Spanking and physical discipline: what are your thoughts?

Kenneth Barnes4 said: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.

The goal is to watch them until you're sure they actually get why certain things are off-limits.
What's the alternative? Just let them wander off with a complete stranger and then beat them for it later?

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.

There is no scenario where a child MUST be physically disciplined. There isn't a single situation where an adult MUST be physically punished either. Do you see the analogy there?

You can explain to a child that something is dangerous without resorting to physical punishment. Kids aren't idiots! Physical discipline leads to nothing but fear of parents, a loss of self-esteem, and all sorts of other nasty long-term consequences... And as for that idea that a child will "conclude" one thing or another—they won't. A child doesn't understand why Mom or Dad suddenly seems to hate them in the moment they're being hit or why they're causing them physical pain. A parent needs to be a safe harbor—a refuge from pain, insults, and humiliation...

Robert Reyes4 said: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.

That’s exactly it! 👍

Plus, so many tricky situations can be avoided entirely just by talking things through beforehand. We shouldn't even let kids get into those spots in the first place! Using things like storytelling or role-playing is such a great way to help them grasp how the world works and where the boundaries are.

Robert Reyes4 said: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.

Then how was that guy in the video supposed to handle it?

Robert Reyes4 said:The goal is to watch them until you're sure they actually get why certain things are off-limits.
What's the alternative? Just let them wander off with a complete stranger and then beat them for it later?

No. You spank them. Then next time they find themselves in that spot, they won't think "oh no, I might die," they'll think "oh crap, my ass is gonna hurt." That's what they actually get.

Kids are my specialty. I've had enough time and material to study this stuff.

Dealing with kids is exactly like dealing with dogs. Fact.

They crowd the door, so you move them away. You tell them ten times, "get back, the door's gonna slam," and nothing happens. Zero results. But if you clench your fist and use an excited tone like, "WHAT DO I HAVE HERE? WHAT IS THIS?" they're all over you in a second. Why?

Because they aren't thinking about whether a door is gonna hit them or not; they're following their own impulses. As soon as you clench that fist and act excited, they react to the vibe. They think you're about to show them something cool. They're acting on selfish instincts. To them, it looks exciting, so they come over to see what the deal is.

Same goes for dogs. You yell at a dog not to run into the street? He doesn't give a damn. But the second you grab a treat bag and shout, "WHAT DO I HAVE HERE?" he's sitting right at your feet thinking he's getting a biscuit. That's the only language they understand, and that's how they act.

With adults who actually have the brainpower to analyze behavior, you use that to steer them—whether it's a kid or a dog—toward what's best for them. You play into how they function to get the result you want.

You guys are obsessed with what I said about violence because it's trendy nowadays to go after parents for giving a kid a dirty look, while ignoring actual neglect or other ways people screw over kids. It's easy to jump on "hitting is bad" because it's a simple headline.😠 🤣

Go ahead, tear me apart.

Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

George Davis6 said:There is no scenario where a child MUST be physically disciplined. There isn't a single situation where an adult MUST be physically punished either. Do you see the analogy there?

You can explain to a child that something is dangerous without resorting to physical punishment. Kids aren't idiots! Physical discipline leads to nothing but fear of parents, a loss of self-esteem, and all sorts of other nasty long-term consequences... And as for that idea that a child will "conclude" one thing or another—they won't. A child doesn't understand why Mom or Dad suddenly seems to hate them in the moment they're being hit or why they're causing them physical pain. A parent needs to be a safe harbor—a refuge from pain, insults, and humiliation...

Yeah, sure. Except most parents, whether they’re using a belt or just their words, are exactly the opposite.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:Then how was that guy in the video supposed to handle it?

No. You spank them. Then next time they find themselves in that spot, they won't think "oh no, I might die," they'll think "oh crap, my ass is gonna hurt." That's what they actually get.

Kids are my specialty. I've had enough time and material to study this stuff.

Dealing with kids is exactly like dealing with dogs. Fact.

They crowd the door, so you move them away. You tell them ten times, "get back, the door's gonna slam," and nothing happens. Zero results. But if you clench your fist and use an excited tone like, "WHAT DO I HAVE HERE? WHAT IS THIS?" they're all over you in a second. Why?

Because they aren't thinking about whether a door is gonna hit them or not; they're following their own impulses. As soon as you clench that fist and act excited, they react to the vibe. They think you're about to show them something cool. They're acting on selfish instincts. To them, it looks exciting, so they come over to see what the deal is.

Same goes for dogs. You yell at a dog not to run into the street? He doesn't give a damn. But the second you grab a treat bag and shout, "WHAT DO I HAVE HERE?" he's sitting right at your feet thinking he's getting a biscuit. That's the only language they understand, and that's how they act.

With adults who actually have the brainpower to analyze behavior, you use that to steer them—whether it's a kid or a dog—toward what's best for them. You play into how they function to get the result you want.

You guys are obsessed with what I said about violence because it's trendy nowadays to go after parents for giving a kid a dirty look, while ignoring actual neglect or other ways people screw over kids. It's easy to jump on "hitting is bad" because it's a simple headline.😠 🤣

Go ahead, tear me apart.

Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

God help us...🤦

Andrew Doyle said:God help us...🤦

Maybe try debating the actual points I'm making? I'm talking about child psychology and how kids actually function. Focus on that instead of these useless comments. I'd appreciate it. 😬

I didn't watch the whole video.
If you're talking to a kid, you tell them they can't go with strangers because they have no way of knowing if that person is good or bad. You make them imagine being taken away and never seeing you again. You have to use a tone that makes it clear this actually matters. Kids get into it; they get scared of losing their parents. You just have to keep repeating the story... especially if you notice they aren't showing any fear of strangers in the first place.

Just watch the video. Parents act like they’re 100% sure their kids actually listened to them. They gave warnings about not talking to strangers. But you see it clearly in the clip—as soon as a stranger approaches with something they want (in this case, a cute dog), they don't even hesitate. They just see a dog, they want it, and they go for it without a second thought.

Parents are left totally stunned because they think they're raising perfect kids who would never do something like that. Here's the reality: if you raise a kid on empty promises and hollow lectures, they’re going to act exactly like this. It means a kid's safety depends entirely on whether the person approaching them happens to have bad intentions or not.

I remember watching another video involving a 13-year-old boy. His mom told him, "Watch out for that blue car that kidnaps kids, stay away from it." It was basically an experiment. He met some woman online and was planning to meet up with her (turns out she was an adult running the test). This person shows up to pick him up in the exact same blue car his mother described. The guy gives some stupid excuse for why he's picking him up. As soon as the adult says, "It's fine, I'm just here to pick you up for [reason]," the kid hops right in. Even though he'd been warned, and even though this was someone from the internet he barely knew. Why does that happen to an older kid?

a) Because in his head, he's thinking: "This girl from the internet is awesome, I'm stoked to finally meet her."
b) An adult tells him it's okay. That person takes control and assumes responsibility for the situation, not him.

We're talking about an older kid here, not some five-year-old.

Later in the video, you see the mom absolutely losing it on him, screaming, "I TOLD YOU NOT TO GET IN A CAR LIKE THAT! WHY DID YOU GO?" The kid just stays quiet. He's got nothing to say because, well, his mom is pissed and he knows he's screwed. Not because HE messed up, but because he didn't even realize he had.

I can't remember the exact video—it was a few years back. I might try to find it, but I gotta run so I don't have much time right now.

You guys are too focused on the "violence" aspect instead of what I'm actually saying. It's like you think my goal is to advocate for child abuse or whatever. It isn't.

I kind of see where everyone is coming from here, even if we’re all arguing different sides... It’s honestly pretty impossible to draw a hard line or set one universal rule for stuff like this.

Just a heads-up, physical discipline doesn't always mean getting hit... For example, I personally never had to go that route with my kids. In most cases, you just need to be absolutely firm with a kid who's acting out. If that means physically grabbing their hands to stop them from hurting someone else, so be it. The idea is that the kid connects that restriction to the bad thing they were trying to do. But more importantly, you’ve got to distract them—redirect that energy toward something else, ideally something engaging enough to actually hold their interest.

That said, I get that every situation is different. Like, how do you handle a kid who’s being a total menace and picking fights with other kids or even adults? Sometimes a stern talking-to or raising your voice does nothing; they just stare at you like you're a joke. Actually, that’s exactly what they’re doing—testing boundaries. It’s hardwired into our biology. In those specific moments, I don't judge parents who use a quick physical correction to regain control, provided it's about discipline and not just venting frustration.

Beyond just instilling this deep-seated fear of parents right down to the bone, there's another issue at play here that’s honestly way worse, because you can't just hit some magic reset button on it later in life. If you're "explaining" things to kids through physical punishment, they aren't actually developing any healthy, rational understanding of why certain things shouldn't be done; instead, they're just making choices based entirely on being terrified of getting caught or punished.
I feel like the whole goal of being a solid parent is to raise a kid who actually gets the reasoning behind their actions, you know? Because that's really the only way they'll develop actual self-awareness and understand the "why" behind how they carry themselves. Sure, you won't catch them doing the right thing the first time—maybe not even the tenth time—but you just have to keep showing up and, more importantly, being that living example of the behavior you want to see. Eventually, it all starts to sink in.

Justin Fisher said:Beyond just instilling this deep-seated fear of parents right down to the bone, there's another issue at play here that’s honestly way worse, because you can't just hit some magic reset button on it later in life. If you're "explaining" things to kids through physical punishment, they aren't actually developing any healthy, rational understanding of why certain things shouldn't be done; instead, they're just making choices based entirely on being terrified of getting caught or punished.
I feel like the whole goal of being a solid parent is to raise a kid who actually gets the reasoning behind their actions, you know? Because that's really the only way they'll develop actual self-awareness and understand the "why" behind how they carry themselves. Sure, you won't catch them doing the right thing the first time—maybe not even the tenth time—but you just have to keep showing up and, more importantly, being that living example of the behavior you want to see. Eventually, it all starts to sink in.

So you're saying kids will decide not to do bad stuff simply because they realize it'll screw them over personally?

Spot on. 😬

👏

I’m convinced punishment is pretty much useless. I know plenty of kids who grew up perfectly fine without ever being disciplined.
I don't have kids of my own, but I've spent entire workdays babysitting my nieces. It never once required anything more than a firm, assertive tone when I needed them to listen. No yelling, and certainly no physical discipline—never needed it.
If you treat a child with respect, they won't want to lose that connection. They'll actually do what you ask because they trust you're acting in their best interest. Just don't be that parent who tries to micromanage every little thing; save your authority for the stuff that actually matters.

Seriously, why did you even start this thread? It feels like nothing anyone says actually sinks in with you. Honestly, maybe you had a rough childhood or something—it’s hard to tell with that narcissistic streak you've got going on.

Besides, corporal punishment is strictly illegal here in the States. There isn't even a point in debating it.

So, let me get this straight—you work with kids, you threaten them, you hit them, and then you have the nerve to openly admit it on a forum? Are you for real? Should I just report you now?

Have some shame. Just... yikes.

George Davis6 said:Seriously, why did you even start this thread? It feels like nothing anyone says actually sinks in with you. Honestly, maybe you had a rough childhood or something—it’s hard to tell with that narcissistic streak you've got going on.

Besides, corporal punishment is strictly illegal here in the States. There isn't even a point in debating it.

So, let me get this straight—you work with kids, you threaten them, you hit them, and then you have the nerve to openly admit it on a forum? Are you for real? Should I just report you now?

Have some shame. Just... yikes.

... wow.

I have my own views and I wanted to have a discussion. You guys don't actually listen to anything I say; you just parrot the same stuff back at me.

I don't threaten kids and I don't hit them. I don't have the authority to hit anyone's kids, nor do I aim to threaten them. It's one thing to think kids should experience a LITTLE bit of negative emotion because life isn't all sunshine and rainbows—it's necessary to face consequences sometimes—but that's different.

If a kid has zero experience with the real world, they can't grasp what bad consequences look like. That's just facts.

Like I said above, if a child is otherwise treated correctly—meaning their emotional and material needs are met—then giving them a quick swat on the butt isn't going to cause permanent psychological damage. The real issue is the other parenting mistakes people make.

I'm not replying to posts like this anymore. Get a grip.

George Davis6 said:There is no scenario where a child MUST be physically disciplined. There isn't a single situation where an adult MUST be physically punished either. Do you see the analogy there?

You can explain to a child that something is dangerous without resorting to physical punishment. Kids aren't idiots! Physical discipline leads to nothing but fear of parents, a loss of self-esteem, and all sorts of other nasty long-term consequences... And as for that idea that a child will "conclude" one thing or another—they won't. A child doesn't understand why Mom or Dad suddenly seems to hate them in the moment they're being hit or why they're causing them physical pain. A parent needs to be a safe harbor—a refuge from pain, insults, and humiliation...

And yet, society insists on doing exactly that. A prison is essentially a form of physical punishment—via the restriction of bodily movement—coupled with psychological torment stemming from the loss of liberty. Even something as trivial as grounding a child is, in its own miniature way, a combination of both physical and mental discipline.

feralranger said:And yet, society insists on doing exactly that. A prison is essentially a form of physical punishment—via the restriction of bodily movement—coupled with psychological torment stemming from the loss of liberty. Even something as trivial as grounding a child is, in its own miniature way, a combination of both physical and mental discipline.

Point one: kids don't go to prison. We are talking about children here, not adults. Furthermore, you aren't even "grounding" a toddler; that's something that happens once they're older. You cannot simply lump all cognitive, emotional, and developmental stages together and then try to trivialize the situation by claiming a punishment is the same for a two-year-old as it is for a sixteen-year-old. Developmental phases are distinct and come with entirely different needs. Because those needs differ, the perception of any given situation differs accordingly. You can actually sit down and have a rational conversation with a sixteen-year-old about their actions, whereas with a two-year-old, that is physically impossible. Their understanding of cause and effect is fundamentally different.

With a small child, you just have to pull them away from danger immediately without making a whole production out of it. You don't sit down and debate a two or three-year-old about why they shouldn't run into a busy street in Chicago. With a sixteen-year-old, however, you actually have something to discuss, which allows you to implement specific consequences—like the weekend grounding example mentioned here.

Andrew Doyle said:Point one: kids don't go to prison. We are talking about children here, not adults. Furthermore, you aren't even "grounding" a toddler; that's something that happens once they're older. You cannot simply lump all cognitive, emotional, and developmental stages together and then try to trivialize the situation by claiming a punishment is the same for a two-year-old as it is for a sixteen-year-old. Developmental phases are distinct and come with entirely different needs. Because those needs differ, the perception of any given situation differs accordingly. You can actually sit down and have a rational conversation with a sixteen-year-old about their actions, whereas with a two-year-old, that is physically impossible. Their understanding of cause and effect is fundamentally different.

With a small child, you just have to pull them away from danger immediately without making a whole production out of it. You don't sit down and debate a two or three-year-old about why they shouldn't run into a busy street in Chicago. With a sixteen-year-old, however, you actually have something to discuss, which allows you to implement specific consequences—like the weekend grounding example mentioned here.

Nowhere in my previous post did I ever suggest that children are being sent to an institution explicitly labeled as a 'prison.' Let’s not wander into the realm of fabrication, shall we?

My argument was simply that the methods adults use—imposing confinement or restricting a child's movement (whether you call it house arrest or some other euphemism, the core concept remains identical)—function as forms of physical and psychological punishment. It is physical because it strips away the freedom of movement, and it is psychological because of the mental toll that loss of autonomy inevitably takes.

I was merely stating facts, not offering a philosophical dissertation on whether one type of punishment is superior to the other. Any form of discipline falls into the category of being either psychological, physical, or a combination of both. There isn't a third option to discover.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:Just watch the video. Parents act like they’re 100% sure their kids actually listened to them. They gave warnings about not talking to strangers. But you see it clearly in the clip—as soon as a stranger approaches with something they want (in this case, a cute dog), they don't even hesitate. They just see a dog, they want it, and they go for it without a second thought.

Parents are left totally stunned because they think they're raising perfect kids who would never do something like that. Here's the reality: if you raise a kid on empty promises and hollow lectures, they’re going to act exactly like this. It means a kid's safety depends entirely on whether the person approaching them happens to have bad intentions or not.

I remember watching another video involving a 13-year-old boy. His mom told him, "Watch out for that blue car that kidnaps kids, stay away from it." It was basically an experiment. He met some woman online and was planning to meet up with her (turns out she was an adult running the test). This person shows up to pick him up in the exact same blue car his mother described. The guy gives some stupid excuse for why he's picking him up. As soon as the adult says, "It's fine, I'm just here to pick you up for [reason]," the kid hops right in. Even though he'd been warned, and even though this was someone from the internet he barely knew. Why does that happen to an older kid?

a) Because in his head, he's thinking: "This girl from the internet is awesome, I'm stoked to finally meet her."
b) An adult tells him it's okay. That person takes control and assumes responsibility for the situation, not him.

We're talking about an older kid here, not some five-year-old.

Later in the video, you see the mom absolutely losing it on him, screaming, "I TOLD YOU NOT TO GET IN A CAR LIKE THAT! WHY DID YOU GO?" The kid just stays quiet. He's got nothing to say because, well, his mom is pissed and he knows he's screwed. Not because HE messed up, but because he didn't even realize he had.

I can't remember the exact video—it was a few years back. I might try to find it, but I gotta run so I don't have much time right now.

You guys are too focused on the "violence" aspect instead of what I'm actually saying. It's like you think my goal is to advocate for child abuse or whatever. It isn't.

Hmm... I guess the most effective way to teach kids not to trust strangers would be to pay a stranger to beat them up. If you're the one doing the hitting, they'll just end up being afraid of you instead of those random women on the internet.😁

Justin Fisher said:Beyond just instilling this deep-seated fear of parents right down to the bone, there's another issue at play here that’s honestly way worse, because you can't just hit some magic reset button on it later in life. If you're "explaining" things to kids through physical punishment, they aren't actually developing any healthy, rational understanding of why certain things shouldn't be done; instead, they're just making choices based entirely on being terrified of getting caught or punished.
I feel like the whole goal of being a solid parent is to raise a kid who actually gets the reasoning behind their actions, you know? Because that's really the only way they'll develop actual self-awareness and understand the "why" behind how they carry themselves. Sure, you won't catch them doing the right thing the first time—maybe not even the tenth time—but you just have to keep showing up and, more importantly, being that living example of the behavior you want to see. Eventually, it all starts to sink in.

Look, let me break this down for you... To a little kid, a parent is basically God. And if you're God, you have to be fair. You have to teach them right from wrong, and sometimes that involves a carrot and a stick approach. People who equate physical discipline with straight-up abuse are either acting malicious or were probably abused themselves..

But honestly, the psychological manipulation and mental games are much worse than any physical punishment..

Back in the day, everyone in small towns used to discipline kids like that, and most turned out just fine. I know plenty of people who understood what consequences meant, and sometimes they even decided a certain action wasn't worth the trouble. It's not the end of the world.😁

Crime, punishment, clear conscience.😁