Does punishing your child psychologically damage them?

[Waylander]

Well in my personal opinion and experience smacking a child when they have broken a preset boundary promote the child towards correct behaviour.

Obviously im not going to say that you can beat the hell out of your kids and thats okay. What i am saying is that it is sometimes necessay. When i was a kid i wouldnt have thought about doing half of the stuff i see kids do and get away with. Sometimes discipline helps and im not talking about the " Oh you naughty boy go to your room" discipline im talking about a wallop around the backside.

I believe that this is necessary so that the kid will associate bad behaviour with penalties and as such will avoid bad behaviour not only as a child but as an adult. I also believe that half of todays problems such as gangs and such are caused by children not getting what they need in order to become functional members of society a sense of right and wrong.

When they get "sent to their room" this is failing to adequately punish the child and giving them the idea that when they do something wrong that people will treat them lightly.

(I also think that the prison system sucks but thats getting off-topic)

[Buddha Fett]

I agree; I believe in punishing kids, although as you said you shouldn't take it too far. When I was little, I was constantly being spanked or otherwise punished for bad behavior. My brothers always got 'sent to their rooms' after my dad decided he was being too 'harsh'.

Guess who behaves himself?

[Lockeownzj00]

The efficacy of the method isn't in doubt. It's domestication. It does work. It's whether or not it's "damaging." By creating someone sycophantic disciplinarily speaking, you're also changing the way they look at the world and function within it. While this can be good and bad, it does change, and may make the person entirely reticent, or perhaps just a little detached. Or even as a backlash to the discipline, totally wild outside of the home.

I haven't, myself turned out to be a horribly spoiled person, but I know I have it in me. It's something I'm always trying to fight. I grew up priveleged yet independent. I guess I am irreverent at times. I suppose "punishing" me could have changed me, but it's a quick and dirty solution. Having an equal relationship with your child works better in the long run. One should learn the reasons to be humble and unspoiled through logic, not physical blows.

[Azisien]

I'd probably have a more in-depth opinion if I'd taken a child psychology course, but the introductory ones taught me that positive punishment (spanking or smacking) is almost always more ineffective than the types of reinforcement, at least in terms of trying to eliminate unwanted behaviour.

I think it might occasionally be all right to use it to keep them in line. The best way to eliminate unwanted behaviour is to cease positive reinforcement (to stop giving rewards or 'stimuli'). If your kid is being bad, don't buy him ice cream. ;)

From a completely subjective point of view, I was raised with very little positive punishment. I was actually a rather uneventful kid in this regard, but my usual punishment was getting a time out or some such thing. I remember being spanked maybe two times ever. And I'm such an angel!

[greed]

Same here Buddha Fett when I was little I got spanked, but only rarely and for the worst crap I did, but by the time my sister got old enough to cause trouble, my parents wouldn't do it anymore, guess who's the hellraiser teenager from hell now? So yeah in my experience a little bit of discipline early can really help later in life by stopping kids from being brats.

On a side note spanking probably saved my life, when I was little I aparently used to have a habit of playing with electrical outlets and power cords(sounds :fighter: doesn't it?) and my parents used spanking as a last resort to associate electrical outlets with danger. IT WORKED!

So yeah pro-discipline if it's used right. It really is most effective if your parents are generally gentle good parents(like mine) and use it only rarely and without explicit warning(like mine), because the shock of it really sinks in and means far less force(really just a slap on the wrist) has to be used to make you understand the wrongness of whatever you did.
Consistently using physical violence and threats of it simply desensitises the kids, meaning more and more violence has to be used and THAT's where the psychological damage comes from.

[Waylander]

The physical blows are irrelevant the short pain of those is not the point the point is that in thier mind you have associated bad behaviour with bad results. This will (over time) stop them from acting in a way that is socially unacceptable like going crazy and shooting 15 people.

I'd like to agree with you though Locke but logic and reason doesnt work for a child. alright i'll accept that you turned out alright through logic and reason but it doesnt work for everybody. inversly though giving the kid a smack when they have done something they know is wrong makes it less likely for them to do it in the future.

I grew up and my parents smacked me when i deserved it and i knew i deserved it when i got it. This is just some basic psychology but when a punishment is set for a child it has to be firm and unchanging and yet within reason. I believe that smacking a child when they know they have doen something wrong follows this.

In addition not smacking them when they know they have done something that warrants smacking is also bad it encourages them that they can get away with doing wrong.

[Steel Shadow]

I'm conflicted. I remember being disiplined as a child, and I think I turned out great. But the weird thing is in recent years my parents have taken to denying they ever did it. I can rember the feeling (it goddam hurts), I can even remember it happening once in detail. But I don't think my parents are knowingly lying. Plus my sister claims we were never disaplined as children, and she's a nightmare.

So, if I'm the victim of a very strange conspiracy, it's effective. If not... Well, it can lead to insanity.

[Buddha Fett]

I think that in regards to the psychological ramifications (believe me, those're some big words for me), spanking and whatnot will reinforce that bad things happen to you when you do 'bad' things. I think that this works wonders when used sparingly, but as someone else previously stated, if you beat your kids or spank them too often, it can end up damaging them.

And yes, I realize that I didn't really say anything that adds to the conversation. sorry;)

[Mirai Gen]

I'd post more in this, but it'd probably end up with me ranting Maddox style about how parents are pussies these days and it either leads to punks or criminals.

Hitting your child is not a crime. Beating your child up is. Very different.

[Raerlynn]

I'd post more in this, but it'd probably end up with me ranting Maddox style about how parents are pussies these days and it either leads to punks or criminals.

Hitting your child is not a crime. Beating your child up is. Very different.

Actually we were discussing this in my Sociology class last week. The problem that was pointed out though, is that everyone polices how everyone else raises their child. If you spank your child, your labelled a child beater. If you don't let them watch the next cool thing you're seen as overbearing. If you discuss sex with your child, especially a child of the opposite sex, you get labelled as a pervert. If you send them to their rooms, its no punishment because of all the handheld gadgets and toys of present.

In short, the primary problem being that too many people worry about how other people raise their kids, and not enough about how they raise their own.

[Buddha Fett]

^you've got that right. My problem is that I'm going to be a horrible parent, if the day ever comes (pray to Allah that it doesn't)

[Mirai Gen]

In short, the primary problem being that too many people worry about how other people raise their kids, and not enough about how they raise their own.
Granted. But so long as we're on the subject, I was more or less talking about the soccer moms who use terms like "Psychologically damaging my child" whenever they try to cop out an excuse for not slapping their kid. Or "Oh he's just a child."

The fact is, you really can parent in more intricately complex ways, but I don't think that anything is as straightforward as a backhand across the asscheeks, telling your kid to sit in a corner for five minutes and think about it, and harsh words on why it's bad.

It's worked for so long, I don't see why we need to change it.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I think children's minds are advanced enough to realise that their parents are correct in smacking them around a bit if they break the rules. The only permanent scarring "proper" physical punishment will leave on them is the knowledge of what's good and bad and what the consequences will be if you cross the line.

Personally, I was more "scarred" by school then my parents. After hearing about some of the stuff I did, I would've smacked me too if I was my dad.

[catlover20410]

Actually we were discussing this in my Sociology class last week. The problem that was pointed out though, is that everyone polices how everyone else raises their child. If you spank your child, your labelled a child beater. If you don't let them watch the next cool thing you're seen as overbearing. If you discuss sex with your child, especially a child of the opposite sex, you get labelled as a pervert. If you send them to their rooms, its no punishment because of all the handheld gadgets and toys of present.

In short, the primary problem being that too many people worry about how other people raise their kids, and not enough about how they raise their own.
This is pure truth. Nay, truth concentrate.

That being said, my opinion on the issue is this: Physical punishment should be a last resort.

I much prefer these options (no particular order):

Take away their internets/videogames/TV/ice cream/cd player/ipod/candy/computer/books/electricity/favorite foods*/other for a length of time ranging from 5 minutes to 5 months depending on selected object and how severe the misbehavior is.

Ground them

Send them to their room AFTER removing the fun stuff from said room.

Timeout

If it's a case of them NOT doing what you want them to do, bribe 'em. Works every time.

Sit them down and give them a (long) good (long) talking to about why what they did was wrong. Make sure to make this as long and drawn out as possible. Make it boring too. Such a lecture may well be an effective punishment in and of itself. Note that "you won't get cookies" is NOT an explanation of what they did wrong and why it is wrong, but a statement of consequences. Make sure the lecture includes specifics as to WHY you don't want them doing it. Not just "It's against the rules" or "It's bad" or "It's wrong". If you have no good reasons for not wanting them doing whatever it is they're doing, let 'em do it. "My parents raised me that way" is not a good reason.


*Replace with health foods that the child doesn't like

Slightly unrelated stuff

Do NOT, under ANY circumstances, if asked "What did I do?", say "You know what you did." They wouldn't ask if they knew, fucktards. At least, the little ones wouldn't. Sure, you can punish them, but don't make statements like that.

(true story) Do not yell at a child for crying. Do not punish a child for crying. Do not act in any way like crying in and of itself is a BAD thing.

If you say you will do something, be it good or bad, do it. Note that this only applies to statements that weren't stupid. If you threaten to seriously injure a child, by no means follow up on that. But if you say you're gonna stop buying them ice cream, don't buy ice cream. If you say you're going to ground them if they do X one more time, and they do X one more time, GROUND THEIR SORRY ASSES.
This rule goes double for schoolteachers. If the kids know they can get away with shit, they aren't gonna learn.

Never assume a child is lying. If you have evidence, sure, but don't jump to conclusions.


Dear LORD was that bigger than I expected it to be.

[ZERO.]

I think a good slap at the right time makes the kid understand that if he/she does something wrong they know there will be hell to pay.

If you do it right it only has to be once, I know it will break your heart but remember it's only once.

I have seen some of these little punk ass kids and when that kid calls you a bitch and a whore and a piece of shit that kid needs an ass kicking!:stressed:

[Althane]

I was grounded for a grand total of 0 months while a child.

I was grounded from the computer for a grand total of 24 months (ok, overkill, but you get the idea).

I have to say, the grounding from the comptuer didn't really do anything, but the smacks sure as hell did.

Parents, when your child is acting way out of line, smack them. Otherwise, threaten to smack them at home. If they continue acting out of line, smack them at home. Don't make idle threats.

Oh, and for hell's sake smack them when they go into their temper tantrums. ESPECIALLY if they're in public areas.

I mean, look at how I turned out. Nothing a few brain operations won't cure.

[Fifthfiend]

What parenting comes down to is if you're going to do it right, you have to be smart and think hard about what you're doing. There's no hard and fast rule where if you do or don't do X then your kid will turn out right and you do or don't do Y and you'll fuck up your kid.

I mean, you want a hard and fast rule for parenting? If you're a fucking idiot and you don't stop and think fucking hard about what you're doing, one way or another, you're going to fuck up your kid.

You know? Hit your kid or don't hit your kid, there's a million ways to fuck up your kid. Scream at your kid. Baby-talk your kid. Spoil your kid. Don't discipline your kid. Neglect your kid. Smother your kid. Wait till your kid's friends are over and then just take every opportunity, right in front of your kid's friends, to cut down your kid. Without even laying hands on your kid, a million-billion ways to fuck up your kid.

You know what you do to screw up your kid? When you decide to be a idiot, and for whatever reason you just can't be bothered to turn on your brain and think rationally about how you treat your kid, that right there is where you're gonna screw up your kid.

[Savage Thinking]

Okay, first I'd like to say that I agree with fifthfiend. There are so many ways a parent to fuck up their child. I just think that there really isn't a correct way to raise a child. However, I just don't think it's 100% the parents fault.

Sometimes, the child just has a bad attitude or is just really a passive person. Sometimes, the child is influenced by their friends. In my life, whenever I went over to friend's houses, I've seen a lot of them just yell at their parents and and show a lack of respect. That could really make the friend who's been brought over to think "Hey, he's doing it to his parents, maybe I should do the same thing to mine..."

Now, I'm not saying all kids are influenced like this. Some just really don't care what their friends do or how they handle things. Now, I have been whipped many times. One could say I come from a stereotypical latino family. Poor, large, and really disciplines their kids. I never felt like I was abused, but hey, every child is different. Some kids might see a whipping as abuse and end up going emo for all we know.

So, whether the parent punishes them through taking away material things, or physically, I think it also depends on the child's influences or just how the child's personality turns out. Obe can never really know for certain.

As stated before, their is a big difference between spanking your child and beating them. Spanking a child is just giving physical punishment when the child has done something bad. Usually threatening them to do so will make the child stop if actually spanking has been previously used. If it hasn't, the child will not take the parent seriously and thus, have no respect for the parent. Using the spanking method too much will just give the child a message saying that their parents just beat them for the parent's personal enjoyment. Thus, damaging the child.

Beating, however, is just like spanking, but the differences between them is their purposes. Beating is when the parents just blatantly use physical punishment for either their personal enjoyment for just because they feel like it. Their are many other reasons too (like the parents being under the "influence", for example). This is usually called this by the easily damaged child saying it is, or just really bad parenting. If it is just really bad parenting, then it will damage the child and it will end up seriously fucking up in the future.

Also, beating can be called so by how the parent punishes the child. The parent can have a good intention, but if the parent seriously overdoes it, then it can be called a beating. This is where the child's view on things comes in. Some children my see a spanking as punishment. Others may see it as just a serious beating and will be fucked up in the end. What helps (in my opinion), is when the parents asks the child if they know why they got the spanking in the first place. If the child knows why, then the spanknig somewhat worked. If the child didn't know why, then a long discussion with the child will usually help. Having a serious tone of your voice and usually giving the child a positive gesture at the end of the discussion would help.

Well, these are just my thoughts. I hope I contributed something to this topic...

[Mirai Gen]

Fifth, extremely granted, and I agree wholeheartedly. But that's getting just a smidgen off topic. We're talking less about the topic in general and more about "what makes a good parent?"

Not a fun topic to have, since the lines are so ambugious (especially under the extremely truthful pretenses you just set).

So, having said thus, I think that most of the fear parents have of 'hitting' their child comes with some sort of mental link between 'beating' and 'hitting,' since 'beating' tends to imply a sort of WWF mind-set (at least in this day and age).

[[ray.z]]

I've never been grounded. The closest ive gotten to a grounding is having the internet taken away from me, and that is usually because ive stayed up all night on it.

However, I was physically punished as a child, and I dont believe that had a negative effect on me. I actually believe that it was positive. Like i look at my little bros (8-10 years age difference) and they're the biggest brats, (they're shouting right now) and I believe the reason being is that my parents were kinda reluctant to punish them physically, as it is frowned upon nowadays.

But I cant blame them entirely. Like they bug me soooooooo much i cant help but shove at them, especially when they hit me. And my father always tells me afterwards,

"You dont actually hit them - you slow down just before. The point is to scare them." And I think he's right. Any decent parent doesnt want to hurt their child/ren, they just want to teach them a lesson.

So psychological damage? It can happen. But one would have to consider all other variables and facors involved in the child's upbringing. Sure, physical punishment could be a factor, but in order to properly assess any damge, one of course would need to take into account everthing.

As for physically punishing children? I reckon it can do good if done for the right reasons.

[Premmy]

Ya know, When I first read this thread, I got mad. I remembered the beatings I got, Cable cords,shoes,being punched in the head repeatedly being beat in a dres in front of my friends. It all comes down to how you treat "Your kids" I hate that terminology, it denotes ownership and you can't own a nother human being. Most people don't really think of their kids as such they are'nt people they are "Kids" When they are little, speak frankly with them. Talk to them, say things like you would to anyone else early in their lives and you wont' be faced with the "dilemma" of having to strike them. Say, in no uncertain terms, "this is bad because.." and there won't be a problem.

[Toast]

This boils down to basic behaviorism. Punishments will reduce the frequency of behavior and reinforcements will increase the frequency of behavior. What has to be understood is that spanking may not necessarily be a punishment to a particular child, everyone is different. And yes, there are both positive and negative punishment as well as positive and negative reinforcement. Decreasing a behavior by taking away things that are liked is still negative punishment.

Furthermore, our culture throws around the word discipline without truly understanding what it means. It comes from the word disciple, which means to teach. Our culture wants to punish and punish and punish unnacceptable behavior, and wonders why it has to keep doing so. If you don't reinforce alternate behaviors you're always going to have to be spanking the child, because its no longer a punishment in the behavioral sense.

And as someone mentioned earlier, never punish a child for feeling badly about being punished. That's invalidating. It's like telling a child that their scrapped knee doesn't hurt when it obviously does.

[Zeldias]

Punishment can work to a degree, but I don't really trust any sort of punishment that's described as being given because a "rule" was broken.

When I was a kid, if I did something that merited disciplinary action, my mother could beat me until she was blue in the face and I wouldn't really give a damn (of course, mine might be a little different, because I was sucker-punched in the chest in toy stores). All it really did to me was make me decide that I shouldn't shout and holler to getting whipped or lambasted because that, to the young mind of my childhood self, seemed too much like bending to someone's will, and dammit, if Batman wouldn't do it, I wouldn't either.

My father, though, would simply profess his disappointment in something I did. Say I was caught cheating on a test; my mother would rant about how I shouldn't have cheated and how it was bad, but there wasn't an explanation accompanying that, so I would never really pay attention. Then I'd be punished, and it wouldn't make much of a difference to me. My father, though, would pull me aside, and tell me that cheating is a reflection on a person's honor and trustworthiness, and how my cheating disappointed him because he would like for me to become an honorable and trustworthy guy (maybe not with those words, but that's the gist of if). When he said things like that to me, I would feel extremely remorseful and repent. In my entire lifetime, I've only cheated once, and after talking to my Pops about why it's bad to cheat and good to be honorable, I never did again; I had the desire, but the desire to be honorable that my father instilled in me would extinguish that.

So, from my own experience, I'd say that punishment itself is inherently useless, unless it's done in a moralistic way with an accompanying explanation on why it's bad. As a kid, I broke a lot of plates, and my father would talk to me about why it's important to take care of my things and then he'd make me clean it all up, so nowadays I try to take care of the items in my care. If I'd just gotten a punishment for breaking a bunch of plates, I wouldn't really give a damn today about stuff like that.

So my take on it is that the explanation of why the punishable act is punishable and the merits of being better than that are much more important than the actual punishment. Hell, if a kid gets punished, he or she'll probably just figure a way around it anyhow. Make them think on it and regret it, then give a light punishment to help the lesson sink in a bit more, I say.

[Fifthfiend]

Fifth, extremely granted, and I agree wholeheartedly. But that's getting just a smidgen off topic. We're talking less about the topic in general and more about "what makes a good parent?"

It was more sort of a roundabout way of answering the question, which is to say, there's a place where giving your kid a smack is gonna fuck him up, there's a place where giving your kid a smack is gonna set him straight.

I mean asking something as simplistic as "Will hitting your kid screw him up?" is like asking, I don't know, "Do videogames make kids violent?" Just as that question excludes both the wealth of influences that can lead to violence and the myriad ways in which we might concievably be influenced by the entertainments to which we are exposed, the hitting your kid question cordons off the whole wide range of things a parent can do that affects their kid, along with the whole range of effects hitting your kid might have on him, depending on any number of circumstances and approaches. It's a question that, approached directly, precludes any kind of meaningful answer.

Most people don't really think of their kids as such they are'nt people

There really aren't the words for how much I agree with that.

I mean since we're sharing, my parents never came at me with cable cords, they'd mostly just scream at me, for hours a day, for pretty much whatever completely at random reason. But mainly for what it took me to find out was the real reason, which is my parents were crazy pricks who'd relieve the stress of dealing with the difficulties they had to face in life on account of being crazy asshole pricks by coming home and finding any excuse whatsoever to go apeshit crazy screaming at their fuckin' kids.

Which I don't bring up cause I want anyone sniffling over my sob story, I mean Jesus there's guys who probably had it worse one post up this thread. It's just what's always stayed with me is it just makes me wonder, what has to be wrong in your brain that the way you wouldn't treat the dirtiest, meanest, most worthless piece of humanity on the face of the Earth, that you would come home and put that kind of treatment to your own kid?

And just to return to the subject, that's a big part of where I'm coming from with all this - is when you ask me, will hitting your kid screw up your kid? My answer is, what're you, kidding me, you can screw up your kid every which way there is to screw up your kid before you lay your first fuckin' finger on that kid.

Sometimes, the child is influenced by their friends. In my life, whenever I went over to friend's houses, I've seen a lot of them just yell at their parents and and show a lack of respect.

You know, not for nothing, but some parents really just need to be told they're crazy fuckin' pricks.

[EVILNess]

I agree wholeheartedly with what Fifth is saying. You cannot equate spanking a child to beating the living shit out a child with a phone cord. (This goes for any extreme form of punishment; mental, physical, or otherwise.)

Personally, I do not think punishment is a bad thing, just don't go postal on a five year old. Like Fifth said, there are too many outside stimuli to say that spanking a child causes long-lasting harm, and in my opinion, not punishing a child is more detrimental than anything.

Punishment is a way for a child to learn to function in society. It lets you know there are boundaries that, if crossed will have consequences.

[Fifthfiend]

Just to clarify, I think spanking a child can absolutely cause significant, long-lasting harm.

It's just, whether it does or doesn't has as much as anything to do with any number of other factors which you'd do better worrying over than anything as simple or detached from anything like the specificities and consequences of reality as "is it wrong or right to hit a kid?"

[shiney]

My thoughts are presented in a slightly different way.

In England it is illegal to smack your child when they misbehave, because it "promotes child abuse".

In England, there are wandering groups of youths on bicycles that break windows. Not one or two, thirty or more. Not just a few kids in a city, we're talking hundreds. There are 13 year olds who get drunk and murder people. And film it on their mobiles. There are kids who "happy-slap" - slap some stranger in the face and run away. There are 10 year olds at schools with knives, stabbing their classmates. All of these children grew up with an equal measure of apathetic parents and no discipline. Some of them have good parents, but with no feasible means of discipline (go to your room or...I'll...be very upset?) they became wild and unchallenged. Some of them terrorize their own parents, who still refuse to smack them as they don't want to go to jail. Yes, jail. For spanking a misbehaving child. That or your child becomes someone's foster child.

There is a thing in England called "yob culture". It's a term coined by The Sun, one of the newspapers out here, and it is taking over. The government insists that smacking children will cause parents to become abusive, but it does nothing to prevent the parents who already are anyways. Further to that, it allows the children to bypass one of the oldest and most proven discplinary methods the world has ever known. Even further to that is the insistence that "this is the right path" and that they will not repeal the law.

Yeah, so we're moving to America in a year for reasons just exactly like this one. Bullshit is what it is.

[The Wandering God]

My thoughts are presented in a slightly different way.

In England it is illegal to smack your child when they misbehave, because it "promotes child abuse".

In England, there are wandering groups of youths on bicycles that break windows. Not one or two, thirty or more. Not just a few kids in a city, we're talking hundreds. There are 13 year olds who get drunk and murder people. And film it on their mobiles. There are kids who "happy-slap" - slap some stranger in the face and run away. There are 10 year olds at schools with knives, stabbing their classmates. All of these children grew up with an equal measure of apathetic parents and no discipline. Some of them have good parents, but with no feasible means of discipline (go to your room or...I'll...be very upset?) they became wild and unchallenged. Some of them terrorize their own parents, who still refuse to smack them as they don't want to go to jail. Yes, jail. For spanking a misbehaving child. That or your child becomes someone's foster child.

There is a thing in England called "yob culture". It's a term coined by The Sun, one of the newspapers out here, and it is taking over. The government insists that smacking children will cause parents to become abusive, but it does nothing to prevent the parents who already are anyways. Further to that, it allows the children to bypass one of the oldest and most proven discplinary methods the world has ever known. Even further to that is the insistence that "this is the right path" and that they will not repeal the law.

Yeah, so we're moving to America in a year for reasons just exactly like this one. Bullshit is what it is.

Wait, wait, wait. So are you saying that A Clockwork Orange is actually going on over there right now?

That's messed up.

The Wandering God

[Mannix]

I think the title of this thread is a little misleading. There's a difference between punishing and hitting, even though hitting is a form of punishment. That being said I'd like to put forth a bit of an analogy:

Over the course of a lifetime, a dedicated martial artist (boxing, taekwondo, whatever) will break the bones in their hands and feet litterally hundreds of times, most of which are very very minor fractures. Over time the way in which the body heals these fractures the bones become much stronger than if they had never been broken. A martial artist makes his hands more powerful by damaging them over and over.

I believe minds are similar to bones in that hardship makes them tougher. Being punished is a very unpleasant experience whether it's deserved or not. Groundings, spankings, being sent to bed w/o dinner; all of these things may appear damaging in the short term, but over the course of a lifetime they serve to make an individual mentally tough.

When you compare this latest generation of children that have grown up with their parent never telling them no, never spanking them, etc to say our grandfather's generation who were mostly on the recieving end of things even we haven't had to deal with, the differences are striking. We've gone from the generation that was tough enough to fight a two-front war and win desicively to a bunch of snot nosed brats that can't leave the house without their cell phone and bottle of water. Goths and Emos didn't exist in the 40's and 50's because everybody was too damned TOUGH to piss and moan.

However, bones and minds have this in common as well - if you back over them with a car every morning they'll be even more useless than if you hadn't done anything at all.

[Seran]

I'm not sure if I can properly agree with physical punishment.

Even though I'm young, I'm not protesting against light physical punishment whatsoever. What I claim is through witness and not personal experience. It usually depends on the individual child, how they would respond, how they would then be changed. At a young age, if they have not matured quickly, it appears that a light physical punishment would teach them to turn from whatever wrongful behavior they had displayed, or whatever wrongful action they had taken. It's not always the case, depending on how the punishment is taken out. Such a method of preventing unwanted ways is and should be acceptable, but not to extreme ways. The punishment must match the crime, I always say. Some remain good out of fear, some remain good out of understanding. Some simply feel oppressed, and some merely think they can wait. It always has to vary because of the individual child. The ones handing out the punishments -- parents, foster parents, guardians -- should know what they are doing should they wish to take such action. They should know either the right physical punishment, or they should know the right mental judgement.

What I'm saying is, sometimes too much physical punishment may just make it all worse. I know this because I've seen my sister and brother. Both are autistic, and both are mentally challenged. My mother is impatient and has a quick temper, and almost every day I see her yell at my brother with great fury and rage, sometimes slapping the table with some sort of stick or staff and sometimes hitting him. He only shrieks and cries, making empty promises and begging for her not to punish him. Afterward, he grumbles to himself for hours on end, having gained no kindly support from his mother at all. I usually have to stay around, put up with his insults, and calm him down in the most serene way I can. I cannot determine what it supporting his bad behavior at school. I know what started it, but I cannot stop the source, so it would become necessary to treat him in a way to teach him not to do such terrible things at school. I cannot determine what is driving him -- misery, or the feel that he is free.

Do you know what I am saying? My sister is much more melodramatic than him, possibly from everything she's watched and heard. When upset she cries and sobs, thinking that she's a "bad girl", whining to whoever the angry or offended person is and asking if she's good. If she has no direct and kindly response, she continues to cry more and starts saying insane nonsense such as, "you slayed me" or "my heart's broken". It's maddening to be in my position. Up to this point, a typical teenager would have said, "I cut myself every fucking day and I want to die", but I'm not like that, you see. I feel that such a thing is only through true madness, and that's not me. (Those who are facing "true madness", forgive me -- someone can help somehow.) It's just as the old saying goes. Brains over brawn. If one takes the time to think things out, analyze their child's behavior and the reason for such, they can certainly repair it without damaging a child's psychological status. It takes patience, understanding, and the will to help.

But, if not...if the child has been doing much, much more worse and has a developed mind...go for what complicated techniques you can think of to cure them. Physical, mental, it doesn't matter if the person thinks they know enough to ignore the rules.

[Edit] I've murdered the conversation, haven't I?

[Galumphing]

I disagree. I don't think you should ever, EVER hit a child. If you have to, you have already failed as a parent. True, as i'm fifteen now, i may be slightly partial, but... I was never hit. Never. And yet, i've been told for like, ten years that i'm a very, how to put it, un-troublesome child. Why is this now? I don't know. I don't know how, all i know is that you can raise a child without hitting it, and it'll turn out "good" anyway. Just... Don't hit 'em. And yes, hitting your child does damage them psychologically. And i have more than opinion as suport here, because my mother is a psychologist.

[shiney]

If that's so, how does your mother explain all the perfectly well-adjusted people in the world who grew up getting spanked when they screwed up or were being jerks? Maybe you were the ne'er to be had perfect child, but is that going to be the case for everyone? Extremely doubtful as nobody else has your parents. You can't really apply your situation in these terms as those conditions cannot be replicated.

[Krylo]

I can only begin to agree with your sentiments, Shiney, if you aren't using yourself as an example.

Seriously, though, every child and all conditions are different. Some kids (and some adults... hell most adults... 99.9% of adults) deserve a good smack in the head from time to time. Some kids really don't.

Some kids will respond to a smack by learning what they did was wrong.

Some kids will respond to a smack by learning that getting caught is wrong.

Some kids will respond to a smack by learning that violence is a way to solve problems (works for their parents, eh?).

Some kids will respond to being lectured by zoning it out and not listening.

Some kids will respond to being lectured by learning the why's and how's of what they did and exactly why it is wrong.

Some kids will respond to being lectured with annoyance and go take it out on something.

Some kids will respond to the corner by playing make-belive (simultaneously increasing their creativity and learning nothing about moral ramifications).

Some kids will respond to the corner by learning not to do bad things lest they end up bored shitless.

Some kids will respond to the corner by peeling the wallpaper off the corner and making paper hats. ...Not that I ever did that.

Anyway, the point is that you can't really say "Hitting is wrong all the time." Or "Hitting is right/necessary for every child."

Both views are completely ridiculous.

As Fifth said, you can screw up your child by smacking him, or you can screw your child before you even think of lifting a finger.

On the other hand, you can avoid screwing them despite hitting them/not hitting/whatever.

People are not computers with a simple input x -> output y.

Input x will ellicit a different response in every single human, and, further, due to the diversity of our households, our parents, and the great amount of information we can take in, input x will NEVER be uniform. Even if two families treat their children the exact same way, there's still the social factor of their friends, and school, and where they live, and how much money they have, etc. etc. Then you have the genetics and everything else.

Saying that any one way of dealing with children is universally right or wrong is ridiculous.

Just like saying that any one way of dealing with people is universally right or wrong.

Now, I strongly believe that physical violence should be an absolute last resort, and I certainly wouldn't try it with my own children (were I to have them) unless EVERYTHING else failed.

However, that doesn't mean that I couldn't (indeed I probably will, if I have kids) give form to the goddamn anti-christ and be forced into using my most despised form of punishment.

[Dragonsbane]

I disagree. I don't think you should ever, EVER hit a child. If you have to, you have already failed as a parent. True, as i'm fifteen now, i may be slightly partial, but... I was never hit. Never. And yet, i've been told for like, ten years that i'm a very, how to put it, un-troublesome child. Why is this now? I don't know. I don't know how, all i know is that you can raise a child without hitting it, and it'll turn out "good" anyway. Just... Don't hit 'em. And yes, hitting your child does damage them psychologically. And i have more than opinion as suport here, because my mother is a psychologist.

You neglect one important fact, Galumphing. Not all children are you. As it has previously been pointed out, it depends on the child in question. Now, assuming there is a child who is not you and is refusing to behave, doing things that make him richly deserving of a spanking. It is not necessarily because the parents have failed, but because that child has not picked up on the fact that this is wrong, or has decided he has no reason to care.

My mother is also a psychologist...or at least, she used that excuse in court to force more money out of my dad to "support the kids". This money mostly paid for her hair dye and opera tickets. She's a psychotic bitch who should never be allowed around children, yet does her training in psychology mean that her views are automatically correct on the subject of hitting her kids? Psychologists argue on this issue, they have different views on it.

The fact is, as it has already been pointed out, that different children and different situations require different methods. Some really do need to be smacked.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Just wanted to point something out:

If it's a case of them NOT doing what you want them to do, bribe 'em. Works every time.
No, that is definitely not the way to do things with your own kids. It may work with kids you are baby-sitting, but you do not want your own kids expecting to be paid off for doing what is right. Do you know what that teaches them? That teaches them that they only have to do the right thing if they think they'll get money/toys/electronics/candy. What happens when you can no longer afford to bribe your own children? Since the bribe was the only reason they were doing what they were supposed to, they no longer have any reason to keep doing it.

[Mirai Gen]

Some kids will respond to a smack by learning what they did was wrong.
Some kids will respond to a smack by learning that getting caught is wrong.
Some kids will respond to a smack by learning that violence is a way to solve problems (works for their parents, eh?).
Some kids will respond to being lectured by zoning it out and not listening.
Some kids will respond to being lectured by learning the why's and how's of what they did and exactly why it is wrong.
Some kids will respond to being lectured with annoyance and go take it out on something.
Some kids will respond to the corner by playing make-belive (simultaneously increasing their creativity and learning nothing about moral ramifications).
Some kids will respond to the corner by learning not to do bad things lest they end up bored shitless.
Some kids will respond to the corner by peeling the wallpaper off the corner and making paper hats. ...Not that I ever did that.
Anyway, the point is that you can't really say "Hitting is wrong all the time." Or "Hitting is right/necessary for every child."
I've been more or less behind this idea the entire time (Fifth and yourself put it more eloquently), however I stand by my belief that five-fingers-and-the-face methood of punishment works, has worked for years, and probably will continue to work (except in England, that's pretty fucked up) for years. Argue about psychological damage all you wish, so long as physical punishment is not used as an excuse for repeated and unneccesary physical harm, there's no reason to slap the title of "Abuse" on it.

[Bamboozehound]

Reality can be traumatic. It is impossible to avoid life. Extremism is ignorant. :/

[MetalPsycho]

I never really dissobeyed my father that much. I never got a spanking from him.

Why? Because I loved him. Because he was the greatest person ever. Because if someone came up to me and said "Your father was gay," I'd kill the fucker. That's why.

That, and he was 6"1', and had a glare that said "I'm not mad, but I am dissapointed in you."

When I got this glare, I felt ashamed. I felt hurt that I'd hurt my father's view of me. I wanted him to stop looking at me like that, so I learned my lesson.

Spanking and cornering and all that are great, but not if they're alone. You have to have something to back it up.

As for spanking fixing everything, it doesn't. I know. I was paddled more in elementary school than I was ever punished by my father in ANY way. And I tell you, from what I've seen and experienced, it's crap if it's from some teacher, let me tell you. Most kids would take the thwaks, rub their bottom, and be right back to their bullying/misbehaving ways within the hour. Some kids got paddleings daily, like some sort of horrible clockwork. Some parents sued the school because their little imps' bottoms were worn raw and even bleeding in some cases. It NEVER WORKED!

EVER!

They were still pissants in MIDDLE SCHOOL!

But I can tell you. One lecture from my father was enough. Every time.Mind you my father was charismatic. He knew how to talk, and knew how to deal with people. God knows he had enough practice.

Some punishments work best in some situations. Don't threaten your kids when they're young, because they won't stop screaming. THat will do SHIT! It just makes them more upset becaue you're angry. I think it'd be better to hug them, yaknow? Tell them you're not mad, but that he/she should calm down, and maybe, just maybe, you can go out for icecream sometime.

It's not spoiling. Kids need positive stimuli to make it feel like you care about them, which teaches them to care about stuff. And for gods sake, try to enjoy having them.

[Zeldias]

I never really dissobeyed my father that much. I never got a spanking from him.

Why? Because I loved him. Because he was the greatest person ever. Because if someone came up to me and said "Your father was gay," I'd kill the fucker. That's why.

That, and he was 6"1', and had a glare that said "I'm not mad, but I am dissapointed in you."

When I got this glare, I felt ashamed. I felt hurt that I'd hurt my father's view of me. I wanted him to stop looking at me like that, so I learned my lesson.

Spanking and cornering and all that are great, but not if they're alone. You have to have something to back it up.

As for spanking fixing everything, it doesn't. I know. I was paddled more in elementary school than I was ever punished by my father in ANY way. And I tell you, from what I've seen and experienced, it's crap if it's from some teacher, let me tell you. Most kids would take the thwaks, rub their bottom, and be right back to their bullying/misbehaving ways within the hour. Some kids got paddleings daily, like some sort of horrible clockwork. Some parents sued the school because their little imps' bottoms were worn raw and even bleeding in some cases. It NEVER WORKED!

EVER!

They were still pissants in MIDDLE SCHOOL!

But I can tell you. One lecture from my father was enough. Every time.Mind you my father was charismatic. He knew how to talk, and knew how to deal with people. God knows he had enough practice.

Some punishments work best in some situations. Don't threaten your kids when they're young, because they won't stop screaming. THat will do SHIT! It just makes them more upset becaue you're angry. I think it'd be better to hug them, yaknow? Tell them you're not mad, but that he/she should calm down, and maybe, just maybe, you can go out for icecream sometime.

It's not spoiling. Kids need positive stimuli to make it feel like you care about them, which teaches them to care about stuff. And for gods sake, try to enjoy having them.

Here. It's a +5 Chocolate Chip Cookie of Awesomeness. Enjoy both this and your quest experience, as you've mightily earned it.

[Mirai Gen]

I never really dissobeyed my father that much. I never got a spanking from him.

Why? Because I loved him. Because he was the greatest person ever. Because if someone came up to me and said "Your father was gay," I'd kill the fucker. That's why.

That, and he was 6"1', and had a glare that said "I'm not mad, but I am dissapointed in you."

When I got this glare, I felt ashamed. I felt hurt that I'd hurt my father's view of me. I wanted him to stop looking at me like that, so I learned my lesson.
Yeah, but you have to realize that individual cases may not give a flying fuck what their father thinks. For you, it worked. Sure. That glare was enough to convince you you did something wrong, and it was bad. But alot of kids are going to roll their eyes and act like nothing was wrong.

That's when you do the Bill Cosby thing, "Roll your eyes at me? I'll roll your head off your shoulders!" *swat*

[Jagos]

I can put it this way, my dad put the fear of god in me at an early age. Later on, I respected him. He reinforced his lessons with the belt as a last resort. Kinda like baseball, three strikes, you're out.

As I grew older, he'd tell me "I wouldn't do that if I were you" and if I did it anyway it was "I told you so..."

Sure, some kids can get away with the rolling of the eyes. But it all depends on who the role model in their life is. If it ain't the father for whatever reason, and it's a celebrity on TV, then there's problems in the family that need fixing.

[Althane]

If your children are intelligent and brought up properly (as in, taught the proper respect for elders and each other, as well as al lthat good stuff), then when they break it, it is best to punish them. But is taking away their video games for a week really a punishment? I mean, seriously, they can go to a friend's house and play. Or play while your asleep. How about grounding them from seeing their friends? How does that acomplish anything (though I wouldn't really know, I wasn't grounded, nor did I really have a lot of friends past age 8 or so...)?

All these punishments are ok, but seriously, spanking your kid isn't OMGA TEH ABUSHE! Ever heard the saying "Spare the rod, spoil the child"?

[icythaco]

Having an equal relationship with your child works better in the long run. One should learn the reasons to be humble and unspoiled through logic, not physical blows.
Have you ever tried logic on a five-year old? I'm sorry, but sometimes harsh lessons must be emphasized with harsh punishments in order to be retained by the child in question.

[Lockeownzj00]

I agree, but parents are too quick to leave the kid in the dark. Rather than make him try to understand, even in his puerile mind (believe me, there are ways...it's not like I've never been around kids), they try to just associate two polarised emotions with two results. Again, it works, I just think it might not always be the best or first solution.

[MetalPsycho]

Yeah, but you have to realize that individual cases may not give a flying fuck what their father thinks. For you, it worked. Sure. That glare was enough to convince you you did something wrong, and it was bad. But alot of kids are going to roll their eyes and act like nothing was wrong.

That's when you do the Bill Cosby thing, "Roll your eyes at me? I'll roll your head off your shoulders!" *swat*

Oh yes, obviously. I never said it was a fix all solution. To me, it was, but not to everyone, mostly because alot of kids don't have that kind of respect. Which is a shame, I think.

And I agree with Locke, just hitting them isn't the answer. You have to let them know what they did, why you punished them for it, and what could happen if you don't shape up (and no, "Another spanking" isn't going to cut it. Give a real reason).

But if your kid is the brat from Hell itself, who spouts out hateful crap on an hourly basis and picks on kids in school, then by all means tan their hide. I don't like it, but I'd do it.

though, really, choose the punishment better. Grounding and No TV/Video Games usually isn't going to work, as it's simply restricting their freedom, but unlike other forms of punishment, that's something they can fight against. They can find something else to do. They can suck it up and take it and come out the same. They can sneak it in whilst you're asleep anyway.

Also, spanking is all well and good, but do we REALLY need to use cable wire? Belts? Are they really nesicary? Do we need to HUMILIATE our kids in front of friends? We don't need to kill their social life in order to teach them now to better work in society. That's a bit paradoxial.

[Dragonsbane]

Didn't we already agree that hitting works, but different cases and different children require different solutions?

Personally, though, I'm against using a belt or cable wire, and don't think it should be administered in front of others unless there is no way to take them somewhere private.

[Toast]

Two points of interest here. Public shaming is actually one of the more advocated nonviolent punishments.

Also, using an object to spank the child with isn't as bad as it sounds. The reason for this is because they'll come to associate the object with the punishment and not the parent with punishment. This way a parent can say 'don't make me get my (insert object here)' and control behavior without actually hitting the child. Obviously this won't work if the child doesn't think the parent will follow through with the threat.

As I said in my previous post, not all punishments work for all children. Everyone is different. Unfortunately, even our current culture's view of time out is so washy that it doesn't work. Time out should be a combination of extinction of reinforcement, extinction of attention, and extinction of positive emotion (to be clear, negative emotion should also not be present. Fear of abandonment is very powerful). Instead we get the 'go to your room' where they can basically do anything that they would normally be doing.

[Dragonsbane]

Public shaming, advocated or not, often teaches them just not to care. It also implies that you, the punisher, care more than society.

They should associate neither parent nor object with the punishment, but rather the action they did to warrant the punishment. They should also learn that the PARENT is enforcing discipline, not a belt or a wire or a stick. Now, threats obviously can control behavior, but a belt is not needed.

[MetalPsycho]

The problem I see is that parents around my area are too lazy to figure out what is and isn't working for their kids.

[RdmSythes]

Unfortunately, my sister is a prime example of how not punishing your child can prove psychologically damaging. I'm all for minor punishments, time-out and whatnot. However, I'm not too agreeable when it comes to physical punishment. My sister has recieved neither.

I'm almost certain punishment in general is completely necessary. My sister's gotten away with every petty little thing she's done ever since she was young, and she feels it's completely o.k. for her to steal and lie. For example, just today, she damaged my ethernet cord and wouldn't confess. In the process of purchasing a new one, I grabbed some shampoo, but not conditioner (as I already had a brand new bottle sitting in my room.) Well, upon returning home, I came to the realization that my sister had stolen my conditioner, and now I'm left with nothing but shampoo. My parents didn't even acknowledge what I had to say, it's almost as if they've just come to terms with my sisters immorality.

Minor things such as this occur on a daily basis, so I strongly feel that NOT punishing your child can psychologically damage them, just as punishment can, however contradictory that may sound, haha.

[Drax_reborn]

Shiney is right, England is going to hell in a hand basket. I think the reason is that stupid law about not smacking children, while this law sound like it should lead to a reduction in child abuse, it does nothing except increase the number of thugs in the country as the little darlings have no respect for teachers, parents or even the police. I myself grew up in South Africe where corporal punishment was common place in the schools, I remember getting a smack on the rear end for not listening to the teacher, not just a tap but a real wack and you know what she was my favorite teacher, the kids there did not run in gangs like they do here in England, well some did but not to the extent they do here. Also my mum smacked me and you know what it worked.

As for that law that will not stop the child abusers, no they while smack seven shades out of that kid regardless of the law. So to end this rambling mess of a post, smack the kid just don't over do it.

There is an old saying 'Spare the rod, spoil the child', I think that England has proved it.

[Fifthfiend]

You know I'm just saying, you know how I was saying, there's a way to hit your kid that fucks him up, and there's a way to hit him that doesn't fuck him up? Well you know just as a for instance --

That's when you do the Bill Cosby thing, "Roll your eyes at me? I'll roll your head off your shoulders!" *swat*

-- is probably the way to make sure that your kid gets the absolute maximum of getting fucked up.

Once you've decided that your job, as a parent, is to flip a shit every time your kid shows the merest moment of what appears to be disrespect, roaring in self-righteous rage that said child should dare to transgress against your position of Absolute Parental Fucking Authority, well, that's probably the point at which you don't have any kind of fucking business being responsible for children.

It's probably also the point where you've guaranteed that whatever it is you're trying to teach your kid by punishing him, what you're actually teaching him, if your kid is actually any kind of halfway bright, is that none of this shit actually matters, because why you're actually punishing him is because you're a fucking crazy nutter has no business having a kid.

It's probably also true whether your punishment involves hitting your kid or lecturing him or grounding him or whatever thing you decide to inflict upon your kid for not kissing your ass hard enough.

MOVING ON!

The reason I wandered back into this thread, I read this this morning, and it seemed germane to the conversation:

High-Tech Hide and Seek
Technology Enables Parents to Spy On Kids . . . And Kids To Fight Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/27/AR2006052700126.html)

Maribeth Luftglass is a gumshoe mom.

The parent of three preteens periodically reads the text messages on their cellphones, monitors whom and when they're instant messaging and searches the Internet to make sure they haven't started blogging or set up profiles on social networking sites.

Her kids, in turn, sometimes attempt a little techno-judo to deflect her surveillance efforts: They change the text and background on the monitor to blue and black, making it harder for her to read the screen from across the room. They set their instant-messaging status to "invisible," so she can't tell they're online.

"I monitor all their online activities," and the kids are well aware that their technology-access privileges come with that cost, said Luftglass, who is the Fairfax County public school system's assistant superintendent of information technology.

The game of parental espionage and counterespionage gets ever more complex with technology.

Companies such as AOL LLC have long been in the business of marketing products to help filter Web content and keep children safe while online. Now that some cellphones come with Global Positioning Systems and that tracking software can log computer activity, parents are gaining new windows into their children's whereabouts and activities.

The corresponding transparency in most cases allows children to explore greater independence while at the same time tethers them closer to parents who, for the most part, are acting out of a desire for more knowledge and security. And as parents and children tussle over where to draw the line for privacy, some children say parental intrusion simply forces them to create more-sophisticated ruses to undermine the increased supervision.

Last month, Sprint Nextel Corp. introduced its Family Locator feature, the first major-carrier service that allows parents to receive text messages of the address closest to their child's location. Disney Mobile, the cellular unit of the Walt Disney Co., plans to launch its service with child-tracking next month, and still another, Wherify Wireless Inc., plans to launch a safety-focused phone for children in August.

More than half of parents of children between the ages of 4 and 12 said they had a high interest in such a service, said Clem Driscoll, president of research and consulting firm C.J. Driscoll & Associates, which last month surveyed 4,000 parents on behalf of industry clients. Many younger children are willing to accept the trade-off, he said. "The cool factor can override the fact that they're being tracked."

Interest in the service declines somewhat with parents of older children, Driscoll said. "Parents with teenagers have mixed feelings. Some of them feel like they don't want to infringe on their privacy," he said. Tracking might lead to resentment, some parents told him.

The Internet can also weave intricate traps and ruses for children and their parents.

Increasingly, schools are relying on software programs that allow parents to access their kids' attendance, homework and test and quiz scores online. Fairfax County Public Schools plans to pilot a program with that type of software this year. For the most zealous of snooping parents, there are even software programs that log key strokes and document the Web sites visited, allowing snoopers to trace old e-mail or instant-message conversations.

"Parents have a choice: Do you give kids autonomy or do you [watch] them," said Danah Boyd, a graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley who studies adolescent use of social networking sites.

Parental access to this kind of real-time knowledge about their children is relatively new. Before cellphones, text messaging, social networking sites and school Web portals, parents simply had to trust that their children were where they said they were, doing what they were supposed to do.

Three years ago, 14-year-old Hunter Phillips called his father to say he was at a friend's house -- but several minutes later his father spotted him roving around the center of town. That incident became the inspiration for a GPS tracking business, called ULocate Communications Inc., founded by Alan Phillips in Framingham, Mass., and used by multiple cellphone carriers to track kids.

"It's a given that parents should know where their kid is," said Hunter Phillips, now 17. And the service doesn't work when the phone is off -- something that gives him the occasional flexibility to tell his parents he's on the road home when in fact he might not have left his friend's house yet, Phillips said.

More onerous and restrictive is Hopkinton High School's Web site, which recently allowed Phillips's parents to see that he'd scored a poor grade on a test -- landing him in hot water before he even reached home. To circumvent such incidents, "some kids have neglected to tell their parents that the site exists," Phillips said.

For the most part, it's a fallacy -- or maybe a fantasy -- to think the average parent can outsmart teens when it comes to technology.

One classmate who "never does any work" once showed off a report card showing all A's and B's to an astonished Phillips, who said he asked how he'd finagled such a fine performance with no apparent effort.

"A little Photoshop helped," his software-savvy classmate informed him.

Often parents find it's the child who uses the tools to seek out Mom or Dad.

"They are the ones that call me more often than I call them," said Victoria Strohmeyer, an attorney who lives in McLean. Nevertheless, she plans to send text messages to her 17-year-old daughter, Sarah, if she decides to attend the prom. "I'm always there; I'm watching over you," she plans to tell her, so she won't be tempted to join in with classmates who might be drinking and driving.

Child psychologists say monitoring children is ethically and socially acceptable to kids if it is fully disclosed.

"You need to tell your child," said Marc Skelton, a clinical psychologist in Laguna Niguel, Calif. "Ultimately, parents have a say in the end, but there's a process to it. The reason kids object to [secretive spying] is they're not part of the process."

Boyd, the Berkeley doctoral candidate, said that for decades, teenagers have looked for places to hang out with their peer groups, whether at a community center, a mall or a social networking Web site. If a parent walks up to a child's group of friends at a mall, they might stop chatting or suddenly change the subject. But in a virtual space, a parent can enter anonymously, and the child has no warning that anyone is listening in on his conversations with friends.

Although some parents may chose to lurk in the background, others try instead to keep up with their children's activities by joining their kids' social circles, by establishing their own blogs or Web pages on sites such as MySpace and linking with their kids' blogs.

"I've seen messages where kids will leave comments like, 'Yo, Mrs. Whatever,' " on their friends' parents' blogs, Boyd said. "Those are parents that teens really do respect."

I'm just saying, the kind of parents who feel obliged to track their kids' online conversations and put GPS in their phones are probably going to be parents who do a real good job of screwing up their kids. All without necessarily ever having to actually lay a hand on their kids.

[Mirai Gen]

Fifth - I didn't mean it seriously. It was mostly out of jest, since we've already been in sync about "A general rule doesn't work" for about four pages now. Speaking sheerly in the context, if you remember Bill Cosby's "Himself" act, you'd understand exactly why I said it, and why I meant it for humor. I'm not so ludicrously stupid to agree then flip-flop a page later.

I, however, can understand exactly why you misunderstood me. Simply the part in quotes would make for a pretty damn good reason to say what you did.

But yeah, moving on.

That article's pretty enlightening. Distance parenting. Huh. Who'da thought.

[Zeldias]

It might just be the way I am about privacy, but I don't particularly like the idea of a parent going THAT far to see what their kids are about. I understand the necessity to be involved in it and know about it, but why act like you're a cop in a drug-bust? Wouldn't it be better to just talk to the kids about it early and see if you can't just ease in like a normal person would?

I guess I'm an odd circumstance, though, because I don't really care about what my folks think of what I do or how they'll react. If they asked, I'd tell them about it or at the most slightly obfuscate it, just so long as it meant I could get back to my precious privacy.

Also, on a little bit of a tangent, I don't really understand why parents freak out over kids on the internet. I understand rough shit can happen, but does it really happen that much? Like small girls inviting 60 year old truckers and stuff over to their house? Watching stuff on Dateline or whatever where they demonize meeting people on the internet twists at my guts. My ninth grade science teacher married a guy she met online and so on. Wouldn't it be better for the parent to ease into that whole online culture so that the kid wouldn't want to wait until they leave and all that to meet this online buddy? A lot of friends I met on MMOs and so on have met my parents and vice-versa. Just seems a lot less stressful for everyone involved if we're all just up-front with each other.

Go go idealism?

[Dragonsbane]

Fifth, that last comment...I've been in that situation, both of them actually. It's absolutely hellish, and turned my little brother into a neurotic mess.

For those of you who advocate that kind of control, until you've BEEN there, don't say a word.

[Dj_StarChild]

Not adding much to the discussion, but there've been five pages already.
I know I was spanked. I know that it wasn't the pain that taught me, it was the embarrassment. And I know that the fact that I was physically disciplined made me hate authority rather than fear it. Maybe that's just how I am.

Er, that said, I think the effects are more subjective than they might seem.
I know that some things like, even fear of confrontation can be genetic rather than learned, but some things ARE learned.

[Daedrious]

It really depends on the child. I myself was not punished physically, I had the go to your room, you can't do this, you can't do that business. I turned out excellent, doing well in school, staying away from illegal substances. Never once have smoked, never drank...

I know that alot of people disagree with the my family's method, but when applied correctly, it works better than spanking.

I myself have always thought that spanking encourages the already rampant idea that violence solves problems instead of creating more; for both the parents and the child.

My final thought? If they have truly done something worth physical pain, (stealing, getting into a fight...) then go right ahead. However, for petty things, it just is not worth hitting a child.

[Kenryoku_Maxis]

What kind of question is that?! Of course doing certain things to your kids mind will effect them later in life. That's how people become the type of character they are. Mostly by how they are treated from when they are born till they are 18. Its after that when most people flip over and suddenly don't change by their environment.

[Frylord]

My Parents never smacked me, and lo and behold, I am the most behaved kid in my family. (Though it is probably because of different reasons.)

I'm not being arrogant or something, just stating a fact. My Siblings and me are more mature then normal kids. (Bloody Aspergers.)

[Darth SS]

Okay, weighing in here, but I'm putting this out here to be very blatently clear: I'm sixteen. My view, as you would imagine, is a bit skewed.

Children do need to be punished. They do need to know where the line is. Simple societal fact. We do the same thing when we stick people in jail. We're punishing them for stepping over the line. And, low and behold, there are people who were in prison who are productive members of society. There are also re-offenders, but that also happens with children. Some children don't "get it" or they don't fear the punishment.

If the punishment doesn't work, don't repeat it. Use something different. Spanking doesn't discourage them? Give them the most mind-numbingly boring time-out you can.

However, also, at the same time, you need to change the punishment as time goes on. You need to treat your child different as time goes on. Or, like fifthfiend said, you're going to fuck that child up without laying a finger on them. You can't treat a fourteen year old the same as a five year old. There are different things that are acceptable in these age groups. If you control every facet of a child's line from birth to graduation, then they hit the world and they have no idea how to function without that guiding hand. If you don't control anything, they think they have a right to do anything.

Going back to the thread title, I'll say this as succintly as I can.

No.