Spanking and physical discipline: what are your thoughts?

I’m posting in psychology because I can't stand watching a bunch of moms jump to defend their kids.

Nowadays, modern psychology loves pushing this "no physical punishment" stance. Let's check out this video. Parents keep insisting kids know they shouldn't go with strangers, so why does this even happen?

It's theory. Kids are born with zero knowledge about how the world actually works. When parents say, "there will be bad consequences," the kid CANNOT visualize those consequences because they have no prior experience with them. Basically, parents are just talking to thin air and wasting their breath. They achieve nothing.
Kids are also selfish. So, when we use physical discipline, here’s what happens: when a kid finds themselves in a situation that might lead to bad outcomes, they remember they'll get punished—meaning they'll end up in a bad spot (because of the parent). That’s what they’ve experienced, so that's what they avoid. That's how you control a child to teach them what to avoid and what not to.

Sure, people will cry "violence, boohoo," but the fact is, people who want to beat and abuse their kids are going to do it regardless of what some textbook says is allowed. My support for physical discipline has nothing to do with child abuse; it’s just an easier way to steer them toward a better outcome.

Bottom line: kids decide based on how they feel in the moment. Look at a dog—it's cute, so they want to see it more because it's fun. But the idea that "a stranger might hurt you" is impossible for them to grasp.

Here's another one: You want cookies? Yes. NO, THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. AGAIN. You want cookies? Yes.

Zero impact and zero understanding without lived experience.

Physical discipline can be effective if it’s used correctly—provided it remains a tool rather than becoming the ultimate goal itself.

Furthermore, I truly believe it should always be the absolute last resort for any parent.

The reality is that in 99% of situations, hitting isn't actually necessary; what children really need is open communication and, most importantly, seeing a good example set by their parents—since kids naturally mimic what they see their parents doing every single day...

All physical punishment achieves is teaching a child to fear their own parent. A beaten child learns humiliation, not lessons; there is no practical value in trying to "teach" through force.

Physical abuse teaches you nothing except how to be a victim: small, helpless, and utterly worthless. It molds you into someone defined by frustration and constant fear. Down the road, this carries directly into your relationships, where you either end up bending over backward to please everyone or you become the very person using force to get their way.

Any parent who thinks they need to resort to hitting a child just to make them "learn" something is fundamentally incompetent and weak. If they actually knew how to lead, they wouldn't have to rely on brute force, dominance, or intimidation just to be heard. And frankly, forgive my language, but screw any kind of "authority" built on terror.

Andrew Doyle said:Physical abuse teaches you nothing except how to be a victim: small, helpless, and utterly worthless. It molds you into someone defined by frustration and constant fear. Down the road, this carries directly into your relationships, where you either end up bending over backward to please everyone or you become the very person using force to get their way.

Any parent who thinks they need to resort to hitting a child just to make them "learn" something is fundamentally incompetent and weak. If they actually knew how to lead, they wouldn't have to rely on brute force, dominance, or intimidation just to be heard. And frankly, forgive my language, but screw any kind of "authority" built on terror.

I’m with splićanka on this one. I never laid a hand on my kids or tore them down. I know plenty of people who actually defend that kind of behavior, acting like it’s perfectly normal. Growing up, physical punishment was my reality, and I’m certain I carry the scars from it today. It left me unable to stand up for myself for a long time; I just ended up being a pushover for every idiot who came my way. Now, my children tell me everything without hesitation or fear. They know they can come to me first whenever they need something—something I never felt I could do with my own parents. It's a long story.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:I’m posting in psychology because I can't stand watching a bunch of moms jump to defend their kids.

Nowadays, modern psychology loves pushing this "no physical punishment" stance. Let's check out this video. Parents keep insisting kids know they shouldn't go with strangers, so why does this even happen?

It's theory. Kids are born with zero knowledge about how the world actually works. When parents say, "there will be bad consequences," the kid CANNOT visualize those consequences because they have no prior experience with them. Basically, parents are just talking to thin air and wasting their breath. They achieve nothing.
Kids are also selfish. So, when we use physical discipline, here’s what happens: when a kid finds themselves in a situation that might lead to bad outcomes, they remember they'll get punished—meaning they'll end up in a bad spot (because of the parent). That’s what they’ve experienced, so that's what they avoid. That's how you control a child to teach them what to avoid and what not to.

Sure, people will cry "violence, boohoo," but the fact is, people who want to beat and abuse their kids are going to do it regardless of what some textbook says is allowed. My support for physical discipline has nothing to do with child abuse; it’s just an easier way to steer them toward a better outcome.

Bottom line: kids decide based on how they feel in the moment. Look at a dog—it's cute, so they want to see it more because it's fun. But the idea that "a stranger might hurt you" is impossible for them to grasp.

Here's another one: You want cookies? Yes. NO, THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. AGAIN. You want cookies? Yes.

Zero impact and zero understanding without lived experience.

There’s physical punishment and psychological punishment. Both are inherently traumatic for a kid, but people lean toward the latter since modern parenting styles don't allow the former—like, being sent to your room for two hours to stare at a corner is still a thing.
But you still have to set boundaries for a child, and that’s done through rewards and consequences. Without that, there's no real upbringing, because there’s no way for kids to understand or think about the results of their actions. Kids who get away with everything end up turning into little monsters.
I'm not saying hit them, but giving a kid a quick swat on the butt or sending them to their room for a timeout isn't "beating" them. Honestly, in this day and age, kids need some level of physical discipline because most parents just don't have the time for the complex psychological training required. Otherwise, everything stays in this mediocre middle ground where neither the parent finishes the job nor the kid actually gets the message...

Kenneth Barnes4 said:I’m posting in psychology because I can't stand watching a bunch of moms jump to defend their kids.

Nowadays, modern psychology loves pushing this "no physical punishment" stance. Let's check out this video. Parents keep insisting kids know they shouldn't go with strangers, so why does this even happen?

It's theory. Kids are born with zero knowledge about how the world actually works. When parents say, "there will be bad consequences," the kid CANNOT visualize those consequences because they have no prior experience with them. Basically, parents are just talking to thin air and wasting their breath. They achieve nothing.
Kids are also selfish. So, when we use physical discipline, here’s what happens: when a kid finds themselves in a situation that might lead to bad outcomes, they remember they'll get punished—meaning they'll end up in a bad spot (because of the parent). That’s what they’ve experienced, so that's what they avoid. That's how you control a child to teach them what to avoid and what not to.

Sure, people will cry "violence, boohoo," but the fact is, people who want to beat and abuse their kids are going to do it regardless of what some textbook says is allowed. My support for physical discipline has nothing to do with child abuse; it’s just an easier way to steer them toward a better outcome.

Bottom line: kids decide based on how they feel in the moment. Look at a dog—it's cute, so they want to see it more because it's fun. But the idea that "a stranger might hurt you" is impossible for them to grasp.

Here's another one: You want cookies? Yes. NO, THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. AGAIN. You want cookies? Yes.

Zero impact and zero understanding without lived experience.

Were you beaten as a kid too, and somehow still turned out fine? 🍿

If your goal is to turn your child into a mental patient—well, by all means, keep mistreating them!

Andrew Doyle said:Physical abuse teaches you nothing except how to be a victim: small, helpless, and utterly worthless. It molds you into someone defined by frustration and constant fear. Down the road, this carries directly into your relationships, where you either end up bending over backward to please everyone or you become the very person using force to get their way.

Any parent who thinks they need to resort to hitting a child just to make them "learn" something is fundamentally incompetent and weak. If they actually knew how to lead, they wouldn't have to rely on brute force, dominance, or intimidation just to be heard. And frankly, forgive my language, but screw any kind of "authority" built on terror.

So why the focus on physical discipline? Why is it that women seem so determined to dodge the word "violence"? Maybe it's because they're more prone to verbal lashings rather than actual hits, so they just brush it off as being insignificant, even though that kind of psychological stuff can be way more systemic and happen much more often than physical abuse.🕺

So everyone’s just going to ignore my points? It’s obvious words don't sink in with kids, and they aren't learning much from them. Sure, kids learn by example—that's a fact—but when a parent is trying to warn a kid about actual danger, it doesn't seem to be working the way I think it should. Look at history: parents used to use a belt to discipline their kids, and society was never more dysfunctional than it is today with that gone.

If there's actual understanding and respect for a kid's feelings and needs within the family, then getting a spanking once in a while to teach a lesson isn't a big deal to me.

In certain circumstances... if establishing any kind of dialogue with a child proves impossible, or if they simply descend into aggression... from my own personal experience (and I am firmly against physical force or any other form of violence)... a hand has found its place on a backside, much like 😬

It isn't a burden for me to spend hours on what some might call "brainwashing," though it really just boils down to minimizing the effort needed to eventually establish communication—essentially delivering the message of what is acceptable versus what is permitted

I would honestly rather they "fear" my endless lecturing than develop an aversion to aggression, especially when they are growing up in an environment saturated with it. From everything I have seen, this approach leads to a much happier and more stable life ☕

It feels like we’re seeing more and more instances lately where it’s actually the kids who are calling the shots and basically raising their own parents. I swear, I can't go anywhere without spotting some parent losing their absolute mind in public because they've completely lost control of the situation.

Hannah Allen5 said:It feels like we’re seeing more and more instances lately where it’s actually the kids who are calling the shots and basically raising their own parents. I swear, I can't go anywhere without spotting some parent losing their absolute mind in public because they've completely lost control of the situation.

And let's be honest, parents are just people... and frankly, very few individuals actually possess true self-control.

It’s often said that the greatest power one can wield is mastery over oneself.🙂

However, I would argue that the concept of "controlling a child" is a fundamentally unproductive motivation...

Or, to put it in the words of neonsailor26, if it isn't the ultimate goal, then it should merely be a tool.

The actual objective—which, naturally, should be the primary aim of any parent—ought to be helping the child mature into an adult... someone independent, capable, and self-sufficient, and so on.

Unfortunately, there is a sort of traditional pathology at play here where children are essentially enslaved because they are the most vulnerable. It's a form of psychological manipulation where "parents," driven by their own deep-seated immaturity, choose to cripple their children rather than simply stepping back and allowing them the dignity of growing up on their own once they can no longer provide direct guidance.🙂

Children require decisive leadership at home!
They need parents who aren't afraid to draw a firm line in the sand.
I seem to encounter this "negotiation" style of parenting far too often lately, where every little rule becomes a debate.
It’s a slippery slope; if we treat every interaction like a boardroom meeting, kids turn into little accountants and master manipulators before they even hit middle school.
Everything should happen in its own season.
When they are young, they simply need to follow their parents' guidance.
The capacity for making independent choices will develop naturally as they mature.
Nowadays, there's an excessive tendency to prioritize a child's whims over everything else.
What they actually crave is stability, order, and a clear understanding of their role within the family structure.

Morgan Chase5 said:Children require decisive leadership at home!
They need parents who aren't afraid to draw a firm line in the sand.
I seem to encounter this "negotiation" style of parenting far too often lately, where every little rule becomes a debate.
It’s a slippery slope; if we treat every interaction like a boardroom meeting, kids turn into little accountants and master manipulators before they even hit middle school.
Everything should happen in its own season.
When they are young, they simply need to follow their parents' guidance.
The capacity for making independent choices will develop naturally as they mature.
Nowadays, there's an excessive tendency to prioritize a child's whims over everything else.
What they actually crave is stability, order, and a clear understanding of their role within the family structure.

👍

Everything here is spot on. Sure, a kid can decide which color straw they want at the movies, but they aren't equipped to make massive life decisions because they can't see the big picture yet. That's why adults handle the heavy lifting. You teach a child through small steps. By letting them pick the minor things with zero real consequences, you're training them to make decisions. They’ll apply those same patterns to much bigger things once they grow up.

When you see a kid messing up, but the fallout isn't permanent or dangerous, let them fail. Let them learn from experience so they understand that actions have consequences. For example, if a kid leaves a carton of milk right on the edge of the table, don't nag them five times saying, "The milk is going to fall." Just let it fall. Then, the kid has to clean up the mess. Next time, they'll be more careful because they know they don't want to deal with the cleanup. If you constantly intervene or fix it for them, they learn nothing. If you keep them under a glass dome, deciding everything for them and cleaning up every mistake, they never grasp the actual impact of their actions. They just focus on keeping things smooth in the moment, totally blind to the consequences hitting them later.

The only time you should really discipline a child is when they're doing something that could seriously hurt themselves or someone else. Say a kid decides to try driving the car because they saw Mom doing it. That's a situation where physical discipline is used because explaining the danger is too hard for a kid who thinks it's just a game. They might feel bad or negative about being punished, but after that, you have to explain that what they did was genuinely dangerous. After the discipline, you go back to treating them with the same respect, love, and care as always. That way, the kid doesn't walk away thinking, "I'm being mistreated," but rather, "If my parents generally treat me great and I only get disciplined when I do something dangerous I don't understand, then there must be a good reason."

If a parent is just some brute who doesn't care about a child's emotional state, then yeah, you've got a problem. But like I said before, those kinds of people are going to act however they want and leave lasting scars on a child regardless of whether they use physical punishment or not.

Andrew Doyle said:Physical abuse teaches you nothing except how to be a victim: small, helpless, and utterly worthless. It molds you into someone defined by frustration and constant fear. Down the road, this carries directly into your relationships, where you either end up bending over backward to please everyone or you become the very person using force to get their way.

Any parent who thinks they need to resort to hitting a child just to make them "learn" something is fundamentally incompetent and weak. If they actually knew how to lead, they wouldn't have to rely on brute force, dominance, or intimidation just to be heard. And frankly, forgive my language, but screw any kind of "authority" built on terror.

I'm with you on that.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:So everyone’s just going to ignore my points? It’s obvious words don't sink in with kids, and they aren't learning much from them. Sure, kids learn by example—that's a fact—but when a parent is trying to warn a kid about actual danger, it doesn't seem to be working the way I think it should. Look at history: parents used to use a belt to discipline their kids, and society was never more dysfunctional than it is today with that gone.

If there's actual understanding and respect for a kid's feelings and needs within the family, then getting a spanking once in a while to teach a lesson isn't a big deal to me.

Actions speak louder than words, but we’ve already established that. Words—and how they're interpreted—depend entirely on the child's age. The younger the kid, the fewer the words needed.

....so throughout all of history, parents punished their kids with a belt, and now society is supposedly more dysfunctional than ever because that's gone.

Today's generations didn't just drop out of Mars; they are a direct reflection of the generations that came before them. Just as previous generations were reflections of those preceding them, and so on. That "belt" did its job once upon a time and became woven into the very fabric of our families and lineage. It was precisely because of that "belt" (read: parenting style) that we ended up with so many "dysfunctional" (to use your term) relationships in society today. Many emotional wrecks have since become parents themselves, passing their "talents" down to their children. We even have an entire massive topic dedicated to "toxic parent" dynamics, where those same children come here to write essays while simultaneously trying to heal and survive in whatever way they can.

rocket86 said:Why the beatings?

Because of the old saying "spare the rod, spoil the child." That's the only reason.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:I’m posting in psychology because I can't stand watching a bunch of moms jump to defend their kids.

Nowadays, modern psychology loves pushing this "no physical punishment" stance. Let's check out this video. Parents keep insisting kids know they shouldn't go with strangers, so why does this even happen?

It's theory. Kids are born with zero knowledge about how the world actually works. When parents say, "there will be bad consequences," the kid CANNOT visualize those consequences because they have no prior experience with them. Basically, parents are just talking to thin air and wasting their breath. They achieve nothing.
Kids are also selfish. So, when we use physical discipline, here’s what happens: when a kid finds themselves in a situation that might lead to bad outcomes, they remember they'll get punished—meaning they'll end up in a bad spot (because of the parent). That’s what they’ve experienced, so that's what they avoid. That's how you control a child to teach them what to avoid and what not to.

Sure, people will cry "violence, boohoo," but the fact is, people who want to beat and abuse their kids are going to do it regardless of what some textbook says is allowed. My support for physical discipline has nothing to do with child abuse; it’s just an easier way to steer them toward a better outcome.

Bottom line: kids decide based on how they feel in the moment. Look at a dog—it's cute, so they want to see it more because it's fun. But the idea that "a stranger might hurt you" is impossible for them to grasp.

Here's another one: You want cookies? Yes. NO, THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. AGAIN. You want cookies? Yes.

Zero impact and zero understanding without lived experience.

You don't even put kids that young in a position where they could do that.
You aren't leaving them unsupervised, so the whole experiment is pointless.

Robert Reyes4 said:You don't even put kids that young in a position where they could do that.
You aren't leaving them unsupervised, so the whole experiment is pointless.

Look, a kid's gonna start thinking for themselves by 8 or 9. Like when they walk to school alone or hang out with friends. You can't hover over them until they're 15 just because you think they'll suddenly be better at making decisions then. If you do that, you're just raising an idiot.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:👍

Everything here is spot on. Sure, a kid can decide which color straw they want at the movies, but they aren't equipped to make massive life decisions because they can't see the big picture yet. That's why adults handle the heavy lifting. You teach a child through small steps. By letting them pick the minor things with zero real consequences, you're training them to make decisions. They’ll apply those same patterns to much bigger things once they grow up.

When you see a kid messing up, but the fallout isn't permanent or dangerous, let them fail. Let them learn from experience so they understand that actions have consequences. For example, if a kid leaves a carton of milk right on the edge of the table, don't nag them five times saying, "The milk is going to fall." Just let it fall. Then, the kid has to clean up the mess. Next time, they'll be more careful because they know they don't want to deal with the cleanup. If you constantly intervene or fix it for them, they learn nothing. If you keep them under a glass dome, deciding everything for them and cleaning up every mistake, they never grasp the actual impact of their actions. They just focus on keeping things smooth in the moment, totally blind to the consequences hitting them later.

The only time you should really discipline a child is when they're doing something that could seriously hurt themselves or someone else. Say a kid decides to try driving the car because they saw Mom doing it. That's a situation where physical discipline is used because explaining the danger is too hard for a kid who thinks it's just a game. They might feel bad or negative about being punished, but after that, you have to explain that what they did was genuinely dangerous. After the discipline, you go back to treating them with the same respect, love, and care as always. That way, the kid doesn't walk away thinking, "I'm being mistreated," but rather, "If my parents generally treat me great and I only get disciplined when I do something dangerous I don't understand, then there must be a good reason."

If a parent is just some brute who doesn't care about a child's emotional state, then yeah, you've got a problem. But like I said before, those kinds of people are going to act however they want and leave lasting scars on a child regardless of whether they use physical punishment or not.

Punishing a kid is only justifiable if they know exactly what they're doing is wrong and they do it anyway. Your car example doesn't fit that.
If a kid does something dangerous, you explain it to them—and if it's truly life-threatening, you make it clear with some drama.