DescentBB

I seem to get a general feeling from people around here (except FC) that they agree with corporal punishment. I have a questions about means by which it is administered, though. My girlfriend feels quite strongly that a belt should virtually never be used- that using a belt borders on cruelty. I never really got hit with a belt when I was a kid- my mom's weapon of choice was the wooden spoon on the hand. What do you guys think about what should be used? Bare hand only? a wooden spoon? A belt? Something else?

I'm not against a corporal punishment, but only for smaller children who you can't yet reason with. Only bare, flat hands.

Using a tool to administer the punishment is too cruel and exceeds the purpose of the punishment in the first place.

From when I was a kid, I remember that a psychological punishment was way more terrible than a physical one, but I was a sensible kid and my father can be very persuasive.

I was spanked with a belt but the actual physical aspect of it was quite anti-climatic. It was more about the sloooow way by Dad would take off his belt, loop by loop, fold it and snap it loudly a few times (like when you loop it and flex it really quickly and the two sides of the belt slap each other. It makes a helluva scary snapping noise to a kid). Combine that with several anxious hours of *wait until your Father gets home* and my lesson was learned long before anything connected to my gluteus maximus.

My thinking:
Bare flat hand is all that needed with young kids. Once they are older, reason with them. If reasoning doesn't work (along with grounding/etc. sorts of punishments), you either did something really poorly earlier, or you have an extremely strong willed child. Either way, I think something such as a belt should be used once a a open hand doesn't provide the desired effect. (the kid could care less, because it doesn't hurt/indimitate at all anymore) I also think this: I think that the parent who assesses the disobedience should do the punishing- if mom catches you doing something, mom punishes and vice versa. That way one of the parents isn't feared more than another, in theory.

When my brother and I were growing up our Mom did nearly all of the physical punishment. Her weapon of choice was the wooden spoon if we in the kitchen. She would smack whatever body part was within reach. If we werenâ??t in the kitchen, she would ground us. The only time my father ever hit me he did it with a belt on my bare bottom. Neither of us can remember what I did. We both agree that it had to have been pretty bad because my Dad is basically a pacifist.

As for my own beliefs, I think striking a child in general should be avoided. However, I recognize there are times when the point must be driven home immediately. In those times, I feel it should be done with an open hand. My daughter is 13 months now and is starting to really test the boundaries. She already knows what â??NOâ?

Once again bash has spoken for me.

As far as belt/hand. Listen, the belt isn't cruel. If you're lashing it out 'whipping' your kid in the back or chest with it, you should be locked up. Wrapping it up and doing a couple smacks to the butt isn't going to be that big of a deal in the long run. Sure, it hurts, but that was the point.

I don't deny that I'll probably try the smacking of the back of the hand thing whenever I have a kid, especially if it is a girl. Might as well test the waters with that one of all things if the verbal thing doesn't do the trick. The only thing I have a problem with in this type of method is the fact that a smack to the hand doesn't have a lasting impression IMO. What I mean by this is yes, they did something wrong, you use this method and they understand they did something wrong for now and may attempt to be more adventerous knowing that the slap to the back of the hand wasn't really all that bad. Kids are clever that way, they will test your limits which is the whole point to make those limits blatantly obvious to begin with.

The other thing about the hand vs the belt that bothers me is personally I feel when using a hand your kid is more likely to associate YOU to the punishment and may grow to dislike you or disrespect you. I was kind of that way with my dad when I was a young teenager. Getting older fixes some things, but not everybody deals with it the same way and I may have just been lucky to figure things out the way I have.

Using an object on the other hand (no pun intended ), such as a paddle or a belt associates the punishment with the objects. Now, when kids get older of course they're going to understand that you are using the object but from personal experience I can count almost everytime my dad punished me with his hands. I have no vivid memories of the belt or the paddle even though I know I was punished with them and understood the lessons being taught. This shows that the message was getting through because my mind has made an effort to shut out those memories.


We're a very physical family though and it runs in the family so not everybody is going to be the same. We've gone through probably 4-5 different bedroom doors in two houses because they've been kicked down and broken by either myself or my dad. We've had to patch up holes in the walls from me punching through them, lol. Demolition derby

Anyways, as far as what teachers and whatnot should use if they were allowed to do such things is a simple paddle. Two whacks to the back end and send them on their way. They should also be able to smack hands with rulers again. The problem is that teachers would lose their cool and do it for no good reason. It has to be a good reason and not just because you're frustrated with the child. If a child is being hurt for a punishment and there is no lesson behind it there is going to be a lot of problems later down the road.

spanking is OK in my book - but with a couple of overarching previsos:

1) Spanking is NEVER done off-the-cuff so to speak.
2) Only a bare hand or a wooden spoon is used. (I had the spoon when I was a kid)

Spanking needs to be properly administered for it to have any effect I believe. I see parents spank kids on the street - just reaching down and whacking some poor little kid - who is already crying.

That makes me madder than hell. Makes me want to wander over and smack THEM!

Punishment needs to be metered out according to a specific and well-known MO. IMHO.

I agree Mobi. I think it all boils down to being consistant.

Being hit with anything in the house at any point, I came to the conclusion that I will not do it on my kids. I don't want them to fear me the way I did my parents. You want your kids to be able to be honest and it's makes them fear you when you hit hard.

......uuuuuuuunnnnnnghghhgghhhhhhhh.........

** look folks, he's returning from the GRAAAAAAVEEE!!!!!!!!!1111!!!111 **

interesting point of fact concerning hitting with an object, i.e. a spoon, vs. an open hand: if you hit with the hand, you are using several pounds of arm on a child's bottom, and swinging from the shoulder usually - you can see it the way they flex (not much, but they flex). if you use a paddle or a spoon, you are only swinging a few ounces of wood, and you flick your wrist instead of getting your whole arm involved! so why is a hand considered more humane than a spoon? yes, it stings more, but you'll be hard-pressed to leave a mark (which IS abuse).

now, as for actually spanking: in theory, i would like to think that i'm even-handed with my kids (3.5 and 1), and that i only spank as a last resort. i am pretty good about it, but not perfect.

i also learned one other thing to keep in mind....a spank should NEVER be a punishment - it should be used only as a tool to get the child's full attention.

Jynx wrote:if you hit with the hand, you are using several pounds of arm on a child's bottom, and swinging from the shoulder usually - you can see it the way they flex (not much, but they flex). if you use a paddle or a spoon, you are only swinging a few ounces of wood, and you flick your wrist instead of getting your whole arm involved!

A few things:

1) when you use a hand, sometimes you *just* use the hand -- sometimes the swing is just from the wrist. In that case, you have significantly less mass and less velocity than the spoon. If you swing from the shoulder and get your whole arm into it, and if you swing hard, you're capable of more -- but (from the people I know) most people don't come close to swinging with the level of force they *could* when they spank their kids. Mostly it's all wrist, or all elbow, producing the swing, and usually it's pretty soft.

2) With the hand, the force is more spread out than with a spoon. Even though the hand has more force, the pressure is usually less -- you hit more total butt area, and therefore have less total pressure.

3) The hand is softer than the spoon.

4) When you hit with the hand, you have a very clear idea of how hard you hit, because you feel it too. If you hit with a spoon or belt or something, you might hit a lot harder or softer than you intended, and not realize it.

IMO, it's the fourth thing that makes using your hand a good option.

Wow, I agree with Tom!

Good comments Lothar. A light spanking can also be a form of humilation in front of the other children as well.

Birdseye wrote:Good comments Lothar. A light spanking can also be a form of humilation in front of the other children as well.

...which is exactly why you shouldn't do it in front of other people.

Being humiliated can be quite effective tho'! Otherwise, all these fat people wouldn't be going on diets, no?

It's time to humiliate smokers.

Leave the smokers alone.

Those who never understand public humiliation as children grow down to be AceCombat.