Poll: Is it ok for parents to spank their kids?

[PukingRainbows]

Lol I'm still a newbie on how forums work. Anyways, it's not okay to spank your kids.

 

[PukingRainbows]

Lol I'm still a newbie on how forums work. Anyways, it's not okay to spank your kids.

 

[PukingRainbows]

It is bias because it's in favor of no spanking... It doesn't say everyone who is spanked will become a slut; it's implying that a child has an increased rate of sexual behavior if he or she is spanked. There are also other studies showing that spanking increases aggression in a child.

 

[Luke3184]

Only in a purely platonic fashion (Yes I'm fully aware that sometime in my future I shall be sauntering down to hell)

 

[b3nn3tt]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/e1057
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983895,00.html

Research found above has shown that:

"As 5-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the nonspanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals."

There are many non-violent alternates which are a little more inconvient for the parent but pay-off in the long run for the children's mental state.

You now what the flaw in that is? It doesn't show causation. Were the kids more trouble because they were spanked? Or were they spanked because they were more trouble?

One of the control variables was the child's behaviour. It says it in the abstract and goes into more detail in the method section.

How does one use a child's behavior as a control? There is no way of knowing if a child will be aggressive in 2 years, and there is no real way of knowing if spanking is what brought that along.

Because it was a longitudinal study, they looked at the kids' behaviour and how much they were spanked when they were three, and looked at their behaviour again when they were five. The link to the study is somewhere earlier in the thread, go take a look for yourself.

That still doesn't prove causation.

Children's behavior naturally changes from year to year (significantly).

(And BTW, for the record I've never hit my 2 1/2 year old so I'm not defending my own behavior, I just think it should be a tool that's permitted when needed, appropriate, and not used to excess in quantity of level of violence)

True, it is correlation moreso than causation. Here's another study I've found that suggests that higher levels of antisocial behaviour of children that were spanked is unlikely to be a results of the child's tendency towards antisocial behaviour or other confounding variables:

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/151/8/761

 

[PukingRainbows]

"You ever notice how kids were a lot less fucking annoying back when parents were EXPECTED to smack them on the ass if they were acting up?" Evidence?

"So, my answer would be, yes it's alright, and fuck you if you think the slightest bit of physical contact will scar them for life." There might not scar everyone, but it will leave some physcologgical damage in some in the long run. http://www.nospank.net/straus14.htm "DURHAM, N.H. -? Children who are spanked or victims of other corporal punishment are more likely to have sexual problems as a teen or adult, according to new research presented today by Murray Straus, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire."

Biased source is biased.

And oh please... EVERYONE was hit for thousands of years, and yet somehow they seemed to function sexually and without physcological damage.

I was hit as a kid, just a handful of times. Barely remember them. I was upset at the time (duh, that is the point) but I have no emotional scars or sexual problems.

Everyone? Including the serial killers who violently fucked their victims?

 

[artanis_neravar]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/e1057
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983895,00.html

Research found above has shown that:

"As 5-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the nonspanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals."

There are many non-violent alternates which are a little more inconvient for the parent but pay-off in the long run for the children's mental state.

You now what the flaw in that is? It doesn't show causation. Were the kids more trouble because they were spanked? Or were they spanked because they were more trouble?

One of the control variables was the child's behaviour. It says it in the abstract and goes into more detail in the method section.

How does one use a child's behavior as a control? There is no way of knowing if a child will be aggressive in 2 years, and there is no real way of knowing if spanking is what brought that along.

Because it was a longitudinal study, they looked at the kids' behaviour and how much they were spanked when they were three, and looked at their behaviour again when they were five. The link to the study is somewhere earlier in the thread, go take a look for yourself.

How do they tell if the kid would have acted the exact same way if they weren't spanked?

Granted, they didn't control for that. But then it would be impossible to do that. The closest you could get would be to have a matched pairs design, where they match the children as closely as possible based on behaviour.

And actually having read the study again, there were a number of confounding variables which could also have affected the results. However, these confounding variables centred around the mistreatment of the children, which was associated with mothers who spanked their children.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that the study is faulty or anything like that I'm just saying that it's studying something that can't really be proven, because there is not way of knowing how each child would turn out if things were different.

 

[dead.juice]

You ever notice how kids were a lot less fucking annoying back when parents were EXPECTED to smack them on the ass if they were acting up?

So, my answer would be, yes it's alright, and fuck you if you think the slightest bit of physical contact will scar them for life. Of course, there has to be a limit to how much you hit them, and how hard you hit them, and yet never hitting them pretty much makes them believe that they can do whatever the fuck they want with you as a parent.

There was a kid who was at Walmart with his mother. She didn't buy him a candy bar or something, and as soon as they got out to the parking lot, he picked up a brick and nailed his mom in the head.
After she regained consciousnesses, she took the kid back inside and got him what he wanted.
Spanking looks so horrible to everyone because people have no idea how much worse the alternative could be.

 

[b3nn3tt]

This thing of, "Don't call it hitting, that's got negative connotations," is a very interesting view. People in favour of, say, assissinating dictators don't really like calling it murder (though it is arguable it isn't that) or even killing (though it definetly is that) because they have negative connotations.

When you spank your child, you are hitting your child, if you want a reasoned and adult argument about this you have to face up to the facts and be proud of what you are doing, don't sugar the pill, it makes the pill look bad.

Well, connotations or not, hitting is what is being done. It may well be a specific type of hitting, but it is still hitting.

To properly compare the two, it would be like the parent touching the child's hand to a hot stove to show them that it's hot.

No it isn't because that is forcing your child to do something that they should. The parent touching the child's hand to a hot stove to show them that it's hot, is much closer to the parent putting a crayon in the kids hand and using their(the parent's) hand to direct the child's hand in drawing on the walls and then spanking them.
Spanking your child is not always the answer, but pain is one of the best motivators especially when the parent later sits down and explains what the child did wrong. Spanking by itself isn't very effective but spanking followed by adult conversation with your kids is very effective.

I would argue that the child needs the explanation that they've done something wrong as soon as possible, so that they can form a connection between the event and the subsequent punishment. And I would also argue that that punishment absolutely does not need to take the form of hitting your child.

When someone says I hit my kid, people will immediately thing of child abuse, where if you say I spank my kid people will think of a slap on the ass. You are using "hit" because of the way it sounds, whether you will admit it or not, you are saying it because it makes the practice look bad. It is like calling what soldiers do in combat murder, they are killing but it's not really murder.

Children aren't stupid they have memories longer then 5 seconds. They need time to calm down from the initial act to a point where they can actually pay attention to what you are saying. No spanking your kid doesn't always need to happen but there are cases where it is better then just taking away their toys.

I'll freely admit that I am using the word 'hit' because of its negative connotations, but that doesn't change the fact that hitting is still what's being done. Similarly, if I wanted to make a negative point about war I might use the word 'murder' to describe soldiers' actions.

I will also reiterate that I believe non-violent punishments are equally as effective as spanking.

 

[Wackymon]

In truth, no. it never has been efective and never will. it results in violent, agressive children who wont listn.
why is it inefffective?
skinners theorys explain how to teach useing posititve reinforcement, and that negitive reinforcement dosnt work, AKA, spanking.
here is an explanation:

Skinner (contrary to some stereotypes that have arisen about behaviorists) doesn?t ?approve? of the use of aversive stimuli -- not because of ethics, but because they don?t work well! Notice that I said earlier that Johnny will maybe stop throwing his toys, and that I perhaps will take out the garbage? That?s because whatever was reinforcing the bad behaviors hasn?t been removed, as it would?ve been in the case of extinction. This hidden reinforcer has just been ?covered up? with a conflicting aversive stimulus. So, sure, sometimes the child (or me) will behave -- but it still feels good to throw those toys. All Johnny needs to do is wait till you?re out of the room, or find a way to blame it on his brother, or in some way escape the consequences, and he?s back to his old ways. In fact, because Johnny now only gets to enjoy his reinforcer occasionally, he?s gone into a variable schedule of reinforcement, and he?ll be even more resistant to extinction than ever!

see!!! you might THINK that it worked, but it didnt.
but the spoiled kids? thats a result of lack of disiplin (not punishment).
here, just look up skinners theory and you will see that spanking dosnt work.

 

[FamoFunk]

Uh, no.

You don't hit or smack a random person on the street who mis-behaves or plays up, so why do it to a small child just because they're yours?

I can't take away a random person's stuff on the street, tell them what they can eat for dinner, make them go to school, tell them what time to go to bed, ground them, tell them to go to the doctor...etc....

Children are not just small adults. They do not have the rights of adults, parents do have a certain amount of control and rights over thier kids that do not apply to strangers on the street.

I know, but spanking/smacking, basically physically (and emotionally) harming your child is not a right a parent has. It's abusing your position as primary carer, it's cruel.

Seriously, as a Mother, I've seen small children be punished and it's a horrific sight to see when you have your own.

 

[DaJoW]

I think it's about as ok as it's ok for me to hit an adult who makes a mistake. To me it's just physical abuse, and can much too easily go too far.

 

[b3nn3tt]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/e1057
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983895,00.html

Research found above has shown that:

"As 5-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the nonspanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals."

There are many non-violent alternates which are a little more inconvient for the parent but pay-off in the long run for the children's mental state.

You now what the flaw in that is? It doesn't show causation. Were the kids more trouble because they were spanked? Or were they spanked because they were more trouble?

One of the control variables was the child's behaviour. It says it in the abstract and goes into more detail in the method section.

How does one use a child's behavior as a control? There is no way of knowing if a child will be aggressive in 2 years, and there is no real way of knowing if spanking is what brought that along.

Because it was a longitudinal study, they looked at the kids' behaviour and how much they were spanked when they were three, and looked at their behaviour again when they were five. The link to the study is somewhere earlier in the thread, go take a look for yourself.

How do they tell if the kid would have acted the exact same way if they weren't spanked?

Granted, they didn't control for that. But then it would be impossible to do that. The closest you could get would be to have a matched pairs design, where they match the children as closely as possible based on behaviour.

And actually having read the study again, there were a number of confounding variables which could also have affected the results. However, these confounding variables centred around the mistreatment of the children, which was associated with mothers who spanked their children.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that the study is faulty or anything like that I'm just saying that it's studying something that can't really be proven, because there is not way of knowing how each child would turn out if things were different.

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/151/8/761

There's a study I found where they argue that increases in antisocial behaviour are as a result of spanking and not of predispositions to antisocial behaviour.

Obviously we can agree that no study can compare methods using the same children in each condition. But I think that the number of studies that associate spanking with negative outcomes say a lot about how effective it is.

 

[artanis_neravar]

"You ever notice how kids were a lot less fucking annoying back when parents were EXPECTED to smack them on the ass if they were acting up?" Evidence?

"So, my answer would be, yes it's alright, and fuck you if you think the slightest bit of physical contact will scar them for life." There might not scar everyone, but it will leave some physcologgical damage in some in the long run. http://www.nospank.net/straus14.htm "DURHAM, N.H. -? Children who are spanked or victims of other corporal punishment are more likely to have sexual problems as a teen or adult, according to new research presented today by Murray Straus, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire."

Biased source is biased.

And oh please... EVERYONE was hit for thousands of years, and yet somehow they seemed to function sexually and without physcological damage.

I was hit as a kid, just a handful of times. Barely remember them. I was upset at the time (duh, that is the point) but I have no emotional scars or sexual problems.

Everyone? Including the serial killers who violently fucked their victims?

Being a serial killer has nothing to do with being hit, it more often has to do with being a sociopath, where you don't experience normal emotion. In fact the serial killers that rape, are more likely to be spawned from mother who over coddle them

 

[Insanityblues]

Touchy subject to be sure... but as many have already answered, moderation is the factor that draws the line between rightful, necessary discipline, and child abuse. It can't be pleasant having to hit your child, but being too permissive can do just as much damage.
At an age when they're too young for lengthy explanations to have any effect, I believe spanking is a good way to make kids understand that some behaviors just aren't acceptable .

 

[AMMO Kid]

All my friends who I know who were spanked are pretty decent people who have respect for rules and authority. All my friends who weren't spanked sort of "obey" authority but they push the boundaries as much as possible. I'm not saying that spanking decides all this but this is an interesting observation.