So I've been having a conversation with someone lately about the use/need/affects of physical discipline, and I'm curious to know what some of your thoughts on it. I have seen scientific studies that both defend and demonized the practice. Now, I want to clarify that by physical discipline I mean a simple spanking on the butt or a pop on the hand, something that causes some (but not immense) pain. I'm NOT defending down right beating kids, like slapping or punching in the face and head or anything that causes damage such as breaking of the skin or scarring.

What are your thoughts, experiences, and/or sources? Do you believe it's justified or not, and why? [edit]I know I wasn't originally going to state my opinions and stay neutral, but I'm finding it difficult to discuss the topic without letting it slip. So I'll give some quotes I've already said to provide an idea...

Please ping! Thank you. :)

I was raised with a mixture of physical discipline, and non-physical. In all honesty, physical discipline probably only is effective until about age 5. After that, it isn't really useful. It was at about that age my parents went from a mixture to strictly non-physical discipline. I feel this mixture helped me learn boundaries, and also the emotional repercussions of wrongdoings. My parents would sit me down and talk to me about what I did wrong, and how I should fix it, and how I made the other party feel. I was a highly empathetic and compassionate child, so it worked very well on me.

I also think that the type (physical vs non) of punishment largely depends on the child. If I am being perfectly honest, Physical punishment never did dissuade me nearly as much as learning that what I did negatively impacted another person. Some children do not care as much about others, so I feel physical punishment may work best on them. I think it is much more about moderation and a mixture of the two techniques that helps the most.

Interesting points. So you believe it can be beneficial within reason? Also, I especially find your statement of it being effective up until the age of 5 interesting. Do you have an idea why it may have been more useful before that point and not so much later in your life?

I have 3 kids, ages 11, 9, and almost 2.

When my 2 oldest were little, I spanked them. By the time they were 18 months old, spankings were completely ineffective. I'd pop them on the but or the thigh, and they'd cry for about 4 seconds, then go right back to whatever got them the spanking in the first place. My almost 2 year old is worse. He doesn't even stop whatever the behavior is that gets him popped.

I understand why people feel it's a good form of discipline - I was spanked as a child (completely within reason), and it didn't have lasting harmful effects on me. But my experience is not indicative of the overall experience, if that makes sense? For me, and my children, we do timeouts. Having to stand on their knees with their nose on the wall for 2 minutes seemed to be far more effective than any butt whooping ever was.

I don't have kids myself, but I'm very against physical discipline. I was spanked even as a teenager, when I was more than old enough to be reasoned with. I'm also southern, where spanking means leaving giant red marks and getting "switches" from a bush to whip the kids. So I realize it means something different to me than what you're talking about.

I think a light smack on the butt when they're too small to understand is appropriate, but after a certain point, kids need to be taught why their behavior is bad. I had the crap beaten out of me as a kid, and it didn't teach me to be a better person. It taught me problems can be solved by hitting things. I think it's far more important to teach kids empathy and reasoning as early as possible.

I have seen this example a lot. Where some methods work on kids and others don't. I know there's been studies showing that even on an academic level that children can learn differently. I wonder if discipline has a similar reasoning as to why. Also, the age difference does seem to be a definite line between the discipline's effectiveness...

Now, a question specifically for you. When you say you are very against physical discipline, do you mean all forms or just to the measure that you yourself experienced?

I know I'm breaking my rule of not showing my personal opinions on this, but it's hard not to elaborate if I don't. Regardless I'm still looking for opposing views

I have a 5 year old and a 2 1/2 year old, and I spank them and/or put them in timeout. My mom used to spank me or slap me across the face and it made me behave when she was around, versus my dad who never punished us, so my brother and I were total brats with him. From this I learned that physical discipline can be effective, but I don't spank my own kids hard. My ex does that and they are scared of him. I don't want my kids scared of me but just to learn to not do things they shouldn't.

I was spanked as a child. I don't think it hurt me any. It was more embarrassing than painful. My parents never did it in public though - just at home. I'm not sure what I'd do if I had children (not planning on any ever). I don't think it's something you know you're going to do or not until you're smack in the middle of it (pardon the pun lmao).

Like I said, a small smack on the butt or a flick on the ear, totally fine by me. The problem I have is something I see around here every day. Parents lash out in anger and just attack their children, instead of taking even one second to talk to them. I guess I would say I draw the line at anything that leaves a mark, or using anything other than your hand.

Along with what seems to be most others on this topic, I believe that a light swat on the hand or butt is appropriate for a child that's too young to understand an explanation of why their behavior is bad. Once a child gets to the age where you can explain why their behavior is wrong then I believe discipline should be non-physical: time outs, removal of a certain toy/privilege, or assignment of non-standard chores. I specify "non-standard" because you don't want a child to equate household chores with punishment, so instead you could assign them something like weeding all of the dandelions out of the lawn or alphabetizing the movie collection.

If physical punishment results in any kind of marks, even just bright red marks, I think it's too much. My parents were very aggressive with their physical punishments, and while they never left any bruises (as far as I can remember), it still made me afraid of them and left lasting emotional damage. I have terrible anxiety, both general and social, and much of it stems from how my parents treated me both with physical and emotional abuse "punishment".

I smelled the community guidelines. They tasted burnt. [edit] This post was edited.

I feel it only works well until that age because until then, children are not AS reasonsble. Around 5, they develop basic logic and problem solving skills, enough that you can typically reason with them, and easier teach them how to act.

I have no kids myself so I'll tell what was done for me and my sister growing up. There were swats on the butt for blatantly disregarding our parents. Of course grounding and time outs were also standard.

However after a point you need to punish each kid according to what gets through to them. What was effective for me did squat for my sister and vice versa. For me I KNEW I screwed up if I was grounded to stay indoors and my books taken away. They were my LIFE! My sister it was reverse because she enjoyed TV more than me so being forced to do things outside was bad to her.

One unique thing our dad did when he was REALLY pissed was to make us write out 100 times on one sheet of paper "I will not do/lie/hide something" and each word had to be legible to count. For example one was "I will not hit my sister and lie about it". We were allowed pauses for bathroom and food. We weren't grounded in this punishment but we couldn't go do anything else until it was done and passed inspection. So to kids who want to play with their siblings or other kids near them it was effective.

I don't have or will ever have children but I know that I could never ever use physical discipline. It's just wrong in my opinion and there are much better ways to raise a child.

No, I absolutely can't say physical discipline is okay. It might be because I was severely abused (bruises and occasionally blood) with hands and leather belts, but I think physical discipline is scarring. I only behaved out of fear and I hid my emotions. I was also terrified of people getting near me (physically and emotionally) for the longest time. I hated myself and hated existing. Even today, I tend to keep people at a distance, and I think a big part of it stems from the abuse.

If I ever had kids (which would only happen if I adopted one over 5), I would not use any form of physical discipline. I would do time outs, take away privileges, or make them do something mundane that isn't chores. Most importantly, I would talk to them about what they did wrong and what they can do to improve.

for me, one statement from a teacher changed my view about corporal punishment: "If your child is old enough to understand what they did, then they're old enough to be punished through other means. If your child is not old enough to understand what they did, then they won't understand why you're hitting them."

I was not physically abused as a child. I was emotionally abused with part of that being corporal punishment and degredation as forms of punishment. In my views, hitting a kid teaches them nothing, but giving them a "punishment" that is related to their misbehavior makes mistakes into learning opportunities.

Another teacher I had told us that when she slammed the door, her parents took her door for a week. When she was caught littering, they had her go around the neighborhood with a trash bag and pick up the trash.

I guess this goes along with my views on justice in general - rehabilitation and learning over punishment. I'm about to take an internship in a psychiatric hospital so I might think too much about the idea of "punishment" LOL!

So many replies. LOL I didn't reread my replies cuz there's so many, so I'm sorry for any typos. I did catch some autocorrect errors, so if something seems odd in wording, I'd be happy to clarify.

If he is very harsh and frequent with his punishments, I can understand why he is scared of them. Physical discipline that is more mild and quite infrequent typically has virtually as much negative impact as non-physical discipline. I guess its the concept of it can be helpful without harm as long as it's in moderation.

I do agree it definitely hurts the children's pride especially. Embarrassment is very effective in making a lasting memory.

Agreed. Instantly lashing out is definitely a terrible practice. The angrier you are the more impaired your judgement is at that time. That's a big reason why my mother would choose to take us home before dishing out any punishment. She understood that concept and didn't want to just merely cause us pain. I believe that's the rational thought process.

Very true. Like I discussed with the frequency and intensity of the discipline has been shown to cause more harm than good. Moderation and rationality is extremely important when deciding on how to administer physical punishments.

First, I'm very sorry you had to go through something so terrible. Second, I'm not asking to argue. I'm just asking for clarification. I want to make sure I know what you're saying. I understand that you definitely experienced a more severe version of the discipline in your childhood (by what you've stated). As I've stated to others, severe punishment like what you went through are in fact proven to have terrible emotional and mental results, so I completely understand where you're coming from. For the clarification, do you mean no physical discipline for any age, no matter how minor/mild, no matter how infrequent, no matter the reason/circumstance, or non-dangerous that any method is?

That is true.

The experience of needing to "punish each kid according to what gets through to them" is something I've heard a lot from different people. A thought I have from a previous reply was...

There's been studies that show that very mild and infrequent discipline, such as a pop (not harshly) on the hand or butt no more than about once a month has about as much harmful effect as non-physical punishment, which is basically nothing. Moderation seems to be a key in its effectiveness without causing damage

I think my reply to and would be a majority summary of my reply. I will say that talking to a child of a who is too young to comprehend the gravity of action they committed, would prove to be a struggle since they do not possess the same reasoning even close to an older child or teen/adult. Time outs and restrictions can be useful and in most cases are the automatic best choice, but if they prove to be ineffective, a mild and rare pop on the butt or hand can be helpful without causing harm.

While I completely agree with the first part of the teacher's statement, the second have of "not understanding" can be applied to any form of punishment. I do believe that non-physical punishments should be administered first and foremost, while physical forms should be more of a last resort. Plus, even when using physical methods, they should be minimal (no marks) and used as sparingly as possible, insuring the child does not suffer from negative repercussions mentally. Once a child is old enough to have sound judgement and truly understand their actions, the door and trash examples would be excellent ideas. Agreed. Rehabilitation is immensely important. Although, the concept of rehabilitation is often considered in the context of grown adults (who generally comprehend the impact of their actions) learning how to correct their behavior, but like I stated above, very young children don't possess this skill. Also, while rehabilitation is crucial, the punishment (whether physical or not) serves as the deterrent from doing a wrong action which is also important.

I smelled the community guidelines. They tasted burnt. [edit] This post was edited.

I honestly don't need studies telling me if and how harmful a slap on the wrist would be, regardless the result I still would not do it myself. If you (or some scientists) think that a pop on the hand is ok so be it but for me it's nothing I would want to do and no study will change that. Might be a side effect of my job life but that's a different story. ^,~

Growing up my parents had mixed opinions on this. Both used spanking and such, but only as last resort. Rather we would be dealt with by labor punishment.

I don't know how I'll deal with discipline, I'm never having children. I have nieces, but they seem to behave in my house...