I completely respect that. For personal choice, I am a-okay for people doing it (within reason) or just choosing to not use physical means. My biggest complaint (and not towards you) is people trying to make something that is not a harmful choice (again, when done in moderation) illegal for everyone. I just made the thread for the purpose of hearing people's perspectives and seeing if I can strike up an interesting discussion/debate in the process. I always enjoy hearing other's perspectives, so thanks for telling yours. :)

Yeah, I agree. It really should be a last resort. I don't have kids of my own. I'm not sure what the future holds for me in regards to having them, but that's how I'd use physical discipline. I wouldn't want to have to discipline my children at all to be honest (I don't think most people do), but to me it's a necessary thing that helps in the end overall.

I was given a few good spankings as a kid that never really bothered me because I was kind of bratty and asking for it.. however I did have more physical abuse that i knew was not right like my mother used to throw things at me from across the room when she was mad, or her boyfriend would drag my by the neck or arms to my room and throw me in, and some other stuff I dont want to talk about. I guess, light physical punishment can work at times if you want to instill the fear response in a child, but i dont think its really the right thing to do. Since im a babysitter, ive tried a couple different methods. The one that has always worked best was to talk to the kid. yes, theyve done something bad, but pull them aside. Ask them why? Why are they acting out? Ask them, how do they feel? Is something upsetting them? Kids dont act out without reason. Get in there head, and try to fix it. Kids will be more open and accepting if you show an interest in their feelings. Of course a good timeout will do, and when they are done having a tantrum, give 'em a talk. Get in their head. If you show them anger and rage when they anger and rage, it only makes it worse, and it might send your kid down a dark path of pure hatred of you, or acting out in extremes in social settings like bullying, or worse. Theyre just kids, they want to be understood, and have a voice. Teach them its ok to be mad and upset, but that they need to tell you why that is, so it can be fixed.

I couldn't bring myself to use any form of physical discipline, no matter what people or studies say. I've worked years to calm my temper and not react to things violently. I don't want to take away that progress, and for me, lightly smacking a kid is too much.

Sorry, but I'm going to agree to disagree on this subject.

EDIT: I also think toddlers are much more capable than what we give them credit for. I've seen parents yell and lightly smack their toddlers, and it usually makes them completely dead or they go back to misbehaving a minute later. I've seen eye contact and stern talking work better.

Yeah totally! I try to think of how I would act with any adult with kids. I swat my boyfriend's hands if I want him to quit something or might smack him on the arm to get his attention. I just try to remember that like...kids don't have the same developed brains as we do, but have the same need for respect. And yeah same I guess I mean that my views about how to address a criminal's actions extend to how to address a child's actions. I wouldn't support corporal punishment for adult criminals and see how effective just writing music or playing drums can be (I'm a music therapist). So I try to extend that same thinking to a child - the result I want can probably be achieved without humiliation, pain, or typical "punishment", so I'd probably just stick to those things. Although in some cases punishment is necessary, in which case I think related punishments are better (such as if a child got a bad grade, maybe taking away part of their summer break to attend tutoring, or if a child didn't do chores, giving them extra chores or taking away a privilege or allowance, as this is what would happen if they were adults and didn't do their jobs.)

Oh man my mother used to give me a smoldering stare when she wanted me to behave, and you bet I would, but thats only because I knew if i didnt that stare would turn into my arm getting twisted haha

Children aren't stupid, but it can't be said that they hold the same level of cognition as an older child/teen/adult. They can learn, though, through noticing patterns like with disciplinary deterrents- "when I do this, I experience a negative consequence".

That same exact logic can be applied to any form of punishment. Again, the children can learn from consequences. They may not understand exactly why they are being punished, but they know that when they do the action, they're punished. I've worked as an substitute teacher with kids from younger than one to 4 years old. I've noticed that the older a child is, the more they understand their actions. Because of this, the older a kid gets the less physical punishment is useful. After about the age of 6 or so, the child can truly comprehend the impact of their actions, making it more effective to just try and reason with them. I have also seen kids either laugh or show no response to both physical and non-physical punishment. As some of the other posters in the thread have stated in their responses, either they themselves or their own children (of some relation) have responded differently to different methods of discipline. Sometimes one way is more effective that another, and it can vary per child. Finally as for the "what is too far", from ages 2 to 6 a light and infrequent pop to the hand or butt (no marks) is shown to have as much of a negative lasting effect as a child who does not undergo any sort of spanking. Understanding your own strength is something the parent is responsible for. If they leave marks on the child, the intensity is too much and should be lessened.

To start off, I'm very sorry you had to go through that, and I agree that it was completely unwarranted and terrible.

Defining and identifying a "fear response" is subjective to who you're talking to. Realistically, any punishment can work as a fear response. All serve as deterrents from certain behavior, and a child can be just as scared to have their toys taken as they would be scared to have a light pop on the hand. Of course, more severe physical methods can be absolutely jarring mentally and not just simply a discouragements, so I am not defending those extreme cases. I do completely agree that getting in a child's head and talking to them about their actions is the best approach initially. Though this is under the impression that the kid is old enough to comprehend their action and its significance. For example, a very young child may not understand the danger of touching a hot stove. The parent can warn the child about the consequences of touching a hot stove, but the kid may not comprehend the gravity of the danger, and do it anyways. But as I stated before, of course trying to reason with a child who you know does have the capability to do so, is absolutely what should be done first. Time outs, restriction...etc should be used first and foremost, and mild means of physical discipline, such as a light pop to the hand or butt (not enough to leave marks) should be used only as a last resort. Your point of avoiding acting out in anger is very important as well. If the parents act solely out of anger, it restricts their own ability to reason and can end in disaster. Like with every reaction to any scenario, acting on rage never renders the best response and can actually cause more damage than anything. (I used to babysit when i was younger and know it can be tricky especially trying to figure out how to handle situations like that, so I empathize with you. Haha!)

Yes, that's something I replied to about. Acting out of anger, in any situation can result in problems, and if you yourself have a personal issue with things like that, I totally understand. My overall views on the subject in a nutshell are if you don't want to use physical punishment personally, I completely respect your choice, but that's what I view it as, a choice. As long as the punishment is not severe enough to cause marks, is used infrequently (should only be a last resort), then it should be up to the parent to choose. If they don't, a-okay. If they do, also, a-okay. I respect both, but when it boils down to people having this choice completely taken away without evidence of harm (again, regarding the non-severe method), that's where I believe a problem begins. I'm certainly not stating that you're doing that, so I hope you don't take it that way. That's just my opinion on it. It is true that certain methods can be more fruitful than others. I know that's something a few other users have discussed on the thread as well, and I do agree that some means can be more effective than others depending on the child.

Please, don't ping me about this. I've stated that I do not wish to be pinged. I respect your point, respect mine. Thank you.

To : Alright. I won't. I initially just did it to ask for clarification, but instead of just an answer in your reply, you seemed to have some points that I found confusing. Also, it looked like you put a lot of effort, time, and thought into it, and I believed it'd be rude to just ignore you. My apologies.

(I haven't been active on Subeta for a while until recently, so I believe that the [ user= ] doesn't ping. If it does though, I apologize. Just wanted to explain myself, since I wasn't looking to cause problems.)

Agreed, though kids don't have the same mental capacity, I do support the same thought that they should be treated with a certain level of respect as human beings. (I will say that the majority of respect, in my opinion, must be earned, but I think everyone should be treated with at least a basic sense of it.) As the child grows and matures, they can be allowed more responsibility due to their more developed reasoning, which also allows to completely (in most cases) changing from (moderate) physical to solely non-physical methods. Honestly, if you can simply just talk things out with your kid and reach an understanding, it's the best. Punishment is only the consequence for continuous bad behavior and to serve as a deterrent. Again, I agree those sort of punishments are best to use at all possible, especially for older, more cognitive kids/teens. Ones related to the behavior itself is a pretty good idea as well.

By the way, I've never actually thought about using music as therapy. If you'd be willing to PM, I'd love to ask you some questions about it.

It was okay to ping me. I wouldn't have reported you or anything. It's okay - I am not angry or anything and no problem were caused at all. But even if you were to show me various studies about this, I would still deny everything. It's against my belief and what I stand for. I do understand where you're coming from and I respect that. Have a nice fourth of July. All is good c:

Good good! I'm glad everything is alright. I totally respect your decision as well. I am a-okay with people choosing not to. Happy 4th of July to you as well, dear! :D

My mom spanked me a few times when I was little, mostly just a pop on the ass. I was 3 or less, and what instances I remember, it was mostly because I disobeyed a direct order and wasn't old enough to understand consequences of my actions. But when I was old enough to reason, like she did the counting thing "One .... Two ...." and I never made it to three, with the threat of some kind of trouble (and children are going to imagine the worst possible open ended threat their little noggins can come up with), but I was never popped on the rear again. I'm the first person to call the cops if I suspect child abuse, but a swift pop on the ass to a young kid that can't reason yet. Not child abuse (if it's your own kid).

However, my dad, beat me a few times. Including a time when I was 11? 12? He pushed me down on my bed, stood between my legs, and beat me thighs/hips. (All over several misunderstandings over the course of the day.) That was abuse and I wish that on no one.

Don't beat your kids.

I was a child of pretty bad physical abuse (from dad). Cops and CPS had to be called several times. That being said; I do not stand for any sort of physical abuse. I've had many experiences so I can say that it never worked for me.

If you want your kid to listen, then explain to them in a way they can understand. SET AN EXAMPLE. BE AN EXAMPLE.

As someone who has studied this a lot, and has a degree in early childhood development and education, I do not believe in using physical punishment. In my view, it's just another form of scare tactics to manipulate children (or adults) into doing what you want them to do. They will not respect you for this, but they will fear you. There are other ways to get children to understand what you want other than laying your hands on them. Learn what works best for your child by listening to them and observing. If you feel like you need to physically lay your hands on a child to make them behave, you need to rethink your reason for wanting children. They're not your property.

As a person who received the end of a belt as a kid, I would say I'm not okay with it. I grew up disliking and fearing the parent who beat me so... :x I'm like , you can show me the studies but I believe it's not an okay thing to do, belt or no belt. I feel like this easily can be made into an analogy... would you hit your dog repeatedly for something it's done badly or use non-verbal punishment? I've seen most resources go with the latter funnily enough but with kids it's somehow okay to physically punish them....? Anyone see the irony? Just food for thought, so please don't ping me with arguments.

Nope as a child who was hit for doing things wrong and or not doing anything i've been slightly hit to straight out beatings.I've always been a sensitive kid so had my parents just talked to me i would of listened , there slight hitting turned into belts to my back,legs rear to getting kicked ib the rear if i interuppted my dad ,to standing in a corner with my nose to the crack for 4-6 hours , it started with the slap on the wrist to the slight pop on the butt anyways personally i will figure a way to discipline without using my hands. I mean every child is different and that form of moderate physical discipline might leave a negative effect or not on them , im barely getting over my own history with my dad to where i forgave him but i wont forget

Personally, my values dictate that we are not violent towards others. Even if they upset me a lot, I wouldn't hit my neighbors, or parents, or coworkers. My kid is no exception. My kid is even more important, because every time I interact with them as a parent, it's shaping the way they grow and see the world. I would want to set an example for my child. I don't want to teach them, from an early age, that violence is an appropriate way to deal with anything. If I don't want my child to grow up and be physically violent with others, it's important that I am never physically violent with them.

I have no right to hit them. I don't even have the right to hug them if they don't consent to it. I want my child to know that they're safe with me. There will definitely be times when I have to raise my voice, and yell loudly, and that will be scary. I might have to take away toys or games, ban them from events, there's a lot of punishments that can hurt. But at the end of the day, I want my child to trust me and know that they never have to worry about real harm from me. There's something about physical violence that feels much more visceral than a "no video games" type of punishment. It's a lot more primal maybe, and is a lot more likely to inspire actual fear.

As for other people... I feel a lot better if I know physical punishment is illegal or at least frowned upon, because I think that even if it can be done safely, it's just too risky. How often is it done safely, versus how often does the parent become abusive, or the child is hurt and traumatized from it? I think that if physical punishment were "the norm", then abusive parents would have an easier time getting away with it and justifying their actions. So, you're right, maybe it's not fair that people can't make this choice when it could be completely harmless... But I would rather not take the risk, because on the one hand it could be completely harmless, on the other it could seriously damage an innocent child. I think it's worth it to take away parents' freedom to hit their children, if it means there will be less abused children in the world.