sometimes it's just genetic. Sometimes it's other environmental factors. Maybe it's the sugar-infused cereals and Pop Tarts eaten before going to school that really affects the kid's aggressiveness.

The main trouble with this whole issue, to my mind, is that most people who spank were themselves spanked, and "it didn't do me any harm".

This is no justification at all. How on earth do we know how we would have turned out had we not been spanked? We could only do it by living our life twice, with only the spankings different. It's just silly.

I have never seen any evidence that a group of children that have never been spanked are less well behaved as children or grow up to be less socially useful and constructive adults than a similar group of children that were spanked.

I have seen evidence to suggest that slapdash, casual or inconsistent spanking does cuase problems in both children and the adults they grow up to be. So, in essence, spanking itself is not the problem, the circumstances in which it is applied are the problem.

To take an extreme analogy, killing another person is not absolutely forbidden in all circumstances. We allow self-defence killing, and we pay some of our citizens to kill people we don't like (soldiers, for example). Yet murder is still illegal.

I think spanking is never a positively good thing, and is a bad thing too often to justify its legality, so overal it would be better banned than tolerated or encouraged.

Any parent who spanks a child so hard that they would go to jail if they hit another adult with the same amount of force is engaging in abuse. I don't know anyone who spanks their child that forcefully. Spanking should be corrective (and it usually is), like a slap on the hand, not some full-out assault on the child's bottom. Should a parent be able to take away a toy as punishment? It would be stealing if you took away something from an adult.

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children? The city has the right to protect children against abuse, but a light spanking is not abuse.

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children? Sometimes. It depends on the child.

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids? No.

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up? Probably.

Ever seen a movie about a mental institution. Every time a patient acts up the goons jump out to subdue them, and I agree with this. There is nothing wrong with a mild physical pain to reinforce that something is wrong to someone who can't comprehend words.


You can always walk away from a person that doesn't accept logic, or argue civilly. If they resort to violence then you have the right to defend yourself. This differs from raising a child because it is your duty to society to raise that child to respect our laws and fear the punishment for break them, you cannot walk away from your children.

First of all, this is a massive strawman. I was not talking about people that are institutionalized. I was talking about people who are retarded, not insane, and under the care of a family member. This comparison isn't even remotely valid. In the scenario you brought up the "goons" subdue someone who is being aggressive, usually sedating them immediately. This is not nearly the same thing a beating someone (let's get real, spanking IS beating, someone is getting hit repeatedly) as punishment, to instill fear into them, and get them to obey you, through physical pain.

So, my original point stands.



Perhaps my disagreement is so strong because I don't believe in raising servants of society. Or in breaking a child's spirit to please the gods of conformity.



In that case, we are in agreement. If you called the police, and told them that your husband hit you, they, wouldn't ask "how hard did he hit you?" An adult hitting another adult is enough to constitute assault. The amount of force distiguishes between assault and aggravated assault, but that's about it. In fact, if an adult threatens to hit another adult, (for example, threatens them with "the belt") it's assault before it even happens.

Well, I suppose confining a child to his/her room should be unacceptable because it is against the law to confine an adult. Likewise, smacking their hands to keep them out of trouble could be viewed as an 'assault'. Taking their belongings is out as well...stealing. Not many disciplinary measures left.

That's because it is very difficult to control the research to determine cause and effect (as is almost always the case in any study of social phenomenon). Case in point: Spanking by Parents and Subsequent Antisocial Behavior of Children . While the article indicates that children who were spanked had a higher level of post spanking ASB--it does not address that possibility that perhaps children with higher incidents of ASB are more likely to be spanked--ie, there's an inherent assumption in the research that the subjects (the children) come from a uniform set, which there is no evidence to support. So, no cause and effect relationship can be drawn, making definitive conclusions from such research tenuous at best.

I would further add the following, from the same article.

Therefore, the vast majority of those conducting the study were likely to have been spanked as children, and therefore, if the conclusions of the article are true, are going to fall into the category of exhibiting high levels of ASB. Therefore, the researchers themselves are, by their very own conclusions, inherently biased. So, the chicken vs. the egg phenomenon exists at several levels in this sort of research, rendering results very sketchy.

As to the issue itself, I will share my personal experiences and viewpoints. I used to occasionally spank my daughter, but discovered that it both did not discourage bad behaviour ("spanking won't hurt me") and also seemed to be teaching that violence was the solution to problems (she wanted to spank or hit others when they did something bad). While this would certainly support the arguments of the non-spankers, I think this is completely dependent on the child. Even with my daughter, I did recently spank her (one swat) recently after a couple hours of negotiation/other tactics failed to address the problem. She has been a completely model child in every aspect since then (over a month), and I highly doubt I will need to spank her again for some time, if ever--indicating that spanking can indeed play a positive role in child upbringing. I have experienced other cases with my sister's children (used to babysit them a lot) where either the threat of spanking or the actual application (only one time) caused an immediate cessation of bad behaviour where other methods had had little effect.

I think where the issue comes in is degree of spanking, which is very hard to legislate. Personally, I frown on any attempts by others to dictate to me how to raise my child ("If you don't want me to spank, fine, then you deal with the problem"). However, I can certainly see there being cases of abuse of the method. Often a very slight pat on the back will get immediate results--solely do to its indication of parental disapproval. I'll be danged if I will stand for being arrested for giving my daughter a playful pat on the butt--how could a person distinguish from afar which activity is taking place? Child Protective Services can play a very bad role in such situations--it would be quite easy for a disliked neighbor, for example, to contact CPS for a completely spurious event, only to have CPS then witness such a playful act upon investigation. You could then have your children removed from you simply because you were playing with them (don't think it couldn't happen). So, setting rules on parental conduct is something that should not be taken lightly, as the consequences could be quite dramatic, and not always as intended.

To Looms- actually- CP for certain so-called "mental illnesses" DOES work (as it is used in other countries) - I say "so called" because they are behavior disorders, not classic organic mental illness- but it is the abuse of this therapy that causes problems, just as the abuse of CP in children becomes, well, abuse

Spanking should be the parents choice, and, as a parent, they should moderate punishments with rewards, just like with any behavior mod issue. If you always are the disciplinarian, never the hugger, well, you have problems.

Working on the adolecent unit, there are many times a kid comes through were all staff agree "If we could just woop his/her butt for about a week we might be able to save this kid". We have also just as many kids that have been "wooped" to many times as well, and then on down the road to abuse.

Moderation in bringing up a child seems to be the key in everything we deal with- moderation with the rewards, moderation with the punishments. No moderation at all with the hugs and love!

BTW- I spank my child, rarely. It kills me to put my giant hand on that little butt! - but it is totally neccesary sometimes to make her realize I am dead serious!

(By AMF


This is a good critique of the anti-spanking studies. You cant' really say that no other discipline system was used at all. I'm sure the parents gave dirty looks, said "no" or did other things to correct their children. You can't prove precisely that spanking was the method of punishment/correction 110% of the time. A former psychology professor of mine stated that it it is ok as part of a behavior system. If junior turns on the top burner of a gas stove, that deserves a spanking-if he's just not listening to you or doing something annoying, then that doesn't merit a spanking. Basically, he said that he reserved it for very serious actions that could hurt them physically.

(By Mrs.Pigpen)


Very interesting tangent here. If spanking isn't to be done due to psychological duress, then what does isolation or time-out do? Isn't that a form of punishment that government's use against POWs?

(BY droop 224


If I may ask, and I ask in all sincerity-from what source do you believe this to be the "root of discipline"? Or are you just pulling our legs?



O.K., did using your hand not produce any desired results? Have you sincerely tried anything else like holding back privileges(i.e.-toys, play time, etc.) for an extended amount of time?

I was whipped as a child with a belt, extension cord, hot wheels track , wooden spoon etc etc - all acceptable in my day.

My feelings are that, if you are spanking so hard you hurt your hand, well then, you are spanking too hard.

Spanking is an attention getter really. It lets the kid know how serious you are. Time outs alone and removal of toys and all of that stuff frequently does not work, Depends on the child I suppose.

I think that for all the research out there that definitively "proves" that spanking harms children, there is just as much out there to debunk that.

Study of Spanking Children May Be Flawed



Wow, this is some revelation. If I go home every afternoon and hit my kid on the rear with a belt, I would expect some sort of behavioral problems. But, in the case of a gentle spanking, I don't think it does any harm. Spanking alone is not the answer; spanking a kid for every transgression will cause problems. We must be willing to consider every method of punishment (legal, of course ) at our disposal to choose the one that best "fits the crime". Nebraska29 stated my thoughts exactly:



I think that when they do something that puts them or someone else in danger, they should be spanked. I don't, however, feel that spanking kids because they won't go to bed is the answer. You should use spanking for the instances where there is a very serious problem. If you do this, your kids aren't being spanked every ten minutes. I learned that we don't leave our chocolate Easter bunnies out where the dog can eat all of them because of spanking. Spanking helps to reinforce points, but it should be a last resort. My dad always kept a wooden paddle out, and he made sure that I knew that it was sitting on top of the TV if he should every need it-- and I made sure that he never did. I think that spanking should be used once or twice and then the threat of spanking should be used. If spanking is overused, kids become tolerant of it and it loses its effectiveness. However, if you use it once or twice to get a point across, they learn to respect the threat of being spanked. But, as I mentioned before, spanking has to be but one small part of a broader discipline system.

I just don't get all this rigmarole! Any person can produce healthy, well-adjusted children without ever spanking them. As most parents do not enjoy spanking, why are so many people trying to find rationalizations for continuing it?

Spanking is unnecessary. That's all there is to it. Whether we debunk studies which show the detrimental effects of spanking, or not, makes no difference. The act of spanking is violent. And unnecessary.

A few decades ago, some people were arguing that it was silly and ridiculous to outlaw corporal punishment for wives. I'm sure that we could also debunk studies which show that occasional, not too hard spankings have negative effects on a spouse. But there ya go.

People mainly do things without looking outside their particular paradigms. Not only are most of us caught up in the chain of cause and effect without realizing it, living lives of reaction rather than action, we are caught up in cultural, or societal, chains as well.

To me, the end results are really beside the issue. If one can make war, and win a peace, ok. If one can win a peace while avoiding war, why wouldn't anyone choose that way? Or would there be people arguing for war anyway? "That's how my parents won their peace, so it's good enough for me. War it is!"

1. No way does a city have the right to issue a spanking ban. That is way overstepping the line.

2. I do think it is legitimate depending on the circumstances. I personally do not spank my child except for cases where her safety is in danger. example: I tell her not to run in the street, she does anyway, she gets a spanking. I dont think spanking in public or from anger is legitimate, all that teaches the child is humiliation.

3. lazy people? no, IMO lazy people do not dicipline their children.

4. yeah they do need to lighten up. its the same as the whole stay at home vs work moms debate, lots of yelling and nothing is ever resolved. to each their own I say.

Your reply to question #2 is what a lot of other people are saying-spank when junior is about to reach up and pull the pot of boiling water on himself or something like that. Another current of thought that has been quite common here is that lazy people do not discipline at all. After thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that it is a true comment! I have a relative who will tell their kid not to go beyond a certain point or there will be consequences. When the kid crosses that point, they just say: "okay, but don't go further than that." It just drives me nuts-if you say there will be a consequence, you'd better darn well make good on it to some degree.

I agree 100%, and you illustrate my point very well. The key is a consistency of consequence - not that the consequence itself is spanking.

I have a question that's been floating around inside the cavernous echo chamber sometimes referred to as 'my brain:' if a spanking is an excellent way for a child to be dealt 'ultimate' consequence (as in for the most serious breaches of etiquette), because they will fear such actions more than they desire to breach the rules, wouldn't the same 'spanking' delivered to their face instead of their butt be that much more effective? I think this is a valid ethical question on the subject. Is slapping the face abuse, but slapping the behind not? Why? What makes us say that? Is it because our cultural meme has shifted (since slapping the face was certainly accepted in the past), or is there a clear ethical difference?

Quark,

A blow to the head is much more likely to cause real damage. A spanking on the other end is unlikely to have lasting, physical effects.

The point of spanking is not the infliction of pain. Children are notoriously easy to distract. With my 5 year old, I can hardly say "If you do that again..." before his mind has wandered off. A swat on the rear keeps his attention for at least the 1 minute I need to deliver my message to him.

Kids simply do not respond to talking at certain ages. They instinctively know that a swat on the rear means that the parent is serious and that they should pay attention to what they did wrong.

I believe Quark's point was that whether you are striking the head or the bottom, it's the same level of *abuse* it's just that one form of it is accepted by most of society, while the other one isn't and that in relation to one another-they aren't different in that pain is involved. Am I right Quark?? That is a very valid question that he asked and one that we should ponder a bit longer before trying to counter with a completely different kind of observation. Just a question for you Amlord, if you would care to respond. In order to get a child's attention as you put it, if you use spanking-aren't you inflicting pain to get the attention of the child in the first place? Can spanking really be about attention grabbing and not pain? Or are the two necessary?

From the American Academy of Pediatricians www.aap.org


I'm not certain that I agree with a majority of the points, but point #3 is something to think about. If junior desires to cross the dangerous intersection or tip over the boiling pot of water, how does spanking prevent him from doing so in the future? How does he learn "alternative behavior" in the future? I suppose the simple prospect of another spanking might make him stop, but that goes back to Quark's point and it appears to be a somewhat short-duration option. Are we trying to teach them how to handle a given situation through dialogue and being rational, or by associating things with pain? Which will train a child to handle different situations better not only in the present, but in the long run? I'm not even certain what I believe about this one. I have a 14 month old, and a second one who is coming in late July. My wife and I are actively researching discipline models and evaluating our own pasts to figure out what is best.

Let use your examples. A three year old attempts to tip over a boiling point of water or cross that street. Now should I calmly explain to him HOW to cross a street or play with the stove? Would you let your 3 year old child play in the street or with the stove by themselves? To me, not doing the dangerous activity is an alternative behavior until I feel they are responsible enough to teach them to use a stove or cross a street unattended.

Quark,



I think the rigamarole is due to the simple fact that this statement has not been proved. Although I do understand your other analogies, I know from personal experience (both mine and watching others) that spankings just seem to be necessary sometimes (*sometimes*) to get the desired results. I also put forth the following hypothesis for discussion, which doesn't seem to be getting any research: There has been a general concensus that various socialogical issues have befallen our society (breakdown of the family unit, kids not respecting authority, etc). Could some of these be due to the very fact that spanking has become less prevalent? I don't think you can just categorically state that spanking has a negative impact on child development--as I tried to point out in my first post, most of us were spanked, and we seemed to have turned out OK. I also wonder about the issues regarding the other punishments that have been put forth--can we assuredly state that spanking is more detrimental than being locked in a room for a long period of time? I don't think so.

I am also curious about the seemingly common sentiment that spanking shouldn't take place in public. This strikes me as strange, especially given some of the scenarios put forth that justify a spanking: ie, crossing the street. In order to be effective, I think spanking needs to be fairly immediate. Crossing the street will certainly be in a public place, so how could you then apply the spanking immediately (when it needs to be done) without it being in public? If the child is embarrased about being spanked in public--GOOD! All the more effect. So, I wonder if those opposed to spanking in public aren't subconsciously opposed to spanking....just a thought.

So, I find myself torn on the issue. I would love to be able to agree with Quark, and am not convinced that, some years from now, we might look back and wonder, as he does, what all the rigamarole was about. But I personally, while almost there (just gave my daughter the one swat in the last couple years) and I think that we, as a society, just aren't quite there yet.

O.K., I'll try my best at this. Before trying to asnwer this, I'm sure there are folks out there who have faced these exact situations, and I can't speak for them. At the same time, I would like to invite them to share their perspective on this. I believe that non-spankers would pick up Johnny and while holding his hands and looking at the boiling water say: "hot!" and "ouie!" while "no-no!" would not be used(or would it?) In terms of the street situation, you could perhaps engage a four or five year old-not lecture, but invite them by asking short questions: "Where's the car?" "Can the car get us?" "You tell us when safe to cross!" I have a niece who has a four year old who is extremely verbal. It's annoying to listen to her question and engage her daughter in conversation, but it works! It's just amazing really. You have the child become safety conscious through questions and by allowing them to take the reigns and have some control over a given situation. If you see something dead in the road, "what happend between the car and Fluffy?" Perhaps a bit gruesome, but there's a point to it and the wheels in the little munchkin's head are turning. Great question Rev, you're on the ball as usual.

Nebraska,

Good analogies. As one who follows them, yet does occassionally spank, allow me to continue with them to illustrate my dilemma....



Now, suppose that you have had this conversation several times, perhaps all in the same day. Yet your child continues to cross the street unsafely. Perhaps once even doing so when you specifically tell her, right before she starts to cross, "No! Stop!". At this point, you have tried other methods several times, with apparently little effect. Is a sharp spank at this point really such a bad thing? Is it perhaps even beneficial, in that it might be more likely to enforce the point, and prevent your child from being run over? At the very least, I would have to think most here could agree that this is a grey area, in which legislation against might be unwise. Further following this analogy--could the town be sued if the child continues the behaviour, gets run over, and the parents claim it was the town's restriction on discipline that caused that to happen? Hmmmm.....

Ok, let's take this a step further. Let's say you spanked the kid, and it still doesn't get through to her. You spank her again, she does it again. At this point, what do you do? Hit her harder? Hit her with a belt? Powerbomb her through a coffee table?

Assuming that nothing will work does not stop at physical punishment, physical punishment doesn't work at times either. One of my cousins was like that as a kid. You could spank him until your arms fell off, all that he would do is try harder not to get caught next time.

What then?

We've reached a point here that I believe is very important. I mention that because this situation presupposes two things; (a)the issue isn't taught over a long period of time, rather, it is just addressed as it comes up; b ) the given solution should work the first time. Before Junior crosses the street repeatedly, the situation is presented to him and taught to him repeatedly. You don't wait until that rule is broken, you teach it to him and re-teach it to him until he gets it. Of course, you don't send the child out by himself, that is very irresponsible and direct supervision should always be of primary importance. Yes, junior will continue to cross the road and test you, does spanking convince him 110%of the time as well? It takes time and effort, which is what makes non-spanking methods such a pain. Instead of whopping junior on the behind and head back inside to pop open a brewsky and watch the Pistons game, you have to hold his hand and walk back and forth across the street when you would rather do other things.

Some parents spank our of fear. That's right fear. The kid runs off, and puts himself in a dangerous situation and fear is the over riding emotion.

And if you have told a child," stop that or you are going to get a spanking.", and said child doesn't stop, then a spanking is in order. Don't just say the words, you must act upon them. My youngest son who is 28 now, remembers why he got a spanking at 5. He knew when he didn't do as he was told, and after being told more than once that he would get a spanking. Now, as I was on a really tight time schedule, I waited until we got home from the store. By then I wasn't angry anymore(was while I was in the store)and he had time to think about it. He didn't do that particular thing again.

Spanking isn't effective in the teen years, and almost always not much good as they get older. But it is very effective in toddlers. It's getting their attention that is the hardest at that age.

That's why I chose to continue the analogy of doing something dangerous...you sometimes don't have a long period of time, and the given solution sometimes must work the first time. Or, to put it another way...if your child continues to test you in a dangerous situation, failure to apply sufficient force to drive home the argument could create a situation where you have no child to apply consequences to. These times sometimes require a little 'Hey, listen up, right now!'. Can this often be achieved without spanking? Sure. That's not my point. I think the real question is whether or not it is possible that a spanking might not the best method in certain circumstances, where other methods have either failed or won't be likely to achieve the desired results in a suitable time frame.

I think there is an assumption that the pro-spanking faction advocates constant, persistent spanking. At least in my case, that is not my stance at all. However, I am leary of laws dictating parental involvement with their children--I just think that is usually best left up to the parent to decide.

Very good point-the whole "teach them before the problem arises" gives one the impression that every dangerous situation that arises can be dealt with through teaching and modeling ahead of time. That being said-has anyone out there discovered that junior still ran out into the street even after being spanked? Did he just get sneakier about it?

Absolutely..spanking is certainly not a panacea. Which I guess is a point in the anti-spanking faction's favor. I do think it represents a point of escalation, though, which non corporal punishment methods would have difficulty achieving. Given that, I am still leary of removing it from the parental tool bag. Case in point...there was a minister a few years back that was prosecuted for abuse for spanking his child--one time. Even though he had an outstanding record of teaching parental behaviour, and even with the child (he was older, maybe 14?) saying that he deserved the spanking. Should the state have the right to intervene in such cases? Absolute laws are always tricky....

Yes it does because it passes resolutions. Personally I don't believe it should have that right to do so.



Yes. It enforces discipline by breaking down the wrongful wills of children.



I think all kinds of parents would spank their kids.



Yes, spanking should be legalized because parents must have a way to punish their children when necessary.

1.)Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?
No.

2.)Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?
There are negative effects of using coercion as a disciplinary method. One that has already been brought up twice. Once by the opposition to spanking in the authors post:


It shouldn't take a study to realize that by using coercion to punish your child, you are sending the message that it is ok to do the same. At the same time, i'm not to quick to say that spanking is always unjustifable. Just as there are instances in the world, where sometimes force is neccessary, but it shouldn't be used as the primary disciplinary method.

My father used to smack me in the back of the head. It was more of means to say 'wtf were you thinking?'. It never bothered me, and it did have an effect. Not that I feared getting hit, just made me feel like an idiot.

3.)Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?
I don't think many parents want to spank their kids, they just don't know what else to do. It's probably more out of frustration that anything.

4.)Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?
No. I wouldn't ever tell anybody to lighten up about something they feel strongly about.

That was not okay for your dad to do that to you. Though I do not agree
with physical forms of punishment, mental abuse is much more devastating.
And, no parent should ever make their child feel stupid.

Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline
their own children? Indeed, not.


Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?
I don' t think so. It's been a form of discipline, handed down through
the generations. But, in this day and age aren't we a little bit past the
Neanderthal-style of coping with our youngin's, "Son, this is gonna
hurt me more 'n it's gonna hurt you."

Is it only lazy people who spank their kids? I don't think so.
It's a form of punishment that many may use as a last resort. But,
once a parent has gotten to the "last resort" stage, they've pretty
much lost control.

Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up? I wouldn't say
lighten up, necessarily. I'd just say that parents, all of us, need to
try to help each other out, with advice, moral support and encouragement.
It's not easy being a parent - that's putting it mildly.

Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline
their own children?
To a certain extent, of course. They can't have people burning their kid's arms with lighters or some such abuse. But, as far as spanking is concerned, absolutely not.

Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?
Absolutely. There's a reason that child psychology and adult psychology are completely different fields of study. I had that "fear of my father" spanking me when I was a child. I would be a different type of person today if my father tried to use reasoning and "time out" as a form of punishment. Maybe for the better, maybe for the worse, I can't say, but I know it was very effective for me.

I'm 26 years old, so pretty much all of my friends have children between the ages of newborn to 7 years old or so. I don't know how those kids act when I'm not around, but kids seem to act up more when company is around than when they're alone with their parents. All I can say is the parents that refuse to spank or use any form of phsyical punishment have the worst behaved kids I've ever seen. I'll actually say I can't go over to their houses until after 9 or so, just to ensure they're in bed asleep(hopefully). It's funny to hear the parents say things like "that's just how kids are", I actually have to hold back the laughter. If they only knew how my other friend's kids act when I'm there. Practically angels compared to their kids.

I don't buy the whole "monkey see monkey do" mentallity. I was spanked, never hit anyone in school, never hit a girlfriend, dang near never even been in a fight. My father used to swerve to actually hit animals in the road, I was sick for two days after hitting a rabbit that ran right in front of me one time. The act itself doesn't "teach" them it's "ok" to do something. There's got to be more involved.

Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?
I hate to chime in like the others, but the chase scene is a great example of why spanking is not a lazy man's tactic. Screaming from the top of your lungs from the computer because you're too busy in a chatroom would be a good example of laziness though.

Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?
I don't think it's a matter of lightening up, the people that are out to put a stop to "real" child abuse should keep the fight going.

I'm a computer technician, so I'll use an example of where I think the problem lies:

We had a very serious issue with users installing software that was not in compliance with company policies....games...tax software...instant messangers..etc.. So, we took the ability to install applications away from all users. After that it was just a matter of a little cleanup. Those issues used to be a significant chunk of our ticket queue. Afterward, we had to start justifying our time, so we had to search for other problems that started seeming quite petty even to our resident "desktop nazi".

I think that's what happens in these types of groups. Not that the problem of child abuse is "fixed" but it's certainly under better control than it has been in the past. So, now that it's under better control, they don't need as many people to do the same job, thus finding other ways to justify their jobs....ie...spanking your kids.

Does the city have any right to tell parents how to specifically discipline their own children?

Of course. That's obvious. There are certain actions that are simply unacceptable as punishment. Forcing a child to hold their hand on a hot stove burner is unacceptable. Beating a child with a baseball bat is unacceptable. It frankly astonishes me that anyone would possibly disagree that the government has not only a right, but an obligation to limit how parents can discipline their children. The only question is to what extent.


Is spanking a legitimate means of disciplining children?

Legitimate? I suppose it's legitimate. I mean, there are very few forms of discipline that aren't legitimate. But it's certainly not the best means, and probably not even the most effective.

First off, spankings are a form of punishment that are always delivered in anger. Don't try to get one over on me. Many of my friends with kids do spank their kids, and every single one of them (along with any other parent I've ever met) swears up and down that their punishments are dealt in a calm and fair manner. However, every time I've either witnessed or heard second-hand about a parent spanking their child, it's always a story about the parent chasing their kid around the house, getting very angry, then spanking their kid.

Any punishment given in anger is inherently flawed. You're letting your own anger interfere with reason. It's very easy to get carried away, and it's usually unfair to both your child and yourself. Once you're angry, it's no longer punishment, it's personal retribution.


Secondly, spanking is not always effective, and can sometimes accomplish the opposite of its goal. Spanking is something that's very quick, and unless it's painful and damaging to the abusive level the pain won't last long at all. Once that wears off, children may very well go right back to doing what they got spanked for in the first place. Some kids will have a long enough memory for it to be effective, but not all. Not to mention that parents will eventually get tired to repeating the same thing over and over again, and may just let discipline slip totally. If it's a lasting punishment -- what I usually do with my kids -- they're constantly reminded of what they did wrong by not being able to do something they like. Wanted to have friends over? Maybe you should have thought of that before you dropped my potted cactus out the window. Wanted to watch Saturday Morning Cartoons? Then don't throw tantrums in public.

Finally, there's no proof that spanking is any more effective than any other method of punishment. As I said, lasting punishment seem to work really well for me. Unlike an hour or two of pain, revoking privileges can give a kid a lot of time to think about what he or she has done. Given all this, I see no reason to spank my children. If you do, go for it. Good luck with that. I know I'm certainly not what my parents wanted me to be.


Is it only lazy people who spank their kids?

Not so much lazy as uncreative.


Do the anti-spankers just need to lighten up?

I don't think so, because I don't agree with spanking. If they want to pass a law banning it, I have no problem. Good luck enforcing it though. Of course, if I was some rapid spankaholic I'd feel deeply offended at people wanting to outlaw something I feel is my right, just like gun owners hate gun controllers and smokers hate anti-smoking advocates.