Spanking and physical discipline: what are your thoughts?

George Davis6 said:Through the woods and down the road 😁😁

Something small is definitely off here—I'm certain of it. Don't you think?

Physical punishment leaves lasting scars. ALWAYS. And look, this isn't me trying to "spin" the argument or whatever you claim I'm doing—these are just straight-up facts. I even included a link to a study covering over 160,000 kids, though I'm guessing you didn't even bother to click it.

What does a study of 160,000 kids matter when you're basing everything on three friends and some random video? You're spinning your wheels here. ☕

Those old-school, "biblical" parenting methods nearly pushed me toward developing a dissociative disorder. On the outside, though, I looked like a perfectly fine kid.

And honestly, it bugs me when people act like emotional manipulation, abuse, and neglect are somehow worse than physical discipline. Sure, they are, but there's no rule saying parents who hit their kids aren't also prone to those things. If anything, I’d argue they're even more likely to do it because they don't see children as actual human beings—just little creatures that need to be broken in and trained like circus animals.

It’s important to figure out what actually counts as physical punishment. Like, would I have been physically punished if my mom gave me two quick swats on the rear? 🍿

Yep. Exactly twice. 😬

At least can you say you managed to whip something up with a spoon? 🤣

Joseph Bailey41 said:Yep. Exactly twice. 😬

At least can you say you managed to whip something up with a spoon? 🤣

She didn't need any gear, just her hands. She'd give me a light slap when I was feeling really down, and then a harder one once I started holding my own and landing decent blocks—but she always caught me off guard from behind like a total jerk! 🍿

What kind of slap in the face are we talking about now? Don't tell me you still haven't figured out where you stand. 🤣

Joseph Bailey41 said:What kind of slap in the face are we talking about now? Don't tell me you still haven't figured out where you stand. 🤣

Look, when I was a little kid, I definitely got my fair share of spankings. Why are you laughing at me? I'm over here opening up about traumatic moments from my past, and this is how you react! 🍿

My bad. 🙂

All jokes aside, though, there’s this growing sentiment in certain circles today that spanking kids should be classified as child sexual abuse. The logic follows a specific line—that "spanking" is much more frequently associated with adult sexual gratification than actual physical discipline. It's also probably a good reason to avoid Googling that term while you're on the clock at work. 😬 )

feralranger said: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.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I never even claimed that children should be sent to prison; I was simply steering the conversation back to the actual point at hand. The fact that a prison represents a specific type of punitive structure is an entirely separate debate and has absolutely nothing to do with our current topic. What we were discussing was an analogy regarding punishment. Your attempt to compare adult incarceration to a child being grounded as part of a disciplinary measure is completely absurd. It's like comparing apples to oranges—there is no comparison to be made here, especially when you look at the psychological implications. The two things are worlds apart.

Let’s get one thing straight: setting boundaries and implementing specific disciplinary methods isn't some coordinated assault on a child's self-esteem, their integrity, or their sense of self. That is a fundamentally flawed way to look at parenting. Instead, we need to view these actions through a much more pragmatic lens—they are simply responses to specific, undesirable situations that arise in real-time. We have to stop conflating guidance with cruelty. Every corrective measure taken should never be intended as psychological or physical punishment. In fact, "punishment" shouldn't even be the goal. If you think the purpose of discipline is to inflict suffering, then you aren't parenting; you're just being punitive. Real discipline is about managing behavior in the moment, not tearing down a child's spirit.

Andrew Doyle said:You’re putting words in my mouth. I never even claimed that children should be sent to prison; I was simply steering the conversation back to the actual point at hand. The fact that a prison represents a specific type of punitive structure is an entirely separate debate and has absolutely nothing to do with our current topic. What we were discussing was an analogy regarding punishment. Your attempt to compare adult incarceration to a child being grounded as part of a disciplinary measure is completely absurd. It's like comparing apples to oranges—there is no comparison to be made here, especially when you look at the psychological implications. The two things are worlds apart.

Let’s get one thing straight: setting boundaries and implementing specific disciplinary methods isn't some coordinated assault on a child's self-esteem, their integrity, or their sense of self. That is a fundamentally flawed way to look at parenting. Instead, we need to view these actions through a much more pragmatic lens—they are simply responses to specific, undesirable situations that arise in real-time. We have to stop conflating guidance with cruelty. Every corrective measure taken should never be intended as psychological or physical punishment. In fact, "punishment" shouldn't even be the goal. If you think the purpose of discipline is to inflict suffering, then you aren't parenting; you're just being punitive. Real discipline is about managing behavior in the moment, not tearing down a child's spirit.

In essence, they are functionally identical. The only real distinction is quantitative. Being grounded, much like being incarcerated, represents a form of physical punishment because it is an undeniable fact that both methods restrict one's freedom of movement. Simultaneously, they serve as a form of psychological punishment due to the emotional weight they carry.

It is quite simply the reality of the situation, regardless of whether that aligns with your particular preconceptions or not.

Which is precisely why I find it rather tiresome when self-proclaimed experts, who rely on these types of psycho-physical punishments, act so indignant toward my friend because she gave her kid a quick smack on the backside... yet they see absolutely nothing wrong with the little boy who was raised strictly "by the book" by his mother—a professional psychologist—only to end up becoming a school-wide bully.

feralranger said:In essence, they are functionally identical. The only real distinction is quantitative. Being grounded, much like being incarcerated, represents a form of physical punishment because it is an undeniable fact that both methods restrict one's freedom of movement. Simultaneously, they serve as a form of psychological punishment due to the emotional weight they carry.

It is quite simply the reality of the situation, regardless of whether that aligns with your particular preconceptions or not.

Which is precisely why I find it rather tiresome when self-proclaimed experts, who rely on these types of psycho-physical punishments, act so indignant toward my friend because she gave her kid a quick smack on the backside... yet they see absolutely nothing wrong with the little boy who was raised strictly "by the book" by his mother—a professional psychologist—only to end up becoming a school-wide bully.

Bolded—what a "productive" contribution to the debate. 👍

Now, let's address what you were rambling about earlier. No, this isn't just a matter of being "quantitative," nor can it be reduced to such a narrow view. Regardless of whether you like it or not, these situations trigger an entire spectrum of emotional challenges. The mere reality of existential and life-threatening vulnerability is enough to completely dismantle your little analogy.

feralranger said:In essence, they are functionally identical. The only real distinction is quantitative. Being grounded, much like being incarcerated, represents a form of physical punishment because it is an undeniable fact that both methods restrict one's freedom of movement. Simultaneously, they serve as a form of psychological punishment due to the emotional weight they carry.

It is quite simply the reality of the situation, regardless of whether that aligns with your particular preconceptions or not.

Which is precisely why I find it rather tiresome when self-proclaimed experts, who rely on these types of psycho-physical punishments, act so indignant toward my friend because she gave her kid a quick smack on the backside... yet they see absolutely nothing wrong with the little boy who was raised strictly "by the book" by his mother—a professional psychologist—only to end up becoming a school-wide bully.

Got anything else to add, or are you just going to keep barking the same line over and over?

We've already established that there's definitely something off with that kid. Whether it's ADHD, being on the spectrum, or who knows what else... we're past that.

So, what's next? ☕

Andrew Doyle said:Bolded—what a "productive" contribution to the debate. 👍

Now, let's address what you were rambling about earlier. No, this isn't just a matter of being "quantitative," nor can it be reduced to such a narrow view. Regardless of whether you like it or not, these situations trigger an entire spectrum of emotional challenges. The mere reality of existential and life-threatening vulnerability is enough to completely dismantle your little analogy.

Furthermore, that was actually a very specific contribution to our discussion. It isn't just some vague analogy; stripping away someone's physical freedom of movement is precisely that—it is the deprivation of physical liberty. That element of punishment is, quite simply, physical. The psychological distress resulting from that loss of freedom constitutes the mental component of the penalty.

As I have already stated, every punishment is either physical, psychological, or a combination of both. There is no third option. And that is precisely why you haven't been able to propose a third category, have you? The fact that this doesn't align with your preconceived notions is entirely irrelevant. The facts remain as they are.

We’re just full of prejudices, Flynn!

🤣🤣🤣

People frequently tend to examine the prejudices of others through a microscope while viewing their own through a telescope held entirely backward. Your reactions align perfectly with this distortion, leading you to lose all semblance of restraint and resort to trolling—which, frankly, isn't an unexpected psychological defense mechanism.

This is, for instance, a documentary that tackles modernist biases by confronting them with rigorous science that lacks any sort of ideological agenda or hidden motive.

Modern-day narrow-mindedness can be just as suffocating as the old-fashioned variety; occasionally, it proves to be even more stubborn and closed off. It varies from case to case...

So-called "scientific research" is often contradictory (particularly within the less exact sciences), which implies they are certainly not infallible and should never be accepted blindly as dogma or as some kind of "sacred scripture."

Donna White50 said: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...

Indeed, those are the only two modes available. There are also instances where psychological abusers (as I have personally witnessed with a close friend of mine) gloat over her much like a mother might after giving a child a quick swat on the backside because they failed to respond to verbal commands or other cues.

We never physically disciplined our children, yet I wouldn't dare presume to be a superior parent to that friend of mine who favored the swatting method... and I suspect her children might actually fare better in life, a correlation that could potentially be linked to these very issues... though, much like anything that remains empirically unprovable, it is subject to various interpretations...

feralranger said:People frequently tend to examine the prejudices of others through a microscope while viewing their own through a telescope held entirely backward. Your reactions align perfectly with this distortion, leading you to lose all semblance of restraint and resort to trolling—which, frankly, isn't an unexpected psychological defense mechanism.

This is, for instance, a documentary that tackles modernist biases by confronting them with rigorous science that lacks any sort of ideological agenda or hidden motive.

Modern-day narrow-mindedness can be just as suffocating as the old-fashioned variety; occasionally, it proves to be even more stubborn and closed off. It varies from case to case...

So-called "scientific research" is often contradictory (particularly within the less exact sciences), which implies they are certainly not infallible and should never be accepted blindly as dogma or as some kind of "sacred scripture."

Indeed, those are the only two modes available. There are also instances where psychological abusers (as I have personally witnessed with a close friend of mine) gloat over her much like a mother might after giving a child a quick swat on the backside because they failed to respond to verbal commands or other cues.

We never physically disciplined our children, yet I wouldn't dare presume to be a superior parent to that friend of mine who favored the swatting method... and I suspect her children might actually fare better in life, a correlation that could potentially be linked to these very issues... though, much like anything that remains empirically unprovable, it is subject to various interpretations...

"A good spanking is a blessing from above," my elders used to say.

I don't consider myself an advocate for corporal punishment, per se; I wasn't raised under the belt, nor have I ever felt the need to swing one. However, observing the world around us and acknowledging the simple fact that no two children are cut from the same cloth, I find I cannot strictly condemn a friend who chose to discipline her kids with a firm hand. Nor, on the other hand, can I offer unbridled praise to my neighbor—a psychologist, no less—who insisted on raising her child strictly "by the book," only to produce a notorious schoolyard bully who spends more time in the principal's office than in class.

feralranger said:I don't consider myself an advocate for corporal punishment, per se; I wasn't raised under the belt, nor have I ever felt the need to swing one. However, observing the world around us and acknowledging the simple fact that no two children are cut from the same cloth, I find I cannot strictly condemn a friend who chose to discipline her kids with a firm hand. Nor, on the other hand, can I offer unbridled praise to my neighbor—a psychologist, no less—who insisted on raising her child strictly "by the book," only to produce a notorious schoolyard bully who spends more time in the principal's office than in class.

You're making the same point again. 🤦

So, you're saying your two little anecdotes are somehow valid for drawing conclusions, but a massive study covering over 160,000 kids doesn't count?

Melissa Stewart6 said:"A good spanking is a blessing from above," my elders used to say.

Women didn't have the right to vote, slavery was a thing—it was all just part of the legacy left behind by our "ancestors."

feralranger said:I don't consider myself an advocate for corporal punishment, per se; I wasn't raised under the belt, nor have I ever felt the need to swing one. However, observing the world around us and acknowledging the simple fact that no two children are cut from the same cloth, I find I cannot strictly condemn a friend who chose to discipline her kids with a firm hand. Nor, on the other hand, can I offer unbridled praise to my neighbor—a psychologist, no less—who insisted on raising her child strictly "by the book," only to produce a notorious schoolyard bully who spends more time in the principal's office than in class.

Parenting is about so much more than whether a child faced physical or psychological abuse. Just because you see a link between hitting a kid and their behavior—or following a strict manual and seeing bad results—doesn't mean one caused the other. There are way too many moving parts in raising a human being to claim that any single method is the sole factor in how a child behaves now or grows up to be later.

What we can talk about are general trends based on different parenting styles. For example, statistics show a trend where bullies often come from homes that lean heavily on physical discipline. Meanwhile, victims are frequently kids who were either overprotected by their moms or, conversely, those who felt neglected. But again, that’s just one tiny slice of a much bigger pie.

Richard Nelson84 said:Parenting is about so much more than whether a child faced physical or psychological abuse. Just because you see a link between hitting a kid and their behavior—or following a strict manual and seeing bad results—doesn't mean one caused the other. There are way too many moving parts in raising a human being to claim that any single method is the sole factor in how a child behaves now or grows up to be later.

What we can talk about are general trends based on different parenting styles. For example, statistics show a trend where bullies often come from homes that lean heavily on physical discipline. Meanwhile, victims are frequently kids who were either overprotected by their moms or, conversely, those who felt neglected. But again, that’s just one tiny slice of a much bigger pie.

Well, quite right; there are far too many moving parts at play here... correlation does not equate to causation, and it certainly isn't sufficient evidence to make sweeping generalizations that apply to every individual case.

By that same logic, consider the modern prejudices regarding the supposed absence of any distinction between 'male' and 'female' career paths. Examples from Scandinavia clearly demonstrate that such divisions do exist—a fact corroborated by research from prestigious scientific institutions (such as those in Cambridge) and highlighted in the documentary I shared previously. From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, it stands to reason that these patterns persist.

Ultimately, while your points align with certain intuitive assumptions, they cannot be treated as ironclad laws because, as you so rightly pointed out, there are just too many variables in the equation...