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'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?

Thanks for not judging, Wheetsin. I agree that discipline should be immediate, or as immediate as possible. If our children misbehave in public, if the offense warrants a spanking, we try to take them to a bathroom or a private, quiet area. If no such area is available, we will get the child to as quiet a place as possible and then spank. The important thing is for the child to know that they can't get away with the offense in public, otherwise they will always act out in public knowing they won't be punished.

If our children misbehave in public, if the offense warrants a spanking, we try to take them to a bathroom or a private, quiet area. If no such area is available, we will get the child to as quiet a place as possible and then spank.

See, to me, that says that you realize that your punishment isn't proper for public use. And again, if you can't punish your children in public, you shouldn't be using that method.

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.

I don't cold-bloodedly whip my children! I can't even believe that's what you've gotten out of all of these discussions.

It seems to me you can't get the calmness of the discipline out of your head. Spankings, to you, have always been attached to emotion and are a rash reaction to behavior rather than a thought-out action. I don't need to apologize for calming myself and my children before administering discipline. I choose to discipline while calm -- you call it cold-blooded, which of course, has another implication altogether. Whatever. I don't need to justify my state of mind to you. If you put the two spanking options side-by-side, I believe you'd come to an entirely different conclusion than the one you have.

See, to me, that says that you realize that your punishment isn't proper for public use. And again, if you can't punish your children in public, you shouldn't be using that method.

I don't think any punishment is proper in public. It is humiliating to the child. I don't take the child to a private place because I'm ashamed of my behavior (if I was, I wouldn't have entered this discussion in a public forum), but rather to protect my child from embarrassment. Even when the discipline isn't spanking (i.e. removal of a privilege, etc.) I don't do it loudly for everyone to hear. It is quiet and private.

There are a lot of things that happen in public that I don't think are proper. Husbands and wives arguing with each other -- belongs in private. Disciplining children -- belongs in private. Heck, going to the bathroom -- belongs in private. Just because I don't think something is for public consumption doesn't mean I'm ashamed of it.

The thing is, wouldn't public humiliation serve as a further disciplinary action? If a child remembers that she got spanked in front of her friends for doing a certain thing, wouldn't that be a greater impetus to not do that thing again? I don't buy the "protecting them from public humiliation" defense.

The thing is, wouldn't public humiliation serve as a further disciplinary action? If a child remembers that she got spanked in front of her friends for doing a certain thing, wouldn't that be a greater impetus to not do that thing again? I don't buy the "protecting them from public humiliation" defense.

Public humiliation causes resentment and shame, neither of which is the goal of discipline (or at least not my goal). I don't parent by guilt and shame and my kids don't resent me for their discipline. You may not "buy it", but it's the reality in our family.

An open-handed single "swat" to a child's clothed bottom is not the same thing as a closed fist to the face.

An open-handed single "swat" to a child's clothed bottom is not the same thing as a closed fist to the face.

I totally agree!

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

This is where we differ. The times that I have spanked my children it has not been to inflict pain - even stinging. It is more of a wake-up call - Mommy really means business and you need to get yourself back on track now. I finally figured out what I find a disturbing about what you do - it is about inflicting pain and it is a completely powerless situation for your child. I realize it may be different in practice but it just sounds a little odd. And the whole hug right after somehow makes it ten times worse. Almost like a man beating his wife and then buying her flowers.

It seems to me that a child may sometimes have to be disciplined in public. If a child is acting out in public then something must be done in order to make the child stop her unpleasant behaviour ASAP. Of course this can usually be done by removing the kid from the premises where she is misbehaving and then administering some sort of discipline or punishment.

I tend to think that the best punishments are the ones that fit the crime. If for instance the kid is ruining a movie or a family meal, one of the parents can remove the kid and take him home. The kid then learns that if he doesn't behave he doesn't get to see the end of the movie or finish his dinner. This may be a drag for the parent on the short term but the parent will win on the long term for she will have a well-behaved kid who doesn't act out or make scenes. This is teaching the kid all about cause and effect, a useful rule of life.

Sometimes a child may have to be disciplined in public. She will suffer humiliation, of course, but this will be part of the punishment.

And I can understand why a parent might swat a very young child on the butt for a serious offense. I suspect that with a very tiny child this may be the only way to get its attention after all other means have failed. But understand this: a swat on the butt is a long, long way from falling into the category of a beating.

Although I don't have kids I have watched a lot of people raise theirs and one thing that I have noted is that kids seem to require order, consistency, and rules. They will complain about the rules and will try to bend or break them but they do seem to need the discipline and the order. Spoiled, indulged kids don't do all that well on the long term.

My friends who have spoiled and indulged their children are people who have wanted their children to love them and to regard them as their best friends, not as parents. Of course the truth is that this ain't going to happen, and nor should it happen. We are of different generations and we have, moreover, in this delicate parental-child thing, different roles to play. Lines must be drawn and respected, I think.

The nicest and happiest kids that I know are the ones who are raised by parents who are both loving but who also set rules and are consistent in applying these. These are the kids which will thrive in adult society.

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."

The anger-free physical punishment does bother me. I don't advocate violence towards children at all, whether it be physical or verbal. I don't believe that a smack in anger or frustration is somehow more acceptable than a calculated smack. Smack, hit, spank, it's all violence.

However, the "calm loving" infliction of pain I find extremely disturbing.

In Canada, spanking is not against the law, but using an implement is. As long as your hand is attached to your body, you're not removing yourself from the act by attaching a stick or whatever to it.

The times that I have spanked my children it has not been to inflict pain - even stinging. It is more of a wake-up call - Mommy really means business and you need to get yourself back on track now. I finally figured out what I find a disturbing about what you do - it is about inflicting pain and it is a completely powerless situation for your child. I realize it may be different in practice but it just sounds a little odd. And the whole hug right after somehow makes it ten times worse. Almost like a man beating his wife and then buying her flowers.

What business do you mean when you spank? What is the purpose of spanking, or is it just that you've been driven to the end of your rope and you have nothing left to do but spank? What will you do if the spanking doesn't work?

What about any kind of discipline gives a child power? When you ban television or dessert or take away a toy, isn't that leaving the child completely powerless as well -- at least as regards the regaining of the tv, dessert, or toy?

I believe there are two types of consequences to behavior. Natural consequences, and imposed consequences. If my child touches a hot stove and gets burned, that's natural consequences. I don't want to see it happen, and I am certainly empathetic when it does. If my child touches a stove and it's cold, I will impose consequences so that child won't do it again in the future when the stove may be hot. I am equally empathetic to those consequences, even though applying them and helping the child avoid future pain is my goal. If I take away tv for a week from my child and she comes to me sobbing because she is missing her favorite show, I'm certainly not cold and unfeeling about her situation. I will hug her and hold her and tell her I'm sorry she's hurting, but I'll also make sure she understands that it was her behavior that caused the pain she's feeling. The pain inflicted with a spanking is both physical and emotional, and I will certainly comfort her afterwards. The reference to a man beating his wife is just offensive. Nothing of what I'm doing could even remotely be called a beating.

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.

Actually, no one on this thread has expressed that they spank out of control and in anger.

I certainly do not do it in anger, If I do feel that my temper is rising, I'll give myself a time out to calm down. I will try every other method (talking, taking away things etc) before I spank. When I do spank it's one or two taps on the bottom, not so much to inflict pain, but more to get the message across. Some might say what's the point if they don't feel pain. I'd say that it happens so rarely that even that light tap is enough to convey the message that what they've done is wrong and unacceptable.

When I do spank it's one or two taps on the bottom, not so much to inflict pain, but more to get the message across. Some might say what's the point if they don't feel pain. I'd say that it happens so rarely that even that light tap is enough to convey the message that what they've done is wrong and unacceptable.

What is the message, then? That you're bigger and stronger and if they get any more out of line you could beat them up?

I've been musing over this for a while, over the outrage that I suggested that discipline is meant to inflict pain. All discipline, whether it's removing dessert or tv privileges or requiring the child to clean the garage or spanking the child, is meant for discomfort and pain -- otherwise it wouldn't be effective. We could not punish our children by telling them if they don't change their behavior we'll remove the brussel sprouts from their plate (unless, of course, they love brussel sprouts). Punishment is meant, through the discomfort of the punishment, to encourage the child to not do whatever he is doing, now or in the future. If someone is spanking their children simply to demonstrate that he "means business" or "is serious", then in essence the spanking is simply the "last resort" in a line of failed alternate discipline methods. I wonder what comes next if the "light tap" on the bottom, which is of course never meant to inflict pain, fails? Does the infliction of a painful spanking come next? Is it then OK? What does a child learn when a parent goes through a litany of punishments to finally arrive at a spanking?

I should clarify again that spankings are not a regular occurrence in our family. Our 9yo gets spanked once or maybe twice A YEAR. Our 6yo perhaps once or twice a month, and that's dwindling. However, they both know that there are certain behaviors that will earn a spanking, and they therefore know to avoid those behaviors.

What is the message, then? That you're bigger and stronger and if they get any more out of line you could beat them up?

I've been musing over this for a while, over the outrage that I suggested that discipline is meant to inflict pain. All discipline, whether it's removing dessert or tv privileges or requiring the child to clean the garage or spanking the child, is meant for discomfort and pain -- otherwise it wouldn't be effective. We could not punish our children by telling them if they don't change their behavior we'll remove the brussel sprouts from their plate (unless, of course, they love brussel sprouts). Punishment is meant, through the discomfort of the punishment, to encourage the child to not do whatever he is doing, now or in the future. If someone is spanking their children simply to demonstrate that he "means business" or "is serious", then in essence the spanking is simply the "last resort" in a line of failed alternate discipline methods. I wonder what comes next if the "light tap" on the bottom, which is of course never meant to inflict pain, fails? Does the infliction of a painful spanking come next? Is it then OK? What does a child learn when a parent goes through a litany of punishments to finally arrive at a spanking?

I should clarify again that spankings are not a regular occurrence in our family. Our 9yo gets spanked once or maybe twice A YEAR. Our 6yo perhaps once or twice a month, and that's dwindling. However, they both know that there are certain behaviors that will earn a spanking, and they therefore know to avoid those behaviors.

But Gadgetlady, that's true of your method, also. You've never had to go more extreme, but neither have the others who spank without the intent of pain. What would YOU do if your children disregarded your "spanking?" Is YOUR message that you are bigger and stronger and if they get out of line, that you'll do worse with your "spanker?"