Corporal punishment in schools.

[Starblade]

So exactly how does one punish their kid?

You really can't think of a way besides beating them or threatening them with violence?

Almost every study of development holds that by about the age of 6 a child can understand cause and effect quite clearly, including multifaceted causes.

Really? That's interesting, I wouldn't expect a child at the age of 6 to understand even the basics of abuse, much less understand why its happening to them or differentiating being abused or being punished. Please link some of these studies, I'd like to read them.

[Starfisher]

I'm not trying to trick you or lead you on or something. I'm simply asking a question: how do you punish a kid without the threat of force? Can you construct an actual response, please?

[Arinax]

I just overflew the discussion but I am rather shocked how many ppl find spanking to be an adequate way to educate a child. How about being consequent as a parent when calling out a sanction like no TV for you or a penalty which includes thinking why it was stupid doing certain things. Eg. a thoughtful punishiment. i guess spanking is the easiest way for a parent to punish a child but by far not the best.

[Starblade]

I'm simply asking a question: how do you punish a kid without the threat of force? Can you construct an actual response, please?

Grounding, "time out", and taking things away come immediately to mind. Other methods exist, I'm sure. If you really wanted to I guess you could shout at and intimidate them until they literally cringe in fear at the sound of a slightly raised voice, I'm sure that will create a well adjusted individual in an often loud world.

[Langy]

It is not creepy, and no I never played football (or any sport where this occurred regularly). You seem to be demonstrating an aversion to any sort of physical contact, which is something our society as a whole has manifested. Which is a very bad thing. Also if you read the linked article, it notes quite clearly that pro sports teams who "touch" each other more often are better performers.

The touches that article mentions have nothing to do with the ones I was talking about, which was the stereotypical 'coach slaps the athlete's ass' thing. If I do it to a girl, it's sexual assault. If I'm a forty year old man and do that to a fifteen year old boy who I'm coaching, it's suddenly... I don't know what. I have no idea what the purpose of playing grab-ass in the locker room is, except I find the concept a little creepy. The ass is too much a sexual area. Just slap them on the back like everybody else.

Langy: Yeah, that kind of spanking - "repeated strikes with the intent to cause physical pain" - is considered a beating by most people. Discipline and punishment for children should never be about causing pain. One just needs to look at the other animals on the planet to realize that causing pain to children is not natural behavior. A wolf will nip a cub's nose, a bear will swat a cub's ear. Neither is about causing pain, but rather about sending a 'wake-up call' with a quick shock.

I also believe that as the child gets older, the punishments and discipline techniques must change. From around 7-9 years old (child dependent), punishments are more effective if utilizing some form of depriving the child of something. Grounding, taking toys away, removing access to the computer, etc. This is because by that age children can be reasoned with more effectively, ground-rules can be established and explained, compromises can be made, dialogue can be entered into with a reasonable expectation of clear understanding. Flexibility and honesty are key at that stage. After that it's about consistency.

That's definitely not the kind of spanking that this thread is about. Look at the actual article that spawned it, which is about schools using spankings on kids from age 6 up through high school, and with the spankings being repeated and with the intent to cause pain, not a single slap on the butt.

[Starfisher]

Grounding, "time out", belting them, and taking things away come immediately to mind. Other methods exist, I'm sure. If you really wanted to I guess you could shout at and intimidate them until they literally cringe in fear at the sound of a slightly raised voice, I'm sure that will create a well adjusted individual in an often loud world.

Ok, so how is grounding not as bad as a spanking? The prison article about lashes is a good read. If you had the choice as a kid to get grounded for a couple days or spanked, which would you choose? Why would you make your choice?

Again, there seems to be this incredible bias in our society against using physical violence, a bias which does not appear to extend to any other form of violence. Grounding, time out, etc only work because they cause mental pain. If they didn't, they wouldn't be effective. So why is mental force acceptable when physical force is not?

[Starblade]

Ok, so how is grounding not as bad as a spanking? The prison article about lashes is a good read. If you had the choice as a kid to get grounded for a couple days or spanked, which would you choose? Why would you make your choice?

What I would choose is irrelevant (and I would rather you not ask me that question again). That that is a choice does not make it right. I could also choose between getting kicked in the balls or getting spanked, or being lashed versus starvation, that doesn't make the other option a good one, or an acceptable one. Telling that you compare punishment for children to punishment for prisoners though.

So why is mental force acceptable when physical force is not?

I don't think the mental trauma from being grounded or whatever else is as great as the physical and mental trauma from being beaten.

Also I'm glad I'm not the only one whose been having his posts duplicated lately. What's up with that?

[Langy]

Again, there seems to be this incredible bias in our society against using physical violence, a bias which does not appear to extend to any other form of violence. Grounding, time out, etc only work because they cause mental pain. If they didn't, they wouldn't be effective. So why is mental force acceptable when physical force is not?

Partially because physical force is not acceptable in society in general, so you shouldn't treat your children to utilize it to solve their problems.

Starblade: I think his point was that some kids would rather accept the spanking than be grounded. Of course, this means to me that the spanking isn't going to be a successful technique for discipline any longer, but hey.

I'm glad I'm not the only one whose been having his posts duplicated lately, though. What's up with that?

I noticed that. I think maybe the forum software accidentally lost the 'avoid duplicated posts' hack that we used to have. Strange, though.

[Starfisher]

Telling that you compare punishment for children to punishment for prisoners though.

Telling of what? Seriously dude, every thread you post in recently you lace with these little personal one liners. STOP IT.

That that is a choice does not make it right. I could also choose between getting kicked in the balls or getting spanked, or being lashed versus starvation, that doesn't make the other option a good one, or an acceptable one.

You suggested grounding as an acceptable alternative to spanking as a punishment, so I went with that. I was curious as to why one would be acceptable over the other, and to illustrate the issue I offered the choice scenario. It forces you to justify your belief that one is worse than the other - and, interestingly enough, many people seem to chose the physical punishment over having a chunk of their time stolen, the opposite of what you might expect if physical punishment actually was the worse option for the recipient.

Langy, the conclusion that because people would choose spanking means it must not be very harsh contradicts the premise that corporal punishment is worse than taking time away or some alternative. Why would someone choose the worse alternative?

[Starblade]

Telling of what?

It's telling of what you think of children. And prisoners, actually. Is it okay to beat prisoners? If we can do it to children why not prisoners, or, like the comparison you brought up, if we can do it to prisoners why not children (or fuck, child prisoners, America has those)? What's it matter who has what power over who? What's the limit on physical violence we can inflict on either group, in your opinion? Why?

You suggested grounding as an acceptable alternative to spanking as a punishment, so I went with that.

You missed the point. That the choice is between being grounded or beaten at all, whether or not the kid chooses to be beaten instead, is a bad choice. It is not a choice the kid should be making, or be given.

I was curious as to why one would be acceptable over the other, and to illustrate the issue I offered the choice scenario.

I know what I would choose and why, but I'm not answering this question in public. If you'd like I could PM you why.

[Starfisher]

It's telling of what you think of children. And prisoners, actually. Is it okay to beat prisoners? If we can do it to children why not prisoners, or, like the comparison you brought up, if we can do it to prisoners why not children (or fuck, child prisoners, America has those)? What's it matter who has what power over who? What's the limit on physical violence we can inflict on either group, in your opinion? Why?

... whaa???

I honestly don't know if there's any utility to physical discipline. I'm reacting to the intensity of the opinion that ANY physical discipline is CLEARLY evil, trying to figure out why that is the case, when other forms of violence are tacitly condoned or offered as alternatives. You haven't responded to this point and keep hitting me with stuff so bizarrely tangential to my point that I don't even know how to respond to it. Can you just please answer that instead of trying to do some sort of defense by offense?

Why is grounding not as bad as spanking? Your assertion that is has less mental effect would be contradicted by the answer many give preferring that form of punishment to a grounding - why would people choose the choice that's worse?

[Starblade]

Yes, the kid may consider being spanked lesser than several days of being grounded. It possibly is preferable to that person. Again, why is that an appropriate choice to even give? What is the limit on the physical violence you would like for parents to be able to inflict on their children? Just spankings? Why stop there? Why not go back to the good old days of beating the shit out of the kid? Why not go farther? What's acceptable to you and what isn't?

I'm reacting to the intensity of the opinion that ANY physical discipline is CLEARLY evil, trying to figure out why that is the case, when other forms of violence are tacitly condoned or offered as alternatives.

I don't believe people in positions of power should use it to inflict harm on those without it, I don't care who it is. You think its okay and appropriate to beat children. You compared the example of choosing between being grounded and being spanked to prisoners, bringing up them choosing lashes over solitary confinement (considered a form of torture in several parts of the world) as a comparison. You introduced that. Since you consider it okay to inflict on children, why wouldn't it be okay to inflict on adults too?

And before you suggest it yes some forms of nonphysical violence are also inappropriate.

Your assertion that is has less mental effect would be contradicted by the answer many give preferring that form of punishment to a grounding - why would people choose the choice that's worse?

No, I didn't. I said I consider it less harmful to ground a kid then to beat them. That's why I think it's a more appropriate punishment (especially if the kid would prefer the other option). They choose the other because it's over with quicker, or they think it's "lesser". That doesn't make it right to do. What if the option for punishment was being belted or grounded? Would it be okay to hit the kid with a belt then? If I were imprisoned I could choose between 20 lashes or The Box, thinking the box is easier (everyone knows it's not, but let's say I don't know that). Is The Box acceptable?

[Starfisher]

You think its okay and appropriate to beat children.

Never said that, never implied that. This is what I was talking about when I said that you need to stop it with the random ad hominem in threads. Let's say, for a moment, that I had kids and all I did was beat on them all day. It would entirely irrelevant to the logic or merit of my argument, just as having kids that I never touched without their consent in the presence of witness would be. Stop using ad hominem.

As far as I can tell, our society has made the assumption that any physical discipline is inherently more harmful than non-physical discipline, without stopping to consider whether or not that's actually true. Obviously grounding a kid is less harmful then beating the living shit out of them, but is it less harmful than smacking them a few times in the butt? Flicking their ear? Tapping them lightly? Violence is violence, force is force, and if the only metric is net harm then whether or not its physical should be irrelevant.

But that's not the argument being put forth, nor is it the tack society is taking.

[Aron_DeTomado]

I think the reason that physical force in general is so abhorred in our society is that it is an infliction of pain, which goes against whichever rudimentary philosophical sensibilities we might have been raised to have. Physical punishment causes pain in a way that imprisonment/grounding and fining/withholding allowance simply doesn't. The premise of your argument, Starfisher, seems to be that economic harm and deprivation of liberty causes some sort of mental pain, which is the flaw in your argument. The purpose of grounding a kid isn't to emotionally abuse it (in fact I vaguely recall reading about a recent scientific finding which suggests that emotional pain is neurologically identical to physical pain) - if your child is suffering emotional trauma from your punishments you are clearly conducting them wrong regardless of whether they include spanking or not.

The purposes of grounding (and imprisonment) are manifold. To begin with, there is the general principle of all punishments that they alter the cost/benefit analysis of unwanted actions - The hypothetical satisfaction of beating up some obnoxious guy in a bar is supposed to be outweighed by the cost of being thrown in jail.

Secondly, there is the reflective element: Being detained gives pause for reflection over the consequences and morality of one's actions , with the outcome hopefully being a change in behaviour. This can only be accomplished through grounding or a timeout, not by inflicting pain.

Thirdly, there is the element of isolation. The idea here is that people shouldn't have to put up with behaviour X, so if you behave in X way you don't get to be around other people. Since our society doesn't believe in victims accommodating the aggressor, that means you will be kept away from other people rather than other people having to stay away from you. This is an institutionalised version of the informal social ostracism peer groups can use to eliminate undesirable behaviour. This is why we deport immigrant criminals. In the case of natives, we choose to imprison them simply because we have nowhere else to send them, though I would like to direct your attention the the fact that ancient societies practised exile as a form of punishment. Also Australia. (Ostracism, incidentally, is the only punishment used by the Romani for people convicted in their version of a tribunal for breaking their customs - if you don't abide by their social contract you don't get to be a part of their society.) In the case of children, kicking them out of the house might be considered irresponsible, so the only recourse is to confine them to their room, or the house itself. This institutionalisation of isolation cannot be achieved simply by inflicting pain.

Fourthly. there is the probationary aspect. Restricting a persons liberties for a period of time allows you to monitor them and see if they are following your other rules. If they manage to do this, you feel inclined to reinstate their rights on the assumption that since they are now following all your other rules, they will no longer break rule X. This effect cannot be achieved simply through inflicting pain.

Finally, there is the aspect of protecting children from themselves. You cannot beat the addiction out of a 12-year-old, but confining them to the house where they can't get hold of alcohol might help.

To summarise, beyond the fact that I don't agree with the premise "deprivation of liberty=pain," using a method like grounding is simply several orders of magnitude more productive than simply hitting someone. Also, trying to beat a set of ideas into someone is, quite frankly, rather uncivilised. A timeout gives time both for reflection and discussion in which you can persuade people to change their minds, or even let you see things their way. Spanking gives no such room for appeal. In fact, it is a logical fallacy.

[Starblade]

Never said that, never implied that.

That's what spanking is. Corporal punishment by definition involves hitting or injuring the child. The intent is pain. It's literally what it is. You're approving of spanking the child. You're approving of corporal punishment. You're approving of beating them.

Unless of course you're playing devil's advocate or don't actually think hitting the child is acceptable, in which case I apologize.

Violence is violence, force is force, and if the only metric is net harm then whether or not its physical should be irrelevant.

Not all force is equal. Not all forms of force are appropriate. One method of violence is not equivalent to another.

[Aron_DeTomado]

force is force

Heh. Your house may be massive, but unless its an RV its pretty much going to be stationary, which means it doesn't have any force at all.

[Starfisher]

Starblade:
Ad hominem is attempting to emphasize the personal attributes of the person you're arguing with in an attempt to make their argument look weaker. Whether or not I believe in corporal punishment is irrelevant to my argument. Ad hominem is not tolerate on these forums. So stop it.

Not all force is equal. Not all forms of force are appropriate. One method of violence is not equivalent to another.

Why? Can you please justify this statement? From my perspective, there is no difference between pain caused via any mechanism, physical, verbal, social, or whatever. It's all pain. Why are they different? What makes one more acceptable than another?

Aron:
Here's where I think your argument breaks down:

(Ostracism, incidentally, is the only punishment used by the Romani for people convicted in their version of a tribunal for breaking their customs - if you don't abide by their social contract you don't get to be a part of their society.) In the case of children, kicking them out of the house might be considered irresponsible, so the only recourse is to confine them to their room, or the house itself. This institutionalisation of isolation cannot be achieved simply by inflicting pain.

You say above that causing emotional pain means the punishment is wrong, but here you spell out exactly why grounding inflicts emotional pain, and cite examples of societies using isolation as the ultimate punishment. So why would we inflict that, even temporarily, on a child?

The framework around the punishment can be anything - you can insert anything from a spanking to doing extra math homework to doing cartwheels into a process which incorporates discussing the problem, the solution, why the punishment is occurring and how to avoid it in the future. Isolation's only benefit is the potential for the person to think it over, but it seems to come at the cost of striking at the one of the basic things that makes us human. And they might just sit there and stew and come out the worse for it.

A hypothetical: your kid is being a shit and so you ground him. He refuses to stay in his room. How do you keep him there? With force, of course! The alliterative solution to all your disciplinary needs.

Your argument in favor of grounding is pretty good, all that said. I think the real issue here is efficacy, and I'm sure there are reams of literature out there studying exactly that. I wouldn't be surprised to discover, however, that the reality of the matter is far more complicated than "physical == bad, everything else == ok"

[TDATL]

some forms of nonphysical violence are also inappropriate

And in those cases how do you determine "inappropriate?" Starfisher has been trying to get you to elaborate on why you believe what you do. He isn't doing this because he necessarily believes your position to be wrong. He is doing this because of how sure you seem to be of the position. If you are so sure then you should be able to explain it.

Even if he wasn't playing devil's advocate, it still doesn't explain why you can't answer his questions.

It increasingly seems like you don't know why you feel the way you do or are unable to articulate it (something we all do from time to time.) Starfisher is trying to resolve that (at least that is how I see it.)

[Langy]

Langy, the conclusion that because people would choose spanking means it must not be very harsh contradicts the premise that corporal punishment is worse than taking time away or some alternative. Why would someone choose the worse alternative?

I never said the punishment wasn't very harsh - I said it wasn't going to work very well. If they choose the beating, it means they are no longer likely to respond to that form of discipline appropriately, because they think it's something they can handle without much problem. Just because it doesn't work on everyone doesn't mean it's appropriate to use on anyone.

---

In any case, I've already discussed why I think using physical violence upon kids is a Bad Idea, and you've ignored it. I think I'll say it again, so maybe you'll respond this time rather than continuing to ask 'why is physical violence bad but grounding isn't'.

Basically, it boils down to what society deems acceptable. Society does not believe that hitting people is an acceptable method of discipline (with the distinct exception of when the person being hit is a child). I do not believe we should teach our kids to solve their problems by using violence - thus, you shouldn't hit your kids when they do things you disapprove of, as that's teaching them that violence is acceptable.

Basically, don't do something to a child that, if the child repeats it, will get them thrown in jail.

You say above that causing emotional pain means the punishment is wrong, but here you spell out exactly why grounding inflicts emotional pain, and cite examples of societies using isolation as the ultimate punishment. So why would we inflict that, even temporarily, on a child?

Also, I'm failing to see any emotional pain there. You may have a completely different definition of 'emotional pain' than any of us; I'd typically categorize it as something that could actually cause the child serious psychological problems, like being raped. Raping a child is quite obviously not an acceptable punishment, I'm sure you'll agree, and so is otherwise causing any serious emotional pain.

[Starblade]

Starfisher that isn't what an ad hominem is. Spanking a child, a form of corporal punishment, is beating them. You're okay with spanking them. That's not an ad hominem, it's your stated position. Saying that because you don't have children so your position is without merit would be an ad hominem, or saying that you're a Nazi so no one should listen to you (not that you are).

It's all pain. Why are they different?

Prick your finger with a pin. Now stab it with a knife. Is that equally painful? Is being called a racial slur equivalent to being shot? Being strangled equal to be punched? Being spanked to being electrocuted? Waterboarded to extended solitary confinement? Being grounded to being starved? These things aren't equivalent to one another. They cause different physical and mental reactions. In addition it is not appropriate to use certain forms of force in certain instances. It is either unnecessary, an overreaction, or it can be worse than the infraction the punishment is for. Is chopping off a thief's hand, a historical example, acceptable? How about executing a music pirate? Burning a rapist at the stake?

And in those cases how do you determine "inappropriate?"

Presumably at the point it causes permanent trauma (or before, one instance isn't likely to do it), like in LoCo's anecdote. Threats of violence are not appropriate and are considered abusive by society at large, for example.

[Buguba]

Gah, I seemed to have missed quite a bit in my absence, but I'll just respond to what I can.

I don't see how a single spank would do anything to deter anyone, unless the child was very, very young. I doubt a single spank would do much for any of the school-age children I deal with regularly.

Are you assuming the spanked child is extremely young, or more along the lines of the ones in the linked article (school age, from 6 up to teenagers).

My assumption from the get-go has been that we're dealing with a child from about 2 - 6. I apologize though, because that's something I should have clarified from the start. Most of my experience in dealing with children is within the 0 - 6 age group. Like LoCo stated (and significantly more eloquently than I ever did), the spanking itself winds up being more of a shock tactic rather than a method of genuinely distributing pain.

Personally, I believe children past the age of 7 or 8 are generally conscious enough of their own actions that spanking isn't an effective tactic. By that time, children are usually developed enough to recognize when their behavior is inappropriate or not. That's when spanking ceases to be a "shock" tactic and more of a dubious pain vs pleasure psychology.

[Starfisher]

@Langy:
I was talking to Starblade and Aron for the past few posts, not ignoring you. Sorry for missing your point.

So how would isolation work as a punishment if it's not painful? Societies using it as the ultimate punishment would seem to contradict the notion that it's pain-free. Isolation can also serve simply to get rid of something offensive, but that's the context we're using here.

Your "society doesn't approve" argument against physical violence is interesting. That seems to say that pain is fine so long as it's delivered in a socially approved mechanism, which is not the same thing as saying that the pain is well-justified either morally or from a utilitarian standpoint. Does that mean that three hundred years ago, it was ok to use corporal punishment?

Starfisher that isn't what an ad hominem is. Spanking a child, a form of corporal punishment, is beating them. You're okay with spanking them. That's not an ad hominem, it's your stated position. Saying that because you don't have children so your position is without merit would be an ad hominem.

Except that isn't even close to my stated position and never has been. Final warning. Stop. If you really don't get this, send me a PM.

[Aron_DeTomado]

Mandatory cartwheels or extra maths homework will also include an element of isolation, or at least detainment, though. "Promise me you'll do cartwheels" probably isn't going to be a very effective form of punishment. Isolation/ostracism also has a strictly practical benefit beyond any emotional pain it might inflict, which is that it removes undesirable elements from your comfort zone. When we make people leave a hospital to have a smoke it isn't "punishment" for their nicotine addiction, nor is restricting people from having a picnic on a highway "punishment" for their eating habits. Rather, these things are intended to protect people from second hand smoke and prevent traffic collisions respectively. I would also argue that we don't deport people to hurt their feelings.

I will readily agree that emotional pain can be a consequence of grounding someone, but it isn't the point of grounding, or at least isn't supposed (IMO) to be. In fact, I would go so far as to say that one should actually go out of one's way to avoid causing emotional pain when punishing children. I suppose you could say that intent is something of a dividing factor here. Unlike spanking, a timeout isn't intended to cause pain.

Of course, that still doesn't necessitate that "physical = bad, everything else = ok," since intent can be drastically different from the actual consequences. I think it is reasonable, however, to make the judgement call that grounding done even close to right will cause significantly less pain than spanking.

Furthermore, there is the matter of philosophical ownership. By spanking a child, you are implicitly teaching them that they do not own their own body. Confining them to their room will implicitly teach them something else, which we might call not "owning your time." This, in my opinion, is a far less damaging lesson, especially since they will have to learn it sooner or later anyway (everyone will have to spend significant amounts of time waiting around at one point or another in their lives). If you want your child to grow up feeling secure, then I believe that teaching them they have an inviolable, absolute ownership of their body will be conducive to this end. As you say, this is perhaps where efficacy comes in, and while I haven't really studied the subject academically, it is my belief that there is value in teaching people they have an absolute right to their own bodies., for the purposes of making them feel secure and ultimately make them well adjusted.

[Fish Of Doom]

random thought: why does it have to be a "punishment", per se, that is used to instill civic responsibility in children? i know that the degree of mental development of the child is going to play a huge factor in this, and that until a nebulous point in an individual's developmental process, you can't simply sit the kid down and talk to it as if to an intellectual peer*, but from where does the need come to instill a sense of responsibility, for lack of a better term, specifically through the use of negative physiological or psychological feedback, justifiable as certain cases might be argued to be (or not)?

*although i firmly believe it's important to identify said point as efficiently as might be humanly possible, and gradually start engaging in more complex conversations, particularly as regarding imparting the capacity to learn by oneself, to hasten along the child's intellectual development.

[Starfisher]

I will readily agree that emotional pain can be a consequence of grounding someone, but it isn't the point of grounding, or at least isn't supposed (IMO) to be. In fact, I would go so far as to say that one should actually go out of one's way to avoid causing emotional pain when punishing children. I suppose you could say that intent is something of a dividing factor here. Unlike spanking, a timeout isn't intended to cause pain.

Ah, but the basic justification of a spanking is to teach the kid not to do something. Causing pain is the not the goal, merely the tool used to teach the lesson, just as isolation is not the goal of a time out. I think we can all agree that just beating up a kid to cause pain is a terrible thing.

So that brings me back to the point about efficacy; it's probably hard to disentangle something like this from the billion other confounding factors that make up a childhood. So here's a scenario: imagine that it's been proven (somehow) that a light spanking (3-4 sharp slaps to the butt) is more effective and less psychologically damaging than an extended grounding (say 3-4 days without seeing friends to keep the numbers equal). Would you spank your child or ground them?

I think what we're seeing here is more, as I think Langy pointed out, that society is simply creating different parents. We don't like to hurt people. We don't want to hurt people. So, when faced with child-rearing, we're socialized to believe that any sort of physical violence is a bad thing. I don't have a problem with that personally, but I do find it somewhat odd or perhaps inconsistent that we still haven't caught up with stigmatizing other forms of violence. I guess we'll get there eventually, if the trend holds.

[Langy]

So that brings me back to the point about efficacy; it's probably hard to disentangle something like this from the billion other confounding factors that make up a childhood. So here's a scenario: imagine that it's been proven (somehow) that a light spanking (3-4 sharp slaps to the butt) is more effective and less psychologically damaging than an extended grounding (say 3-4 days without seeing friends to keep the numbers equal). Would you spank your child or ground them?

That's a pretty tough question. It depends upon whether I actually believed the study, and what they mean by 'more effective and less psychologically damaging'. If I did believe it, and it meant that the child was more likely to have fewer mental disorders, less crime rate, and less propensity to resort to violence in situations that don't warrant it - then yes, I'd have to start spanking children rather than grounding them.

None of that's likely to happen though. Most of the studies I've seen have been inconclusive, showing that there was no real cause-effect relationship between whether you'd been spanked or not and adult behavior. There is a correlation between having been spanked and being less intelligent, but I think that the kids were spanked more often due to their intelligence deficiencies rather than the other way around. Since the studies I've seen haven't showed anything like a marked improvement in behavior/mental issues in kids that have been spanked, I see no reason to resort to it rather than using other methods that don't get close to child abuse.

Ah, but the basic justification of a spanking is to teach the kid not to do something. Causing pain is the not the goal, merely the tool used to teach the lesson, just as isolation is not the goal of a time out. I think we can all agree that just beating up a kid to cause pain is a terrible thing.

Causing pain is the way to teach the lesson, yes, but grounding someone isn't intended to cause pain, unlike with a spanking. One of the primary goals in a spanking is to cause pain.

So how would isolation work as a punishment if it's not painful? Societies using it as the ultimate punishment would seem to contradict the notion that it's pain-free. Isolation can also serve simply to get rid of something offensive, but that's the context we're using here.

Long-term complete isolation causes emotional pain, yes. This is pretty definitively proven - if you stick someone in a sensory deprivation tank for long enough they begin to go insane. But grounding? No. That doesn't cause emotional pain. Pain is not the only method of punishment. Again, I think you may be using a completely different definition of 'pain' from anyone else in this discussion - emotional pain is something akin to what happens to rape victims. It is not what happens to people who are grounded.

[PetarB]

This is chillingly close to a typical excuse for domestic violence and abuse.

Rubbish.

I'm a parent of 3 well adjusted and high-achieving young ladies. At one stage or other they all got a smack on the bottom at a young age, for various reasons. Around the age of 4-5... they all grew out of the necessity of this. Young children lack the sophistication to understand danger or even stern warnings. Sometimes its important to reinforce a severe reprimand to stop the behaviour again, especially when that behaviour has exceptionally dire consequences. The niceties of political correctness pale into insignificance when your child's life is on the line.

Now that they are a little older, different punishment is more effective. Grounding, no tv, no computer, etc.

Teacher corporal punishment, however, is totally uneccessary, due to the age factor. I don't think its effective, and just creates a terrible future relationship between the teacher and student.

[roflmao]

In the moment, before getting a spanking, I'd always say to myself I wish I were grounded or had something taken away from me instead of getting a swat. After the spanking happened, I was incredibly glad the punishment was a 15 second pain instead of losing privileges for an entire day.

I know I'm not representative of the human species so I'll stop it with my excessively corny references to my spanking days .

[Stripe7]

Teacher based corporal punishment should not be allowed. However I am for judicial based corporal punishment. Rather than having the revolving door policy of the US judicial system, it would probably be cheaper to have judicial based corporal punishment for minor crimes. Sort of what they have in Singapore.

[Starblade]

The niceties of political correctness pale into insignificance when your child's life is on the line.

I have no idea what "political correctness" has to do with anything (boy I am sick of that phrase), but I would like to hear the story behind "I must spank my daughter or she will die". That sounds pretty interesting.

[Bonnet]

Causing pain is the way to teach the lesson, yes, but grounding someone isn't intended to cause pain, unlike with a spanking. One of the primary goals in a spanking is to cause pain.

I think a lot of this thread is facing a serious, and fundamental misunderstanding of basic human psychology and biology. A few facts to realize:

1) Emotional pain is biologically the same as physical pain [MacDonald, Geoff]. fMRI's confirm this, the same neural pathways are activated when you feel emotionally distressed as when your burn your finger.

2) Small children are egocentric. They are literally incapable of sympathy [see Piaget]. For a short period the only incentives they respond to are direct casual ones that affect there worlds. The smaller the child the less there ability to determine cause and effect over spans of time and complexity of events.

3) Grounding does cause emotional pain. If you have had or had to watch a small (4-8) year old child you have seen them absolutely explode in tears over being grounded.

Again, I think you may be using a completely different definition of 'pain' from anyone else in this discussion - emotional pain is something akin to what happens to rape victims. It is not what happens to people who are grounded.

No, your are simply talking about degrees of pain. A rape victim feels severe pain (recall there is biologically no difference between physical and emotional pain). A child deprived of his toys, or grounded feels light pain. Just as a child given two or three solid whacks on the bottom feels light pain. Someone with a broken leg feels severe pain.

There is a continuum of pain, and there is a continuum of force. "Light" pain as discipline is appropriate, whether its physical or emotional. Lots of pain is never appropriate.

I have no idea what "political correctness" has to do with anything (boy I am sick of that phrase), but I would like to hear the story behind "I must spank my daughter or she will die". That sounds pretty interesting.

Children play with a wall sockets, play in a busy street, play with guns or bullets, eat strange powders, bite people, etc. These are all fantastic reasons for which an immediate physical consequence may be warranted. Not only that, like dogs or cats smaller children have trouble making long term associations. While its fine for it to take a little while for a child to learn not to steal anthers toys, it is absolutely imperative they immediately learn that playing with wall sockets is unacceptable. As children become older other forms of punishment become more effective. There ability to associate cause and effect grows to longer periods, and more complex sets of events.

[Langy]

Again, two or three whacks on the bottom isn't what this thread is dealing with. It's dealing with repeated spanks (typically with an object such as a paddle) done to adolescents to teenagers - I don't think two or three hits is going to do anything to them but annoy them, and it's certainly not going to cause the severe welts mentioned in the article in the OP.

As someone who has experienced anxiety in the past, I can confirm without a doubt that it is not the same as physical pain. It manifests in completely different ways. For one, it doesn't have the entire 'sensation of pain' bit that that article mentions. Yes, the article defines something called 'pain affect', but that's otherwise known as negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is not the same thing as pain! That paper defines 'pain affect' as being the same thing as what 'negative reinforcement' is, but that doesn't mean it's actually correct.

[Starblade]

These are all fantastic reasons for which an immediate physical consequence may be warranted.

All of those could be thwarted by moving the child away from the source of danger or being a less shitty parent that doesn't keep their loaded gun in the open. I was hoping for something more interesting than that (though thinking about it it's just going to be something like you just said).

[Bonnet]

Again, two or three whacks on the bottom isn't what this thread is dealing with. It's dealing with repeated spanks (typically with an object such as a paddle) done to adolescents to teenagers - I don't think two or three hits is going to do anything to them but annoy them, and it's certainly not going to cause the severe welts mentioned in the article in the OP.

As someone who has experienced anxiety in the past, I can confirm without a doubt that it is not the same as physical pain. It manifests in completely different ways. For one, it doesn't have the entire 'sensation of pain' bit that that article mentions. Yes, the article defines something called 'pain affect', but that's otherwise known as negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is not the same thing as pain! That paper defines 'pain affect' as being the same thing as what 'negative reinforcement' is, but that doesn't mean it's actually correct.

The thread is dealing with both topics. However, everyone pretty much agrees with you. Leaving welts isn't ever an acceptable level of punishment. As to the second point you are wrong. Again:

Consensus thinking in the peer-review literature is that the parts of one’s brain responsible for physical pain, the dorsal anterior cingulate and anterior insula, also underlie emotional pain. ...
The fMRI scans showed physical and emotional pain overlapped in the dorsal anterior cingulate and anterior insula, with overlapping increases in thalamus and right parietal opercular/insular cortex in the right side of the brain (opposite to the left arm).

All of those could be thwarted by moving the child away from the source of danger or being a less shitty parent that doesn't keep their loaded gun in the open. I was hoping for something more interesting than that (though thinking about it it's just going to be something like you just said).

I am sorry, you are obviously not around children at all. Every parent does there best to remove all elements of danger from a child's life. However, you can not remove all elements of danger from a child's life.No matter how attentive a parent you are, your child will do something that is mortally dangerous to them at some point. Almost every parent has such a story. Being a "shitty" parent has nothing to do with it.

[PetarB]

I agree Bonnet, it sound like Starblade either is not a parent or has not been around children for any extended periods of time as the person solely responsible for their long term growth. I maybe wrong, but that's just how it sounds.

[Aron_DeTomado]

If you have had or had to watch a small (4-8) year old child you have seen them absolutely explode in tears over being grounded.

Yeah, uh, don't ground 4-year-olds. I mean what the hell guys, of course you will fuck up your children if you decide to go all Josef Fritzl on them, but lets maintain a sense of proportion here. A 4-year-old does not need a grounding. Like, ever. At that age kids are so emotionally frail a lot of them will burst into tears for raising your voice so yeah, locking them up in the house for days or weeks on end is pretty fucked up. Hell, most of them wouldn't even need a few hours, let alone days. Honestly, the things you can do with kids just by talking to them and making them feel they can trust you, are amazing. I would go on to make a further point, but I don't think I can before I'm sure this thread isn't arguing over a straw man.

Edit: I'll get to your hypothetical later, Starfisher. Also I promise to address your point, Fish of Doom

[Fish Of Doom]

soooo... anyone have any thoughts on what i asked on post 74?

[Agdune]

soooo... anyone have any thoughts on what i asked on post 74?

...unacknowledged posts are great fun, aren't they?

[Argonaut]

OK, inflammatory subject.

As a child, I was caned at school, across the palm of the hand with a thin length of bamboo. By god it fucking hurt. A lot. Then getting another bollocking later in the same day for messy handwriting just added to the huge piss off factor of the whole thing. It was given for bullying and you know what? I never went near that kid I bullied ever again. Not even spoke to him. So at a most basic level, the caning worked - problem solved.

Now, I have three boys of my own, 6,4, and 2 years old. I do not condone another person hitting my children, or even smacking them across the back of the legs. My wife and I have, however, smacked all three children at some point in their lives. I'm not talking about thrashing them with a bunch of nettles or anything, but a stinging smack on the legs snaps them out of their tantrums.

I'll quantify this a little. The two year old cannot be reasoned with when he's being naughty, also he doesn't understand the impact of his actions when he's wailing on his brothers with a toy in his hand and belting them with a plastic golf club. His older brothers do not respond because they understand that hitting people is wrong - the youngest doesn't understand and cannot be reasoned with. A SMALL slap across the legs or back of the hand shocks him into behaving. It is the shock that is required, not physical pain. When our children become old enough to understand reason, and punishment (such as removing the nintendo DS) then that is a much more effective way of disciplining them. Another point is, as they grow up (and especially with boys) they're bigger, more stubborn and a higher level of force is required. Down that road madness lies - when he's fourteen you'll end up thrashing him with a belt to get the same effect. Not good. Here is the end result of failing to identify the right time to change your tactics, just because a small slap to a two year old snap them out of a furious tantrum, it doesn't follow that a big smack will correct the behavior of an adolescent.

As a teacher surely you should have a much higher understanding of child development and suit punishments to the age range of the child involved. It is my opinion that the use of a slap to shock a child into behaving is completely ineffective once their ability to understand and reason(to any degree) is begining to mature. My eldest children haven't had a slap for years as there are far more effective ways of "punishing" children than simply walloping them.

;edit; Fear of punishment is probably one of the biggest driving factors in many people's everyday lives. You do a good job at work so you won't get a bollocking in the office and lose your job. You're a good partner to your wife so you don't have a shitty home life. Sure, there are people who don't feel this conscientious striving to do things properly and avoid punishment to gain reward, but they're in a minority.

[Langy]

The thread is dealing with both topics. However, everyone pretty much agrees with you. Leaving welts isn't ever an acceptable level of punishment. As to the second point you are wrong. Again:

Again, that's because the article conflates negative reinforcement (which apparently involves those regions of the brain) with pain when they aren't the same thing at all. Yes, both pain and anxiety cause negative reinforcement - but that doesn't mean they're identical, and the article doesn't even attempt to say that they are identical, since it doesn't claim that anxiety actually causes the sensation of pain (except possibly in extreme anecdotal cases; grounding a child certainly isn't going to cause that). You can test this by stabbing yourself with a needle. It'll cause a sensation that you simply do not feel if you are only experiencing emotional distress. Thus, they are not identical.

[Starblade]

Every parent does there best to remove all elements of danger from a child's life.

No, it's not possible to avoid everything and I never claimed or stated anything close to that, but if your child is holding a loaded gun (especially if it's YOUR loaded gun), then you have failed as a parent in some way.

[Shoota Fodder]

less psychologically damaging than an extended grounding (say 3-4 days without seeing friends to keep the numbers equal).

Just as a side-note, I hate the punishment of grounding someone, especially a teen. Taking away there TV or games is a better idea. When you grew up like me with only one or two good friends in my early teens, losing your best pal for a week because he didn't do his homework is a right kick in goolies. But I guess that lets me shout at him as well not to do it again, so that I don't get 'grounded' again either.

@Starblade: I'd say you're jumping to conclusions. You're cherry picking you're argument. Guns and bullets are not the only thing that were mentioned; for example I agree with is point yet I live in Scotland. I've never SEEN a real gun in my life.

Children play with a wall sockets, play in a busy street, play with guns or bullets, eat strange powders, bite people, etc

Have I failed as a parent if my child rips off the wall protectors and tries to get into the sockets? Yes I should notice, but what if I'm in the bathroom? What if while you're making dinner and you don't here you're front door open and close. Suddenly you find you're kid in the street. These are lessons that need to be firmly ingrained into a kids mind NEVER to do again. Children as young as 4 do not respond to being grounded. Or any of the other things that you think should work on them like removing them from danger areas. If you take something away from a child, they will try and get back to it because they are curious. You need to end that curiosity for danger as soon as you can in a way they understand.

IF I touch plugs THEN spanking

Therefore: Don't touch plugs. Avoid spanking.

Telling them "If you touch that you will get electrocuted!" won't do shit. Children watch cartoons. I personally thought it looked fun until I blew myself up in primary school.

[Aron_DeTomado]

I once heard a rumour that if you use words, children may understand what you are trying to communicate. You might want to try it some time.

[Langy]

Have I failed as a parent if my child rips off the wall protectors and tries to get into the sockets? Yes I should notice, but what if I'm in the bathroom? What if while you're making dinner and you don't here you're front door open and close. Suddenly you find you're kid in the street. These are lessons that need to be firmly ingrained into a kids mind NEVER to do again. Children as young as 4 do not respond to being grounded. Or any of the other things that you think should work on them like removing them from danger areas. If you take something away from a child, they will try and get back to it because they are curious. You need to end that curiosity for danger as soon as you can in a way they understand.

IF I touch plugs THEN spanking

Therefore: Don't touch plugs. Avoid spanking.

Telling them "If you touch that you will get electrocuted!" won't do shit. Children watch cartoons. I personally thought it looked fun until I blew myself up in primary school.

Since children have successfully grown up who have not been spanked, such as myself, I'm pretty sure that you can teach this sort of thing without resorting to hitting your child. Hell, you can teach dogs without hitting them, and even a 4 year old child is smarter than a dog.

[Starblade]

Guns and bullets are not the only thing that were mentioned; for example I agree with is point yet I live in Scotland. I've never SEEN a real gun in my life.

No, it's not the only thing that was mentioned, but it's the thing I explicitly said you're a shitty parent for. I understand accidents happen. I understand some of it is unavoidable. Your child gaining access to your loaded gun isn't one of those things. I am not saying you're a shitty parent if your kid gets into traffic. That was very poorly worded, though, and doesn't really have to do with anything, so I'll drop it.

[Shoota Fodder]

I once heard a rumour that if you use words, children may understand what you are trying to communicate. You might want to try it some time.

Obviously that's true, however the fact is that sometimes it does not work. What happens if they insist, no matter how forcefully you try to convince them? What then?

I'm not saying spanking is the only option, nor that it should be used lightly, but I do believe that it has it's place in the home. I don't see what the fuss about it is. The damage is hardly damage, and you barely feel it a minute later. Your arse is surprisingly absorbent to force. It's a quick shock to the system, to clear the child's head. One of the best lessons I was never taught (which was to do with fighting ironically) was after the only spanking I can remember: I was in hysterics after scrapping pretty fiercely with my brother, I was angry and upset and I just kept shouting and screaming and hitting my dad, so then he pulled me over his knee, spanked me a couple of times and held me. I calmed down almost instantly and had his full attention at which point he spoke to me about how I shouldn't fight with my brother or the family or anyone and told me all about how it's wrong to get mad and fight and do anything like that. It never left me with any kind of trauma.

He did use words on me. But how do you get to that stage if I won't listen? You could have spent ages calming me down and I likely would still be sour and angry. I'm advocating the use of spanking in very specific circumstances which I assume the parent will be able to recognise on their own.

@Starblade: Thank you for clearing that up. I guess I did misinterpret it, by assuming you meant that all these ocurrances made you a bad parent.

Edit: On the topic, I do not agree with spanking in schools however.

Since children have successfully grown up who have not been spanked, such as myself, I'm pretty sure that you can teach this sort of thing without resorting to hitting your child.

And children have successfully grown up who have been spanked, like myself and some of my peers. I don't have any kind of psychological problems because my parents did it in the correct way, which is what I'm advocating: It's use in extreme circumstances.

[Langy]

And children have successfully grown up who have been spanked, like myself and some of my peers. I don't have any kind of psychological problems because my parents did it in the correct way, which is what I'm advocating: It's use in extreme circumstances.

Yes, but because it isn't necessary I don't see why you should do it. There are other methods of teaching children than via hitting them, just as there are other methods of calming a kid down than hitting them. Since I consider 'hitting people' to be 'not good' in general, I see no reason to spank children. That said, when it's only a single light whack, it's not nearly as big of a deal as when it's more like what was discussed in the article that spawned this thread or the types of spankings those I know who utilize spankings advocate.

The general feeling of the 'pro-spanker' side seems to be 'I can't think of anything else to do to get my kid to stop, or maybe it's just the easier solution, so I'll just hit him'. I just don't see that as being a particularly good method of parenting.

[roflmao]

I once heard a rumour that if you use words, children may understand what you are trying to communicate. You might want to try it some time.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? You seem to be jumping to conclusions based on some presuppositions on how spanking is carried out. So, yeah, sure, if you just coldly walk to your kid, whack him, then leave, that's not going to work, but no reasonable person advocates that.

[Langy]

I think his point is that you don't need to whack your kid at all - only using words seems to work just as well.

[Shoota Fodder]

But I still don't understand, If it is done correctly then all it is is a sharp reminder. It shouldn't hurt at all in the long run or be damaging in any way psychologically. There are other options, yes, but why shouldn't it be allowed or accepted? If it has no consequences other than to break a kid from his tantrum. If you can prove to me that a kid who has been spanked and then taught a lesson afterwards is different from a kid disciplined in any other way (due to the injustice he/she has suffered), then I will concede my point. Otherwise, I don't see what the big deal is.

Basically, why is physical contact stigmatised? It's not like spanking encourages kids to use violence to solve problems (however, that's me assuming. If it does then I retract my statement).