but you've got to look at why you were a 'horror' though,
children arn't born horrors, its what they become for whatever reason.
say if a parent gives a kid everything they want for 3 years, and then they decide enough is enough and they don't give the child what they want anymore... the kid is going to be pissed off because they don't understand why they're not getting what they want when they always have before that. they'll then do everything they can in their power to get them to give in and up... because thats what kids do.
theres a million other reasons why a kid might act out... like if they don't get enough attention any attention is good attention.
having children is scary because its the parents who can mess up.

To an extent I agree with you. I do believe the way in which a parent guides, and disciplines a child has a lot to do with their behavior. That's obvious.

However, a child's behavior also has to do with their personality. And personality is shaped by more than just discipline. For example, I was extremely stubborn and determined. That was just my personality, and I don't believe it was a result of lack of discipline or attention. I got plenty of attention from both parents.

Parents are not in control of EVERY action a child makes. Some babies cry more than others... other toddles/young children throw more tantrums... and some know when to stop, others (like me) don't. I don't think you can blame the parents for every little apect of a child's personality.

I most certainly did not get everything I want until I was 3 years old. But regardless of if I was ever given it or not, I would never give up trying! My stubborn and determined nature was there from when I was very very small (and it's still there now, although I outgrew the tantrum phase!). That was just me.

It's great that you have a child on whom these techniques work. But the same simply cannot be said for every child.

yes thats true, character does not depend on upbringing(obviously). The dr sears site has alot on high need children - those are the types of kids like you and lady acid fairy... are hard work lmao. As babies some of the characteristics are they cry alot, want to be held all the time and dont sleep... then it goes on to be intense kids. (obviously no kid is exactly the same)
i think they are referred to alot as 'spirited' in the natural parenting world lol theres a book I read ages ago called 'raising your spirited child' which looks at discapline for the lively ones. my daughter isn't spirited or high need, so i don't have any experience on that... however people do discipline high need/spirited kids without smacking.

i think at the end of the day everyone just does what they think is right for their child, and no amount of me spouting off about it will change anything!! lmao. its a choice, you can choose to do things one way or another like with everything when it comes to parenting. i hope maybe at least people can make informed decisions when it comes to reading debates like this.

'Spirited'... I like that. ;) And I DID cry a lot as a baby.

I completely agree! I was only spanked ONCE (that I can remember) as a child. I was maybe five or six years old? I was riding on a cart, and my dad didn't want me to get hurt. So he spanked me... hard. I couldn't fathom why he would HIT me if he didn't want me to get hurt?! I was very upset by the whole situation, even as a child.

However, like you said, I lived (and still do) to please my parents. The thought of disappointing them was the worst thing in my eyes. It still is! I was never grounded, I never acted up in school, I was a good kid. If I did something wrong, I wasn't punished, I was told why it was wrong and why I shouldn't do it. And I would feel genuinely bad that I upset my parents, and I didn't want to do it ever again. And all of those things have been instilled in me (much to my dismay... I sound like my MOM! a little too often, I'd like to add :))

Where are these studies?

http://www.wavetrust.org/index.htm?http://www.wavetrust.org/Preventing_Violence/Effects_of_Smacking.htm

i often wonder why the swedes are sooo ahead of everything!?? they always seem to be ten steps ahead of the uk... and 50 steps ahead of spain... who are terrible with physical punishment. i've had to put my hand inbetween family swatting my daughters hand on more than one occasion, and my husband has had to stop a man(a stranger) smacking her hand when she was 11 months old and trying to grab something she shouldn't have (effectively my husbands fault for putting her near it in the first place!!!)

That study looks interesting. Although they do clearly say themselves that the results of the meta-analysis do not imply that all children who experience corporal punishment turn out to be aggressive or delinquent.

One flaw that I see with this study however is that it refers to 'corporal punishment' in general. It doesn't distinguish between the very occassional use of a smack (which is all that most supporters of smacking would find acceptable anyway) and the regular use of smacking as a first line for punishment. So I'm not sure you can take from that study that the occassional smack as a last resort is harmful in any way.

A study in New Zealand in 2006 DID make a disinction though, and found that 'smacking only' did not appear to be harmful. In fact it showed that in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement, this group had "similar or even slightly better outcomes" than those who were not smacked.

Referring to the connection (from your study) between spanking/smacking and antisocial/criminal behavior in childhood, I would also suspect that social class plays a role here. Children from poorer (especially one-parent) families are statistically more likely to become involved in crime from a young age anyway. And it's highly likely that these parents tend to me the ones who aren't as educated in alternative methods of discipline and who more quickly resort to smacking.

all prison systems are full of children that were spanked, smacked, etc

children are teh future, when you teach them that violence is okay sometimes, even if it;s not in self defence, which is what the law requires an adult to be treated. ie you cant smack an adult, you cant put your hands on an adult, unless in self defense. Children have this same right. I dont know about where you live, but here in the UIS we have a constitution, it doesnt have an age limit, it applies to all that live here. Unfortunately we live in a society that glorifies violence, and will fight to be able to hurt children, as some right. A right of ignorance is what it is.

If you cant teach a child without resorting to violence, you shouldn't be around them.

rule with a velvet hand dipped in honey whilst blowing bubbles of love & understanding, compassion, wisdom, not an iron first of fear

fist*

I just realised I forgot to post the link to the New Zealand study. One that refers specifically to occassional smacking (rather than physical punishment in general).

http://www.corpun.com/nzd00610.htm

I've already left the link, but here it is again: Spanking is Unconstitutional

I meant can you provide a link for the research itself, not just a video of people discussing it.

like i said before, I put the links to the study in the sidebar of my video.

Rather annoyingly, my computer won't let me read the PDF of the study itself :P I've tried three times and it keeps closing the programme, saying there's an error. And there's very little information available on it's numbers, the specifics of what it showed, and it's methods, on the links you provided. I'll try and view it again later.

What I will say though, is that from the links you did provide I was able to view their brief list of conclusions which they drew from the study. And much like the study which November.Butterfly linked to, it doesn't appear that they distinguished between the occassional smack, and physical punishment in general. Again, I think this is a major flaw, and you cannot then necessarily apply the conclusions to children who get smacked very occassionally (and I think most people in this thread who are defending smacking are defending it's use only very occassionally, as a last resort).

Sadly there's very few studies around which do make the distinction, but the NZ one which I posted did, and in fact showed positive outcomes for children who were smacked ocassionally. So until there are more studies looking at the effects specifically of occassional smacking, I don't think you can fairly say that there's evidence that the occassional smack causes any harm.

your mistake is you assuming that a light smack is different that a hard one. it's not.
smacking doesnt teach anything
it only teaches that mommy is a hypocrite
it teaches that hitting is O KAY

wrong wrong wrong

I can lightly smack you, not at all. It's illegal for me to lay my hands on you.

children deserve to have the same rights as adults

look, you dont have any children, and yet you already plan on hitting them (soft/hard makes no difference, hitting is hitting, period, and it teaches NOTHING)
advice: please do not have children

You're not reading links bec you wish to learn something. You will only read them to look for something to argue about.

I can't* lightly smack you- it's ILLEGAL

Actually, it is different. A light smack occassionally, says "you did wrong", and nothing more. Repeated, heavy smacking is abuse.

Where did I say that I PLAN on hitting my children? Please do not put words in my mouth.

When I do have children I will adapt my discipline techniques as appropriate to that individual child. I will try and avoid smacking at all costs, but if other methods do not work, I may smack very occassionally. I do not know yet. I wouldn't plan something like that so far in advance, because I cannot predict what sort of children I will have or how responsive they will be to different techniques of discipline.

I read your links because I was interested to see this evidence you speak of. Sadly the evidence you provided cannot be used as an argument against occassional smacking because it does not make that distinction. To use the evidence in that way would be flawed. Don't get angry at me just because you can't produce good evidence to back up your points.

I'm sure the study is very good as an argument against heavy use of physical punishment (and probably presents many points I would agree with myself), but I am not defending that. All I am defending is the very occassional use of a smack in certain children, in whom all other methods of discipline have been tried and failed.

Out of interest, if you had tried the other methods of discipline on your children and they had failed... what WOULD you do next (I assume you're not going to try and tell me that those methods work consistenty every time for every child)... would you just let them get their own way? Or would you try something else?

Also, the difference between adults and children is that children are LEARNING. Discipline is part of the learning process. I would not expect another adult to try and discipline me, because I am an adult, not a child. And just as I would not expect another adult to hit me, I would also not expect them to try and make me go and sit on a chair for 27 minutes to think over what I've done! Nor would I expect them to take away my possessions. You don't treat children like you treat adults, because they are not adults. They require different treatement in order to learn.

actually there is no difference between light smacking and heavy smacking, none whatsoever. You cant seem to understand that.

You plan on smacking your children, you just admitted it again, if you ever have some, and that is very sad.

My points are thoroughly backed up, with a look at 100 years worth of studies. You just dont understand that how hard the smack is, makes no difference whatsoever. I'm NOT talking about abuse. I'm talking about smacking.
Your not fighting for the right to abuse a child. you are fighting for the right to smack them. It's all that I personally have been talking about. smacking/hitting/spanking - laying your hands on a child is wrong.
If you came to work for me, and I had to teach you how to work these insane editing programs, you wouldn't like me to smack you as a teach you. smacking is does NOT teach anything. It only teaches that mommy is a hypocrite, and as 100's worth of studies have shown, it causes children to be more aggressive, it has the exact opposite effects, and the long term effects are not worth, the short term attention getting, because that all it is, an attention getter.


I have two 7 yr olds on my hands mon-friday . believe me you, sometimes i want to beat the shit out of them. but I dont. what works for me, is turning everything into a fun game, and if that doesnt work. my ultimate weapon is to ignore them, to remove myself from the situation, bec I know they only want attention, good or bad doesnt even matter to the subconscious. So i walk away- and this rarely ever happens. and I only ignore them very a very short time, a couple of minutes, and then I come back, and make deals. You do this for me, and I'll do ______ for you. I negotiate.

WHERE did I say I plan on smacking my kids? I quite clearly said I have made no clear plans about how I will discipline my kids yet, because I don't yet know what discipline will be appropriate for my children. Will you please stop putting words in my mouth. I never once said "I plan on smacking my kids", and I wouldn't have said that, because I have made no such plans.

You say your points are backed up by 100 years of studies, but you've so far failed to produce these studies. The one you did produce doesn't differentiate between the occassional smack and regular physical punishment. If it DID (as the New Zealand study did), the results may have been very different. So you cannot use it to say that the occassional smack and regular physical punishment are the same, because the study says nothing about that whatsoever. That is simple your personal opinion.

As I have already said... teaching an adult is not the same as teaching a child. If I came to work for you, and I didn't do what you wanted, would you give me a time out? No. Because you do not teach an adult in the same way that you teach a child. They are not adults. They are children.

That's great that those methods work for you, but they simply do not work for every child. And my parents TRIED the bargaining thing with me. It did NOT work. I didn't care about bargaining, or negotiating, I just wanted my own way, and the only way (very occassionally) that I could be stopped was with a smack. Nothing else worked. They tried it all.

you said you plan to smack you kids several times

i gave you the link, you have selective reading. and are stubborn and ignorant, you will refuse to see the other side. you refuse to be wrong, even though a look at 100 years worth of studies by real professionals say you are wring. you claim you were some hellenic kid that gave your parents such horrid troubles, this is because your parents are failures when it comes to raising kids, they hit you...... duh

You want adults to have protection from violence, but not children, bec you are sick in the head

what would you know. you dont have kids. and you already plan to continue the cycles of abuse. so sad

often you see a child fall down, real good bang, right down on their ass, pretty hard and good. they get right back up and play.
or shed a tear for some love and attention. (kids act out, bec they want attention, good or bad doesnt matter to the subconscious, any attention is better than no attention)

so...kids fall, get hurt, not to bad, not even enough to make them cry, happens all teh time.

but if that same kid that just fell on their ass, gets a light smack on their ass by the parent they look to for love, safety, understanding, etc If the parent lightly smacks them on the ass, far less pain then what they just felt when they fell. teh light smack will cause that same kids to ball his eyes out. Do you have any clue as to why? It has nothing to do with how hard the smack was!

Where exactly is your evidence for this theory that (a) kids cry more from a smack than a fall and (b) the reason for this?

I do know I, personally, cried harder from a smack than if I fell over, and the reason I cried harder was out of anger at my parents because I was being punished and not getting my own way! I cried just as angrily if I was sent to my room or told I couldn't watch my favourite TV show. It had nothing to do with feeling somehow betrayed by my parents.

dont blame me for your parents failure, i never smacked you, nor would i.

my theory came from life experiences, I have witnessed exactly what was said in the "theory"

How can you possibly assume my parents failed? I am a successful, happy, emotionally stable adult. I am popular at work and have many friends. I have a successful career. Smacking me very occassionally did me no harm whatsoever.

I'm not blaming you for anything. My parents did not fail. They did a great job. And I don't have any feelings of resentment against them.

Anyone can make claims based on life experiences. You say that a child cries louder from a smack than from injuring themselves, because based on your experience, it's because they're somehow feeling betrayed by their parents? You have no actual evidence for that though... and I can just as easily say that when I was that child being smacked I cried louder simply because I was angry at my parents for punishing me (I was exactly the same with other methods of punishment too).

Plenty of people on here have said that FROM THEIR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES their being smacked did them no harm.

Why does your experience count for more than anyone else's?

Anyway, you've failed to produce any actual evidence to back up your claims, and you're getting angry and childish in your responses, so I'm done discussing this. I'm sure you'll reply anyway, but I'm done. All I'm doing is repeating myself while you make lies about what I've said (e.g. saying that I've said I plan on smacking my kids) in an attempt to make yourself look credible. That's pretty low.