This was touched on in another thread and I wondered what everyone's opinion's where on the matter.

I personally do spank my kids, if they've been really naughty or they have done something spank worthy. Then I see nothing wrong with a hand to the bottom.

So come on all, tell me your opinion's on this matter.

I think the real test of physical punishment is whether or not it could be applied in public with little or no interference from surrounding people. If you can't do it in public, it probably shouldn't be done. I think having your children lean against a wall in public, not allowing them to shield themselves, while you hit them with a switch or other "implement" would be a really quick way to find yourself either in jail or being visited by family services.

A light smack on the butt won't get anyone visited by family services and sure won't get anyone arrested. Whipping someone will.

I spanked one of my kids in the grocery store (a tap on the butt with my hand) for absolutely awful behavior. It was exactly the way I would have spanked her at home.

I was not concerned that family services was going to come knocking.

I realize that not everyone agrees with spanking....to each his own. I love my kids dearly, I wanted my kids, and they are some of the most joyful kids you have every seen. I don't think that the occasional tap has done them harm. I do not rely on spanking as the only discipline in my house as I said earlier. What I try to do 99% of the time is catch them being great (which isn't hard) and reinforce that! It is much easier to encourage good behavior than to punish bad behavior.

And as an aside......I find the hands on the wall, using a switch, and then hugging a little scary too

I spanked one of my kids in the grocery store (a tap on the butt with my hand) for absolutely awful behavior. It was exactly the way I would have spanked her at home.

I was not concerned that family services was going to come knocking.

I realize that not everyone agrees with spanking....to each his own. I love my kids dearly, I wanted my kids, and they are some of the most joyful kids you have every seen. I don't think that the occasional tap has done them harm. I do not rely on spanking as the only discipline in my house as I said earlier. What I try to do 99% of the time is catch them being great (which isn't hard) and reinforce that! It is much easier to encourage good behavior than to punish bad behavior.

And as an aside......I find the hands on the wall, using a switch, and then hugging a little scary too

I wouldn't dream of turning someone in to family services for an authentic spanking in public. Simple swats on the rear with a hand isn't child abuse to me, and I doubt most people feel that it is. I think spanking like you are talking about could be commonly applied in public without the fear of being arrested. That's why I said that if you believe that your method of physical punishment could be applied in public with little fear of arrest or interference from other people, it would probably be a proper punishment. I think, though, that if a parent wouldn't dare apply their type of physical punishment on their child in public without intense fear that someone would interfere, they are probably going too far in the punishment.

The bottom line, IMO, is that if you can do it in public, it's a decent punishment; if you can't, it's abuse.

Sorry, Laurend, no. I would never use a belt, a strap, a lash, a riding crop, or anything of the sort. Those things inflict welts and bruises. I don't strike repeatedly. Once or twice is sufficient.

What I find scary is people who react violently in anger towards their children. If the parent is flailing about trying to strike his child and the child is flailing about trying to block the spanking, there's more liklihood of injury to the child. The lesson learned from such behavior is that when we get angry it's OK to lash out, flail around, and express our anger with uncontrolled violence. Furthermore, having the child flailing about trying to twist and turn and block the spanking leads to more, repeated spankings as the angry parent repeatedly tries and fails to hit his mark. He hits the side, the back, the arm, the hand, and then finally gets to the bottom, angrier than ever that he had to hit so many times, and just hits more. That's how most people spank -- and that's OK with everyone?

I think perhaps the reason people are objecting to what we do is because they've never seen anything like it -- an adult administering discipline after explaining it to the child, the child accepting and understanding it, and then the resolution of healing afterwards. Most people here have expressed that they spank the other way -- out of control and in anger -- or that they were spanked in anger. Some think that's OK, and some don't. I personally don't. It's not thought out, it's not administered consistently, it encourages the child to push the limits to see how far he can go before mom or dad gets out of control, and it doesn't help the child understand the concept of consistent actions eliciting consistent consequences.

The bottom line, IMO, is that if you can do it in public, it's a decent punishment; if you can't, it's abuse.

BTW, I wouldn't have a problem doing what I do in public. It is very calm, metered, one or two swats at the most, and it's not out of control. It doesn't cause wailing or screaming on the part of either adult or child. I generally don't do it in public (or even with other family members in the room) because I think it can be humiliating to the child. Any type of discipline, whether acceptable or unacceptable (yelling, flailing, etc.), is humiliating to a child if done in front of other children or adults. Whether I'm spanking, removing priviliges, reasoning with, or otherwise disciplining my children, I try to always take them aside to a quiet place to do it.

Gadget, what exactly is your "flexible leather stick," then? And let me ask you this: Would you be willing to give this punishment in the middle of your local mall, if your daughters "acted up" there?

So you wouldn't hesitate to do this to your children in a mall, then? I invite you to do it, then. The next time your children act up, take them to your local mall, right into the food court. Apply your punishment there, and see what happens. If you don't get people coming up to you, or security isn't called, or you don't get arrested, I'll eat my hat.

I would imagine that the humiliation would just be extra enforcement to a child.

I had difficulty describing the implement I use the first time around, and clearly I didn't do it well. My apologies. I think the word "flexible" threw everyone. It is not flexible in the sense that it is a whip, or even remotely close. I was trying to convey that it is not a hard item, like a wooden spoon or a wood paddle, and yet it is not a "whip" item, like a belt or something that will inflict welts. I used the word "leather" (although it is no actual leather) so you wouldn't get the idea that I was using a wood paddle. Unfortunately, I think "leather" conveyed "belt".

<sigh> I wish I could just show it to you.

I could pretty much guarantee that what I do to discipline my kids wouldn't cause security to be called. And personally, I think security should be called far more often -- when I see a parent violently dragging a child off by one arm, or screaming at their child uncontrollably, or getting right in their face and yelling and shaking them, THAT'S scary.

Why is an angry response to a child acceptable to some of you but a calm one isn't? Should we be disciplining our children in anger? Why is it wrong for me to explain discipline to my child before the discipline comes, and then love them afterwards? What are you objecting to? The hands out of the way so they don't get hurt? The implement that we use? The calm manner? The hug afterwards? Would this all be OK if I used my hand instead and didn't tell them to get their hands out of the way? Or if I did it quickly, in front of others, didn't explain it to the child, and allowed them (or me) to stomp off in anger when it was done?

Why is an angry response to a child acceptable to some of you but a calm one isn't? Should we be disciplining our children in anger? Why is it wrong for me to explain discipline to my child before the discipline comes, and then love them afterwards? What are you objecting to? The hands out of the way so they don't get hurt? The implement that we use? The calm manner? The hug afterwards? Would this all be OK if I used my hand instead and didn't tell them to get their hands out of the way? Or if I did it quickly, in front of others, didn't explain it to the child, and allowed them (or me) to stomp off in anger when it was done?

Gadget, I can't talk for anyone else, but it isn't the anger-free punishment that bothers, just the method of punishment. I am a huge supporter of not punishing a child while the adult is angry. I think that DOES lead to the adult going farther than they otherwise would. I just don't believe in hitting someone with an "implement."

Gadget, I can't talk for anyone else, but it isn't the anger-free punishment that bothers, just the method of punishment. I am a huge supporter of not punishing a child while the adult is angry. I think that DOES lead to the adult going farther than they otherwise would. I just don't believe in hitting someone with an "implement."

So all of what I do is OK with you except the implement? Let me explain a bit why I use the implement. The amount of force needed when using a hand is significantly more than when using the spanker. I would have to bring my hand back pretty far and hit pretty hard, whereas with the spanker (as we call it), it's a short, quick swat. To me, that's preferable. I don't want to have to draw my arm back and spank with force, because to do that I would have to get myself worked up. I have tested the spanker on myself and I know how hard to hit to elicit the stinging that I'm aiming for. It isn't arbitrary or forceful.

BTW, I just asked my 9YO (who has had one or maybe two spankings in the past YEAR), whether she would prefer the type of spankings she's seen in public (in anger, causing humiliation, without warning and without reconciliation) to what we do at home. She said she prefers it our way. I pressed her for why (I didn't want want just the pat "you're right, Mommy" answer) and she said because the child knows it's coming and then the child doesn't get angry at the parent for doing it.

To be honest, the whole thing is disturbing to me. I can't tell you why, but it is. I'll have to think about it. If I can figure out why that punishment is disturbing, I'll let you know.

Someone "spanking" their child isn't disturbing to me, yet what you are describing is, for some reason.

To be honest, the whole thing is disturbing to me. I can't tell you why, but it is. I'll have to think about it. If I can figure out why that punishment is disturbing, I'll let you know.

Someone "spanking" their child isn't disturbing to me, yet what you are describing is, for some reason.

It very well might be because you've never seen or heard anything like it. I've been amazed at the vehement reaction to it. It really is very calm, much more so than most spankings that I've seen metered out in public places (or the ones I received as a child). And the child's reaction to it is significantly better than "spankings" others describe.

I've thought about it for a while, and I think that part of what I found disturbing is that you seem to be back-tracking.

You said you use a "flexible leather implement," but then you said that it isn't a "flexible leather implement," after all.

You said that the punishment is meant to inflict pain, and then you said, "but it only stings a little."

You said that you have your children keep their hands on the wall while you hit them, but then you said that you only hit them once or twice. (Which doesn't make sense because, in my experience, children only really try to block painful, repeated blows. If there is only one or two "stinging" blows, most children I've observed, including myself when I was spanked as a child, don't try to block the next one. And if you are hitting them only hard enough to sting, and not create marks, it shouldn't matter if the strap or whatever it is hits their arm, since the blow wouldn't be enough to do anything.)

You seemed proud of what you were doing, but once people started speaking up against it (even people who do spank their children), you said that you really aren't doing what you said you were doing. Then you started trying to portray those people that do spank their children as uncaring, anger-filled monsters.

BTW, I just asked my 9YO (who has had one or maybe two spankings in the past YEAR), whether she would prefer the type of spankings she's seen in public (in anger, causing humiliation, without warning and without reconciliation) to what we do at home.

I'm not judging how you discipline your children or questioning your technique, but I do have a question about timing.

Most public spankings happen because that's where the offense is committted, and the best correlation to consequence is immediate enforcement. In other words, you discipline a child for doing something bad when they do it, and they're more likely to understand the connection between a specific action and the discipline. Not that I equate children to dogs, but it's the same principle when you're - say - housebreaking a puppy. (Our cognition is much more complex but the basics of behavioral modificiation are rather beyond cognition and the same whether you're talking about people or fruit flies or anything in between.)

So if you do not discipline in public, but public is where you children misbehave, what do you do? Wait? Discipline them in some other fashion?

I've thought about it for a while, and I think that part of what I found disturbing is that you seem to be back-tracking.

You said you use a "flexible leather implement," but then you said that it isn't a "flexible leather implement," after all.

You said that the punishment is meant to inflict pain, and then you said, "but it only stings a little."

You said that you have your children keep their hands on the wall while you hit them, but then you said that you only hit them once or twice. (Which doesn't make sense because, in my experience, children only really try to block painful, repeated blows. If there is only one or two "stinging" blows, most children I've observed, including myself when I was spanked as a child, don't try to block the next one. And if you are hitting them only hard enough to sting, and not create marks, it shouldn't matter if the strap or whatever it is hits their arm, since the blow wouldn't be enough to do anything.)

You seemed proud of what you were doing, but once people started speaking up against it (even people who do spank their children), you said that you really aren't doing what you said you were doing. Then you started trying to portray those people that do spank their children as uncaring, anger-filled monsters.

I've explained why I didn't describe the spanker properly. I've been looking for a photo of it so I can post it. Sorry about that. I don't use a paddle or a whip or a belt. I can't describe it any better.

It seems to me that children try to block spankings after the first one when they don't know the first one is coming. If they know the first one is coming, they'll try to block it. So for our purposes, since they know the first one is coming, we try to prevent the blocking.

Punishment is meant to inflict pain. The pain that we're aiming for is stinging, not bruising or welting.

What can I say. I've seen the light. I'll stop doing it the way I do it and instead start slapping my children repeatedly in public. Does that make you feel better about it?

What can I say. I've seen the light. I'll stop doing it the way I do it and instead start slapping my children repeatedly in public. Does that make you feel better about it?

There is a midpoint between "slapping children repeatedly in public" and cold-bloodedly whipping them. If you can't see that, then that says a heck of a lot about you.