Smacked children more successful later in life, study finds

[Phantom Blooper]

Put a shock collar on them....and a invisible fence in the yard.

I'm not an advocate of child beating and abuse....to the point of bone breakage and uncontrollable beatings into brain dead or a coma... but when they are young they may step on your toes.... to prevent them stepping on your heart when they are older.....smack their little butt.

Talking is good for the first offense....2nd time smack their little butt.

Timeouts are like the rumor of stress cards.....not worth it in my opine.

Grounded....that's a joke... smack their little butt...then they will come home wagging their tails behind them and behave at least for a little while.

[sparkie]

My oldest daughter was one of those 'extras'. So one day I told her to go get a switch. Left a welt on her back leg. Over 20 years of regret, but mine, not hers.
life is funny, at best, but I will say again,,,, The opposite of love is apathy.

[kgarton]

This is a tough question. I was hit with a belt by my father, but he never did it very hard. The fear was worse than the pain, and so I think it worked pretty well. Though, in the end, I think I won't hit my children at all. I don't think it's necessary. Tough question, though. Really tough.

[brian0351]

I agree that there should be consequences to negative actions, but those consequences should not include physical punishment in my opinion. For example, denying certain priviledges can be just as effective. Grounding them, taking away tv, taking away an allowance, sending them to bed without dinner, etc. Or for more serious offenses, you can scare the sh!t out of them by taking them to a jail and having them spend the night.

Spanking is not a very effective tool. Studies show it teaches kids to avoid being caught more than teaching them be good. Instead striking them, you should make them understand why certain behaviors are bad and develop a sense of morals in them in order to correct certain behaviors in the future. Sometimes spanking can backfire. It can cause anti-social or aggresive behavior which could lead to some psychological problems down the road.

Yes but putting thought into "Not Getting Caught"...is that moment of pause that makes you think, "Is the beating I'll get if I get caught...worth it?"

Worked for me. I would get the "parental facepalm" if I did something wrong and I avoided doing said activity for the fear of getting hit again.

If I knew I was going to do something wrong...and had to deal with consequences...I would put more thought into whether or not it was worth it (i.e. sneaking out of my house to see my girlfriend...afterwards she kissed the boo-boo and made it better )

[kenrobg30]

Put a shock collar on them....and a invisible fence in the yard.

I'm not an advocate of child beating and abuse....to the point of bone breakage and uncontrollable beatings into brain dead or a coma... but when they are young they may step on your toes.... to prevent them stepping on your heart when they are older.....smack their little butt.

Talking is good for the first offense....2nd time smack their little butt.

Timeouts are like the rumor of stress cards.....not worth it in my opine.

Grounded....that's a joke... smack their little butt...then they will come home wagging their tails behind them and behave at least for a little while.

I never hit my kids with my hand, PB. Reason: I srarted to the fist time, and I happened to look at the size of that hand, as compared to the size of that butt. It made me think about the damage that hand could do, if I miscalculated the amount of force in the swat. I wanted to get his attention, not cripple him, thus the doubled belt. S/F!! Ken

[GSEMarine94]

My wife is a 1st grade teacher and I know for a fact that they teach the benefits of corporal punishment at a young age. Kids under the age of 5 don't comprehend reasoning,but they can put two and two together. For example, "Touch the electrical outlet and mommy pops me, don't touch the outlet."
I have a 2 1/2 year old boy and a 4 month old girl, and I have popped my little boys butt, when needed.

[hrscowboy]

I have had to bust my boys several times as they was growing up with a belt I always told them it was gonna hurt me worse than hurt them and it did but my boys turned out real good so i cant complain.

[AKA HITMAN]

Discipline in our house as kids was a nightmare. Dad was a Navy lifer and made me stand tall every 0 dark thirty and recieve the famous phrase "your ass is mine when I get home". No matter how big or little the infraction, pops used a backhand or a fist to get the message across. Mom would grab my brothers and head for the hills. I did deserve some punishment, but beatings were not the answer. My problem was that I'd stand up to him and in turn get a righteous ass kicking.
When I enlisted, pops put me down with a 2x4 and sent me to the hospital. After boot, he got me on the front porch and gave me the business about not joining the Navy and went to full throttle on me...fortunately I learned a little something in boot and promptly cleaned his clock and sent him to the emergency room. Since then no problemo.
I'm raising my grandson with the wife and he's a typical 2 1/2 yr. old. He needs a pop on the butt now and again, and it does hurt me to see him cry, but you have to start putting down the law and hope he turns out without all the anger and rage I was raised with.

[commdog7]

I've studied psychology in college, particularly with children, and everything I've learned has been anti-corporal punishment. All the experts I've heard from say spanking/whipping/hitting children does more bad than good. There are so many other ways to punish a child rather than to use physical force. Children should be able to trust their parents, not fear them.

In the military, why do we have such high discipline? Boot camp has outlawed physical abuse and hazing in the fleet can destroy someone's career. So without these methods, how is it that our level of discipline is so high? Because discipline can be achieved through other, more advanced, methods. Yelling, exercise, and fear of damaging one's career is enough to turn criminals and druggies into highly disciplined United States Marines. The Corps has found ways to rid itself of corporal punishment while being as strong of an organization as ever. Why? Because corporal punishment causes more problems than it solves, and there are more effective ways to punish offenders.

Slowly, the Marine Corps is cracking down on corporal punishment within individual families. If a child is even suspected of being beaten by their father/mother, that Marine's career is ruined. What classifies as being beaten is continuously expanding, even in the Corps.

[giveen]

There is a difference between recruits, and a 2 year old boy reaching yet again for the hot stove burner.

[GSEMarine94]

I've studied psychology in college, particularly with children, and everything I've learned has been anti-corporal punishment. All the experts I've heard from say spanking/whipping/hitting children does more bad than good. There are so many other ways to punish a child rather than to use physical force. Children should be able to trust their parents, not fear them.

In the military, why do we have such high discipline? Boot camp has outlawed physical abuse and hazing in the fleet can destroy someone's career. So without these methods, how is it that our level of discipline is so high? Because discipline can be achieved through other, more advanced, methods. Yelling, exercise, and fear of damaging one's career is enough to turn criminals and druggies into highly disciplined United States Marines. The Corps has found ways to rid itself of corporal punishment while being as strong of an organization as ever. Why? Because corporal punishment causes more problems than it solves, and there are more effective ways to punish offenders.

Slowly, the Marine Corps is cracking down on corporal punishment within individual families. If a child is even suspected of being beaten by their father/mother, that Marine's career is ruined. What classifies as being beaten is continuously expanding, even in the Corps.

I'd like to see who these "experts" are, I can pick up a couple of dozen books my wife has laying around written by educators and psychologist that say differently. But I want to make sure to emphasis that there is a big difference in corporal punishment and beating a child.
As already mentioned BIG difference between a recruit and a child, can't use that as a comparison.

[firedog974]

I've studied psychology in college, particularly with children, and everything I've learned has been anti-corporal punishment. All the experts I've heard from say spanking/whipping/hitting children does more bad than good. There are so many other ways to punish a child rather than to use physical force. Children should be able to trust their parents, not fear them.

In the military, why do we have such high discipline? Boot camp has outlawed physical abuse and hazing in the fleet can destroy someone's career. So without these methods, how is it that our level of discipline is so high? Because discipline can be achieved through other, more advanced, methods. Yelling, exercise, and fear of damaging one's career is enough to turn criminals and druggies into highly disciplined United States Marines. The Corps has found ways to rid itself of corporal punishment while being as strong of an organization as ever. Why? Because corporal punishment causes more problems than it solves, and there are more effective ways to punish offenders.

Slowly, the Marine Corps is cracking down on corporal punishment within individual families. If a child is even suspected of being beaten by their father/mother, that Marine's career is ruined. What classifies as being beaten is continuously expanding, even in the Corps.

I can promise the majority of the physcologists you speak of who disaprove of spanking are making a commentary or opinion rather than facts based on research.
http://www.tldm.org/news6/child.discipline.htm
According to the National Institute for Healthcare Research, more than 80 percent of the professional publications attacking spanking were reviews and commentaries, rather than quantitative research. When analyzing the small portion of quantitative studies that included spanking, more than 90 percent of these studies lumped together mild forms of spanking with severe forms of physical abuse without discussing why they did so. Thus, the professional organizations which advocated outlawing spanking evidently made their decisions without the benefit of the facts. Mild spanking and severe child abuse are not the same thing.

[jrhd97]

You would hit a 1 or 2 year old!?

1-2 year olds don't understand the difference between right and wrong, therefore spanking them would be counterproductive. A heart-to-heart would be more appropriate. When they get a little older, old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong, then you can use punishments such as the ones I listed.

1 - 2 year olds do understand. 18 months and older is appropriate age to spank. Now you don't spank an 18 month old in the same manner as a 7 year old. The 18 month, a swift smack to the butt gets there attention. They do understand right from wrong.
The older kid, a few swats to the butt with a paddle works wonders. I don't use a belt or my hand, too personal. We use a wood paddle, designed for the expressed purpose. We never touch it until it is to be used.
Not all behavior is to be corrected with spanking. Loss of toys, games, computers, etc.... will work in many cases.
James Dobson has a very good view on spanking and discipline. My parents used it on the 3 of us, and I use it on my 2. Works like a charm.

[NoRemorse]

My parents physically corrected the both of us growing up.

Its not so much the spanking so much as the consistency of the discipline and punishment meted out. Got our butts swatted with all sorts of trash. Never bled, no hospital trips.

I don't need a study to validate the methods. My issue is that studies countering this one want to take the option away. I'm not going to abuse my child so get your sanctimonious crap out of my house.

I'll spend my time reading to him and playing with him as well as laying down the rules, not listening to yet another study that wants to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. Heaven knows we were barbarians before this with no life expectancy and unparalleled crime rates.

[Isrowei]

I've studied psychology in college, particularly with children, and everything I've learned has been anti-corporal punishment. All the experts I've heard from say spanking/whipping/hitting children does more bad than good. There are so many other ways to punish a child rather than to use physical force. Children should be able to trust their parents, not fear them.

In the military, why do we have such high discipline? Boot camp has outlawed physical abuse and hazing in the fleet can destroy someone's career. So without these methods, how is it that our level of discipline is so high? Because discipline can be achieved through other, more advanced, methods. Yelling, exercise, and fear of damaging one's career is enough to turn criminals and druggies into highly disciplined United States Marines. The Corps has found ways to rid itself of corporal punishment while being as strong of an organization as ever. Why? Because corporal punishment causes more problems than it solves, and there are more effective ways to punish offenders.

Slowly, the Marine Corps is cracking down on corporal punishment within individual families. If a child is even suspected of being beaten by their father/mother, that Marine's career is ruined. What classifies as being beaten is continuously expanding, even in the Corps.

Just wait till you're a parent. It will make a lot more sense.

Also, there is a huge difference between discipline and abuse. No one here is advocating beatings... which is abuse. Discpline in the form of spankings and swats is far different.