Physical punishment of children

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Your opinions on corporal punishment? I'm 100% against it myself.

 

No, the children are not protected by the Geneva Convention since they don't wear uniforms when they misbehave and are not from a standing army. No, I can't prove they're not supporters of terrorist regimes throughout the world. But they still should not be "spanked" (an euphemism for "beaten") beaten.

 

Physical punishment has been proven scientifically to be damaging to the child, as it damages trust bonds between child and parent. The most common argument, "I was spanked, and I turned out OK" is invalid for two reasons:

1. You are not representative of all the children out there. A friend of mine at school has this friend who fell off a 20-30 metres high cliff and survived, "only" breaking her neck and her back in three places (she can actually walk now, with the help of nurses and one of those wheeled chairs I don't know the English name of). I suppose that means jumping or falling off of cliffs is not lethal anymore, then?
2. Even if most children did turn out OK, with no side-effects whatsoever (which is highly debatable), it still leaves some children that do not. With other methods of punishment, however, such as time-outs, such side-effects are minimal.

 

Physical punishment has also proven to be less effective than modern methods such as time-outs.

 

Your views?

[swphreak]

You mean a "wheelchair?"

 

Meh, I could go either way in regards to spanking. Yeah, if you're having to spank your kid a lot, there's something wrong, and spanking definately isn't going to solve it. But if a kid does something really bad, a quick spanking could do the job, and then going straight to bed without dinner.

 

I don't remember getting spanked a lot as a kid, but I do remember that the few times I did, it was because I did something really bad.

 

I swear, kids these days with their Social Services and child abuse laws.

[Emperor Devon]

Against. There are far better ways to punish children that don't cause damage to them in the long run, such as time-outs, removal of toys, etc.

 

One of the worst things about spanking is how the people who do it are hypocrites. It strikes me as outrageous that they drill into children's heads how awful it is to hit, kick, etc. people, when they themselves are slapping their children. That sort of thing will breed anger, and convince kids that if mom uses physical force over words, it must be okay to do. Many of the most evil people in history came from abusive families. Hitler was often beaten by his father, and Stalin was by both parents. Granted, spanking is a much more minor version of that, but it sends a poor message. Kids are very impressionable. No need to drill into their heads that sort of thing is okay. Other methods of punishment are so much more effective.

 

*Waits for Jae to enter*

[TK-8252]

Against. I watch Dr. Phil's show occasionally and he says how while spanking may work for some kids, there are better ways to discipline your children than striking them.

 

He says to treat what your kid wants as a form of "currency." The kid must do this and this in order to get the candy or the toy. If that doesn't work then you take away the TV, video games, toys, etc.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Against. I watch Dr. Phil's show occasionally and he says how while spanking may work for some kids, there are better ways to discipline your children than striking them.

 

He says to treat what your kid wants as a form of "currency." The kid must do this and this in order to get the candy or the toy. If that doesn't work then you take away the TV, video games, toys, etc.

Depending on the age of the kid, that method usually ends up with the parent getting a massive headache and the child inheriting a lot of said "currency."

[TK-8252]

Depending on the age of the kid, that method usually ends up with the parent getting a massive headache and the child inheriting a lot of said "currency."

 

Too bad, having a kid is a big responsibility. Do it right.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Too bad, having a kid is a big responsibility. Do it right.

That's easier said than done. I'm not advocating beating your kids, but that currency **** is the type of thing that causes parents to snap and actually hit their kids. I dunno about you, but I'd rather have a kid get a slap in the back of the head or the occasional spanking than have a parent who's been run ragged all day by their three kids snap and beat the living **** out of their kids and have to have them removed by child protective services or something.

[TK-8252]

That's easier said than done. I'm not advocating beating your kids, but that currency **** is the type of thing that causes parents to snap and actually hit their kids. I dunno about you, but I'd rather have a kid get a slap in the back of the head or the occasional spanking than have a parent who's been run ragged all day by their three kids snap and beat the living **** out of their kids and have to have them removed by child protective services or something.

 

If they can't handle it then they shouldn't have had three kids. That simple.

 

Not giving your children the absolute best possible upbringing just because it's hard isn't an excuse. Of COURSE it's hard. It's also VERY EXPENSIVE...

 

...And it's worth it to get it right. If you can't handle three kids at once then plan better. Maybe wait until your first child is sixteen or so before having a second one. That way you can deal with one at a time and you will be able to learn from mistakes with the first child and not repeat them with the second.

 

Etc.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Depending on the age of the kid, that method usually ends up with the parent getting a massive headache and the child inheriting a lot of said "currency."

"Usually"? Prove that one, please.

 

I attend weekend classes at a very good dog instructor school, and they apply the same "reward and punishment" and "ignore it when the kid does something wrong"-system to the dogs (trust me, it's very similar). Yes, it takes more effort. But yes, it's the right way to go.

[swphreak]

Uh huh... ignoring your kid always works.

 

I'm not saying parents should smack their kids upside the head, that's not spanking, but yeah, I guess spanking doesn't work for everyone. It just depends on the kid.

 

And are we reducing children to animals now? Do you use a clicker to reward your child too?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Uh huh... ignoring your kid always works.

Nope, but it works far more often than physical punishment does.

 

And are we reducing children to animals now?

Nope, biologists are.

 

Humans are animals, friend.

 

Do you use a clicker to reward your child too?

No more than I use it to reward my dog. I use the clicker to tell the dog that what it's doing when I click it is the right thing to do. It tells the dog that a reward is coming up. Just like I'd tell a kid that's doing something good that he or she's a good kid.

[Ray Jones]

ignoring your kid always works.

Basically, you don't ignore your kids when they actually try to talk to you.

 

However.

 

 

I don't even ask whether it will harm the kid or not.

 

Violence against others is not a way to solve problems or to achieve your goals.

 

This is what we should teach our children (and of course to those who are not "that young" anymore). And by teach I mean live the example. If you beat your children or whomever you show that this is actually a way for you to handle your problems. People who beat others (for mentioned reasons) are mentally weak and/or haven't learned better themselves. And if you want your kids to "follow" you, then you have to be strong and be the guide, and the first thing to do is that the rules you set up are valid for you too.

 

Reward and punishment is something I wouldn't advocate to use too much, too. I don't think it is good to say: "Hey you want to watch tv? Clean up your room." Because it doesn't show that cleaning up the room has to be done without tv too. Some things just have to be done without anything in reward. Of course, it is a way to get your point across and to hurry things up maybe.. "No, there will be no Spongebob before the teeths aren't brushed and all, the tv stays off! -- And I would think twice, the show starts in 1 minute, and if it's over you have to go to bed."

I promise, it will only happen once that you'll have to send lil' sweet devilia to bed without that she brushed her teeth if she's facing this set of opportunities.

 

I always go for the reasoning way: explain why you are deciding like you do. Or explain/show why that what she/he is doing right now won't get her/him what she/he wants. That often works. Maybe you can involve some kind of reward and punishment by giving choices or making offers (depending to the situation).

 

Example (level: very very .. very easy XPPP): the cutest child can get really *cough* not so cute anymore if daddy decides at the Walmart that he ain't gonna buy sugar-oozing product A because lil' sweetheart already convinced daddy to get sugar-oozing product B (hey and that was easy, because daddy likes that too). Most probably the flabbergasted daddy will learn how to clean the floor of the whole market within no time without even using one of the usual tools used for tasks like this.

 

I then had to go through the following two times only:

 

A) [calming down the situation]

- I tell her, that if we want to get the stuff we actually have to pay for it, and we can't do that if she keeps rollin' on the floor. So there won't be any sweets at all.

 

B) [one is more than nothing]

- Okay, the kid's up again, but still wants both sweets. Make an offer (show that you take the "sorrows" of your kid serious) but draw the clear line: candy A *or* B (you were about to buy one anyway, and it is not wrong to change mind), either that or *no* candy. This might create a conversation loop for the next 5 minutes. The decision will be clearly A or B as soon as daddy says "okay, no candy".

 

C) [working it up]

- I tell her that what just happened was not okay, and why we didn't by all the sweets at once, and if she's doing it again there won't be any sweets for a whole week (something like that). And if she's nice and all, then maybe we will get the other stuff next time.

 

 

However, being a father, I know there is always the easy and the hard way to go. The problem is: the worst case: no time, really.

 

This is when we go the easy way: give a short summary why there is no time for such things now, maybe offer a deal or something and then switch quickly to God said "no way" mode - Grab the small devil and simply walk out. Clear the situation later. But stay calm and easy. Simply do the Bob Ross.

 

 

So, most important: Stay. ****ing. Cool. Always.

 

Any people complaining? Prfft. Tell them to go home to mommy and cry or call the cops if they want to. It's not their super market, so what. Don't get angry at your kid because some grumpy granny cannot stand crying kids. And after all, it's the super market's fault for placing stupid sweets and things all over within reach of little children's sticky hands. Sue'em (especially in the USA)!

[swphreak]

Nope, but it works far more often than physical punishment does.

Basically, you don't ignore your kids when they actually try to talk to you.

 

I think we're having miscommunication or just not wanting to undertand here.. I'm not saying parents should smack their kid when they're being annoying or rolling on the ground, that'd be abuse.

 

I remember one time I got pissed off and kicked a nice hole in the wall at my grandparents' house. I got a spanking and learned how to spackle.

 

I've had to deal with kids before while babysitting, so I'm not just speaking without experience. No, I never spanked any of them-they're not my kids, but I did put them in timeout, no dessert, ect. This one kid would always have to be in timeout at least once everytime I babysat, and another kid would never get in trouble at all. It just depends on the kid, and how the parents [are raising the kid].

 

I wish I could link to that Yes, Dear episode where they spanked Dominic. "What if he stole a tank, would you spank him then?" Funny stuff.

[Ray Jones]

I remember one time I got pissed off and kicked a nice hole in the wall at my grandparents' house.

I did something similar when I was 4 or 5. I broke something my uncle needed 2 weeks for to build and it needed batteries. Batteries I needed for the toy he gave me for present earlier, and he said I could have them soon, he would just need them to test something. Would I wait? Noooo! I got angry and broke the thing. The problem is, he *always* got some batteries for me, for my cars, flashlights, whatever. ALWAYS. That was cool.

 

But I did not get any battery like thing for the next 3 months.

 

I never broke other people's property on purpose again.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I think we're having miscommunication or just not wanting to undertand here.. I'm not saying parents should smack their kid when they're being annoying or rolling on the ground, that'd be abuse.

 

I remember one time I got pissed off and kicked a nice hole in the wall at my grandparents' house. I got a spanking and learned how to spackle.

So it's not what you do or how often you do it that determines whether or not it's abusive, it's why you do it? I don't buy that.

[swphreak]

So it's not what you do or how often you do it that determines whether or not it's abusive, it's why you do it? I don't buy that.

 

That's how I see it, but if they're having to do it often, it probably is abusive and not helping things.

 

If little Billy keeps getting in trouble, his parents keeps sending him to his room. Ok, so what? He has all sorts of toys in his room, and he's not worried about his parents spanking him. So he keeps on getting in trouble and getting sent to his room.

 

I still think it's relative. Some kids/parents it works, some it doesn't, and unfortunately, there are some that are simply abusive. Just different times and different customs.

[ET Warrior]

If little Billy keeps getting in trouble, his parents keeps sending him to his room. Ok, so what? He has all sorts of toys in his room, and he's not worried about his parents spanking him.

Well that's the case of the parents choosing a poor punishment method. As opposed to sending the kid to their room, you make them sit in a corner with nothing to do.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

If they can't handle it then they shouldn't have had three kids. That simple.

 

Not giving your children the absolute best possible upbringing just because it's hard isn't an excuse. Of COURSE it's hard. It's also VERY EXPENSIVE...

 

...And it's worth it to get it right. If you can't handle three kids at once then plan better. Maybe wait until your first child is sixteen or so before having a second one. That way you can deal with one at a time and you will be able to learn from mistakes with the first child and not repeat them with the second.

 

Etc.

I just picked the number three randomly. You're also assuming that the "best possible upbringing" (which depends entirely on the kid) is one that, and again, this is dependant on the kid, lets them do whatever they want with only the minor consequence of not getting something they want.

 

"Usually"? Prove that one, please.

It's mostly from personal experience and a bit of cynisism in terms of how much a human being can be annoyed. By the way, while we're on the subject of proving our statements (although I did a pretty **** job of proving mine), could you post a link to one of the studies you mentioned before? I'd like to see what their idea of physical punishment is.

[CapNColostomy]

Your opinions on corporal punishment? I'm 100% against it myself.

 

I'm 100% for it myself.

 

 

But they still should not be "spanked" (an euphemism for "beaten") beaten.

 

Speaking as a person who has been the recipient of both spankings and beatings, let me assure you that you are most incorrect in your statement. There's quite a difference. A couple of swats on the butt, and a punch to the face are two very different things. If you're still confused on that, maybe you should talk to women who enjoy being spanked during sex, and ask them if they see that as abuse. Oh, I know...you're going to say "but a grown woman who enjoys it isn't the same as a child who isn't asking for it or deriving pleasure from it", right? Well that might have been a good argument had you not made this statement

So it's not what you do or how often you do it that determines whether or not it's abusive, it's why you do it? I don't buy that.

That said, I thoroughly enjoy abusing women (by your definition). I should be locked up. Ohnoez.

 

Physical punishment has been proven scientifically to be damaging to the child, as it damages trust bonds between child and parent.

 

Really? When? Where? I've heard of some theories on the subject, but never anything concrete.Like others in the thread have already stated, it's completely a person to person basis on what techniques for discipline work. Certainly I don't have any people in lab coats in my home, so what I say cannot be cited as "proven scientifically", but I spank my kids when I think it's needed. My wife on the other hand, does the time out, in the corner, grounded crap. They don't mind her. The only thing that works for her is telling them that she's going to tell me how they've been behaving when I get home. Then they line right out. My kids trust me, they respect me, they love me, and they know not to **** around with me. The only time I think spanking is out of the question, is when your kids get too old for them. If you're still having to spank your kids when they're 8 and up, then it's too late. You've let them run wild for too long, and they're already ruined.

 

The most common argument, "I was spanked, and I turned out OK" is invalid for two reasons:

1. You are not representative of all the children out there.

 
Well no, but...
 

A friend of mine at school has this friend who fell off a 20-30 metres high cliff and survived, "only" breaking her neck and her back in three places (she can actually walk now, with the help of nurses and one of those wheeled chairs I don't know the English name of). I suppose that means jumping or falling off of cliffs is not lethal anymore, then?Even if most children did turn out OK, with no side-effects whatsoever (which is highly debatable), it still leaves some children that do not. With other methods of punishment, however, such as time-outs, such side-effects are minimal.

 

...neither is your friend.

 

Physical punishment has also proven to be less effective than modern methods such as time-outs.

 

No, not really.

 

Your views?

 

Works for some people, doesn't work for others. Try the time out and reward crap first, sure. If that fails, a quick swat or two on the tail never killed anyone.

 

[edit] I forgot to add one thing. I also think that if you are going to spank your children, it's important to talk to them about it beforehand. Explain calmly why they're being punished, etc...as apposed to just flying off the handle and knocking the **** out of kid that may not even know what they did wrong in the first place. It gives you a moment to get your head on straight as well.

[Point Man]

Okay, how many people posting so far are actually parents? Forgive me, but reading this thread so far has been like listening to a bunch of men talk about childbirth.

 

Corporal punishment is a perfectly legitimate form of discpline when exercised correctly. When a child understands what the parent wants the child to do, and the child is capable of doing what the parent wants, a controlled swat on the backside is a good way of teaching the child to submit to authority. It may not be a popular idea today, but children must learn how to live under authority.

 

The most important thing is to exercise all discipline in love. The reason I discipline my children is because I love them. I know that I cannot allow them to grow up thinking they can do whatever they want. Corporal punishment is one tool (of many) I use to do that. Like any tool, it must be used judiciously and properly to be effective. That means using it only for willful disobedience, not simple immaturity. It means controlling the force used and not striking in anger (the words "Go to your room!" have helped me gain time to cool down more times than I can count). It means explaining why the spanking is occurring and reminding my children that I do this because I love them and want them to learn proper behavior.

 

Proper administration of corporal punishment is not harmful to children; it helps children learn to respect authority. There is also another benefit that may seem counterintuitive: it brings children closer to parents. After children are lovingly disciplined, they see that the parents are concerned about them and love them enough to correct their inappropriate behavior. Their normal response is to draw closer to the parents. I might not have believed it myself until I saw it demonstrated with each of my children. The cycle goes like this: 1) My child misbehaves. 2) I tell my child that behavior is wrong and to do something else. 3) My child does the same thing. 4) I take the child into another room and administer a spanking. 5) After the spanking, my child climbs into my lap to cuddle and usually says, "Daddy, I love you."

 

I know the atheists out there will ignore this quote because it comes from the Bible, but there is a lot of wisdom in Proverbs 23:13-14 (NIV): "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death."

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Okay, how many people posting so far are actually parents? Forgive me, but reading this thread so far has been like listening to a bunch of men talk about childbirth.

I think Ray is.

 

I know the atheists out there will ignore this quote because it comes from the Bible, but there is a lot of wisdom in Proverbs 23:13-14 (NIV): "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death."

I'm just against organized religion; I've read a few different versions of the Bible cover-to-cover and agree with a good deal of it's fundamental teachings.

[TK-8252]

The most important thing is to exercise all discipline in love. The reason I discipline my children is because I love them. I know that I cannot allow them to grow up thinking they can do whatever they want. Corporal punishment is one tool (of many) I use to do that.

 

"I beat my wife because I love her."

 

Just doesn't make any sense, man...

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

"I beat my wife because I love her."

 

Just doesn't make any sense, man...

Nice comparison. It's an oh-so accurate depiction of what jimbo had in mind.

[Jae Onasi]

*Waits for Jae to enter*

 

I heard my name getting taken in vain....

 

But stay calm and easy. Simply do the Bob Ross.

 

You know, my dad was into doing his style of paintings. I managed to sit through half of a show of "Let's put a happy little tree here, and some happy bushes, and a lovely stream, maybe with a fish that lives by the sea...." After a few more 'happy trees' and 'happy bushes' I turned to my dad and said "I think he's had a little too much 'happy grass.'"

 

Disciplining....

I am a much more patient parent in my 'multiple 29th b-day anniversary' years than I would have been in my 20's. Patience when dealing with children, especially when they're young, is absolutely essential.

 

There are a million books and opinions on the subject, some good, some OK, some truly awful. We've picked and chosen different methods based on what works for us and for each individual kid. Our kids' personalities are so different that what works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other, so discipline has to be tailored individually.

 

My plan before I had kids was not to do corporal punishment. I grew up in a rather abusive household, and I was worried about repeating the cycle.

 

That went out the window rather quickly once my kids reached the toddler stage--there are just some times where they absolutely must obey you without question because it's a safety or life-and-death situation (like not running into the street when you see a car coming but they don't, not jumping into a pond, not sticking their fingers in the unprotected electric sockets or drinking the Drano at Aunt Martha's house, etc.). Toddlers can't reason like older kids. Time-outs don't always stop disobedience. So, for those specific situations where disobedience could have health or life-threatening consequences (like running away in a parking lot), I did resort to spanking, 1 time on the bottom. Usually once was all it took.

 

Most of the time, however, the situation is not life-threatening, so I have a little more time to evaluate the situation. I look at a couple things. 1. was this a definitively defiant issue and 2. would my kids be best served by experiencing the consequences of their disobedient behavior vs. other methods of discipline. 3. Have I put my kids into a situation that ensures success or is doomed to failure?

 

Defiance is dealt with a little differently and a little more strongly, because kids have to learn to obey authority (they'll learn later as they get older about exceptions like MLK Jr., but for now we keep it simple). We prefer to use non-corporal methods (time-outs, loss of privileges, etc.) much more often than corporal, so spanking is always a last resort and it's used very rarely. Usually at this point now that they're a little older, all I have to do is give them The Mother Warning Look .

 

If it's not a defiance issue and it's something like tantrums or throwing toys, they're better served by having to go to their rooms (tantrums are anti-social. You want to be anti-social, go be anti-social in your room by yourself. When you get control, you can rejoin the rest of us) or having those toys taken away. It didn't take either kid long to figure out that hitting someone with a toy or throwing it meant getting it taken away. If you throw your cup of juice on the floor, you don't get more. Experiencing the consequences, within a safe environment, is probably one of the most effective ways of discipline in our family (we utilize some of the methods in 'How to Make Children Mind Without Losing Yours' by Kevin Lehman).

 

There are certain situations where I'm a little more lenient--if a toddler is tired or really hungry, they just don't have the resources to reason enough to obey completely sometimes. If my child was having a tantrum and I knew it was because it was way past the normal dinner time, I fed the child instead of disciplining.

 

We try to arrange for success in obedience. For instance, the rule at home is homework before fun stuff. My son works on it in the kitchen while I make dinner. That way, he's not in a position where he can see the TV and get distracted. It has good lighting and easy access to school supplies, and I'm there to help him out if he has questions.

 

The thing that I think is the most critical factor in discipline success, no matter what kind is used, is for the parent to do what they say they're going to do. The 'stop or I'll say stop again' parents drive me up a wall almost as much as their bratty, whiney children do. If I tell my daughter 'if you don't stop screaming, you have to go to your room', then I better make her go to her room if she doesn't stop screaming.

 

This means that if you choose something stupid, you still have to follow through (within reason), because if you don't, you a. lose credibility and b. foster distrust and c. let the child know that rules are only partially enforced. One time I went shopping at a Target during Christmas season with tired hungry children. That was mistake numbers 1, 2, and 3 right there. Thank goodness we didn't get to the point where we had anything in the cart. Since it was so crowded, I wanted my daughter in the cart where there was less chance of her getting lost/running off. She was about 3 or 4 at the time, and was tired and hungry. She wanted to walk. When I told her she had to get in the cart or we'd leave, she laid down on the ground and screamed bloody murder. I picked her up and she did her fabulous spaghetti-legs impression and sank down to the ground. I sighed, because now I knew that there was no hope of any shopping since I said we'd leave if she didn't obey. I picked her up again, and since she was still doing the limp-noodle leg thing, I threw her over my shoulder and told her we had to leave. She started kicking and screaming--rather painfully for both. I finally had to lay her sideways over my hip so I wouldn't get internal injuries from her kicking, and out we walked from the store with her screaming all the way and me frustrated at not being able to get done some things that really needed to be done at the store. I seriously thought someone would call the cops on us, thinking I was kidnapping her or something. She fell asleep 2 minutes after I started driving home. However, she's never disobeyed me at the store since that time since she knows that I'll do what I say I'll do.

 

You can't discipline in anger, and having some humor can help a lot, too. There've been times when I've been so upset or angry that I've sent the kids to their rooms and then I went to _my_ room for about 20 minutes or so to calm down. If I absolutely have to use spanking, I try hard not to do it when I'm angry. There've been a few times where I said or did something wrong when I was upset, and I went back later and apologized.

 

Humor can save some situations, too. When my daughter was having a kicking and screaming fit in a toy store, I waited a bit to see if it'd blow over. When it wouldn't, I was very frustrated to say the least. At that point, the only thing I could think of to do was to clap my hands and say "Someday you'll get an Oscar for that performance!" Another mom happened to walk by the end of the aisle right then and she burst out laughing. Apparently she understood all too well. It defused the situation quite a bit for me, anyway.

 

We try to 'catch our kids being good'. It's just as important for them to know what they're doing right as it is to know what they're doing wrong. We don't use rewards or such, but we do praise them: 'It was nice for you to hold the door for that man because he had his hands full.' 'You were very polite saying please and thank you at Teresa's house.' My son just beams when I make a point of noticing when he's doing something good.

 

And maybe off on a tangent a bit--we don't ever use food as reward or punishment. We feel that using in particular sweets as rewards links 'good feelings' with those kinds of foods, and it may encourage overeating down the road. We use only non-food rewards/punishments.

 

Anyway, we do use corporal punishment, but in a very judicious and controlled setting, and I feel it's something that should not be the primary option.

[Emperor Devon]

My, that was long. But I'm not surprised that a mother could be very opinionated about this.

 

I did resort to spanking, 1 time on the bottom. Usually once was all it took.

 

Sounds better than the infamous bare-bottom spankings equal to the child's age plus 'one more to grow on'.

 

One time I went shopping at a Target during Christmas season with tired hungry children. That was mistake numbers 1, 2, and 3 right there. {snip}

 

I have to say, your story was very odd to picture with your Lumiya avatar...

 

In my opinion (this addressed to the methods of spanking that can last till the age of 12), spanking simply generates anger in the child rather discipline. Physical force is simply a simple and lazy way to discpline a child, and like all lazy methods of doing things, has bad consequences in the long term. You could say it brings order, since the kid won't be eager to be slapped, but I don't consider ruling through fear an effective way to raise children.