• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

How old must a child be for spanking to be illegal in the US?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not the biggest fan of spanking but I absolutely detest these little shit that treat their parents like shit, get slapped for cursing or acting a fool then call the cops like it's a crime to get popped.

In these countries, it is:
Albania, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Kenya, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela.
 
600px-Operant_conditioning_diagram.png


Really?

I guess I got my terms mixed up (though negative reinforcement is still bad). Hey, my wife's the behaviorist, I just try to keep up.
 
That's fucked up.
Sorry pal :(

It is. For most of my life I've been made to feel like no matter what I do, it's not good enough. I get anxious when I hear compliments. I've got a good psychologist now and we're working on a lot of stuff. I'm getting there.

I believe that most of the abuse from my parents and siblings was unintentional and stems from a long familial history of similar abusive parenting styles going back at least 2-3 generations. None of us were taught how to actually deal with emotions. Instead we either took it out on other people or held it in until it was far too late (this has been my problem).

I think spanking is just a symptom of the larger problem of abusive parents which does infinitely more harm than a leather belt ever could.
 
When I was younger, I was spanked when I did wrong. GAF may say it's cruel and unusual punishment but now that I'm older I don't look back and see one instance where a spanking was not valid. I was spanked maybe as young as 4 or 5 so I don't remember exactly all instances.

My grandma didn't spank though so around her I would do stupid shit like outrun her and lock her out the house, curse her out, 'run away', and generally treat her horribly for which I feel so remorseful for now, though. I was really verbally demeaning to her and I have no idea why since none of my parents were really like that to me. Maybe it was something I picked up from hanging around the block. Only when I was truly outrageous would be when my mom got home and spanked me, and that wasnt often since she would often be tired from work.

My little brothers and sisters are little now (ages 7-15), and my mom more 'relaxed' and she does not spank the youngest ones. One time I squared up with my little brother (15) when he called my mom a bitch, and we really fought. They are disrespectful to her to the point where it makes me outraged at the stuff she lets slide. She takes away their video games and electronics and TV and basically makes their room a jail cell, and they find other outlets for their boredom or just find out better ways to sneak around it. Sometimes they sneak out and wait when Mom isn't paying attention. Sometimes us older siblings enable them, and sometimes Mom is too tired to care what they do.

All in all, while I'm sure they will go on to be OK members of society, I feel like my upbringing gives me a great advantage over those who were raised only by 'stern talkings' and 'punishment'. I honestly don't see how I could be in a good place in life and so ambitious without having whoopings, and if i ever did raise kids they will be getting whoopings too.
 
This thread kind of reminds me of circumcision threads.

Uncircumcised people- "Cutting of the foreskin is barbaric and should be classified as mutilation."

Circumsised people - "Eh."
 
Speaking for myself i got spanked a few times as a kid when i really fucked up. Can't say that anything else would have been a better method to get the message across. For some things, "positive reinforcement" is just not enough of a tool. If that's all you got as a parent, your kid might turn into an entitled little shit who thinks he can get away with just about anything.

I think it's an important lesson to learn anyway. You can't act like a fucking douche towards people and not expect violence to come your way. If you have to learn that lesson from anyone other than your parents, chances are that you'll get a real beating rather than a spanking.

That said, using spanking as anything but a "last resort" is lazy, gross and generally distasteful.
 
Where's that study that basically corporal punishment results in aggression and hyperactivity and has been proven time and again to be an ineffective means of punishment.
 
It was a bad way of saying that, having experienced it myself, physical punishment isn't nearly the horrifying event that some make it out to be.

No offence, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean anything. And who knows, maybe you'd be a better person now if you hadn't been physically punished? That list posted above suggests at least a correlation between countries with high levels of social well being and equality and a lack of legal spanking.
 
Send your kid to their room or ground them? That's imprisonment. Illegal. You're also interfering with their social development.
Don't give them dinner for a night? Starving your kid.
No TV/internet? Interfering with their learning
Scold them? That's verbal abuse
Putting them in timeout? Another form of imprisonment
Don't buy them the latest videogame? You're being stingy and not allowing your child to enjoy the full benefits of your finances. I believe that's a child welfare issue.
Telling them not to associate with a "bad kid" at school? (Because there's no such thing as a bad kid). Well, that's interfering with their right to associate with whoever they want to
 
So you became a decent person despite it. Okay.

I would argue that I did so (partially) because of, rather than despite it.

No offence, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean anything. And who knows, maybe you'd be a better person now if you hadn't been physically punished? That list posted above suggests at least a correlation between countries with high levels of social well being and equality and a lack of legal spanking.

None taken. While we all strive to be better people, I honestly can't see a way for me to be better than I am simply from a change in the way I was disciplined as a child. But, I'm not a parent, and I can only speak from the experience I have and from what I've seen of my family and friends in this matter over the years. I still believe that this is a matter for the parents to decide and not the state, but again, I'm not a parent.

I'll stop talking now.
 
I've never had to hit a dog to train it.

I did, it was one of the most painful things I ever had to do and it yielded no results. The trainer said I need to hit him hard a few times but I stopped when I did it twice, it's just too much.

It feels, really, really bad man. Especially when the dog gives you his selfless, unconditioned love only to be disciplined in return. I never owned a personal dog ever since, but I do have other family pets in my house. I never hit any of them ever again.

I'm not sure how this relates to the topic but I just wanted to share.
 
I did, it was one of the most painful things I ever had to do and it yielded no results. The trainer said I need to hit him hard a few times but I stopped when I did it twice, it's just too much.

It feels, really, really bad man. Especially when the dog gives you his selfless, unconditioned love only to be disciplined in return. I never owned a personal dog ever since, but I do have other family pets in my house. I never hit any of them ever again.

I'm not sure how this relates to the topic but I just wanted to share.

What the fuck kind of a person tells you that you need to hit a dog to train it?

Jesus christ.
 
What the fuck kind of a person tells you that you need to hit a dog to train it?

Jesus christ.

I was 15, and he was a dog trainer, a professional one at that. I saw the outcome with other dogs and they were incredibly disciplined. I told him I wanted to raise and train my dog all on my own and he gave me the instructions. One of them was to hit him (again, hit him hard) when he misbehaves.

Dunno if I did it the way it was supposed to. But never again.
 
if the core principle of spanking isn't to hurt the child but a way to a transmit disappointment, it's just a failure in the context of rational thinking that it has to be physical.

My mom telling me she was disappointed in me did a huge number on me, changing my habits towards something much more positive.

ITT: People who were spanked will defend their parents because they turned out alright.
 
..theres no more spanking by the time a child is even 11..at that point you've either established you are in charge or you haven't. If theres a confrontation between parent and child in teh teen years...well that kid must've got in someones face...i don't know any parent that is going to spank a child thats becoming a teenager, they get grounded, and privileges taken
 
It is odd that people seem to recognize science has value and is good, but then are so often anti-science. Especially when it comes to social science. Social science tends to have one of two reactions when met by someone who is (perhaps subconsciously) anti-science.

1) Lol did we need a study to confirm this? Everybody knew this.
2) Bullshit sample size (even if it is statistically fine), bullshit study, my personal experience says otherwise, etc...

People value anecdotes more than they do data, even if they think they are pro-science.

Its a simple matter of people believing what they can see. If you have a family where the Granddad was spanked, the Dad was spanked, and the son was spanked and they all turned out perfectly fine, it will be understandably difficult for them to accept that they have done harm since their personal observation completely contradicts it.

Its reasons like that that social science is often not respected -- even within the scientific community there has long been debate over whether it should even be called a science because it deals in concepts and data that cannot be quantified or predicted. It doesn't help that social sciences are also often manipulated or obfuscated by a corporate, political, or personal agenda.
 
You know...

Regardless of how one feels about the issue, alluding to spanked children's parents as being abusers probably isn't going to be the most constructive way to frame the non spanking argument.
 
Its a simple matter of people believing what they can see. If you have a family where the Granddad was spanked, the Dad was spanked, and the son was spanked and they all turned out perfectly fine, it will be understandably difficult for them to accept that they have done harm since their personal observation completely contradicts it.

Its reasons like that that social science is often not respected -- even within the scientific community there has long been debate over whether it should even be called a science because it deals in concepts and data that cannot be quantified or predicted. It doesn't help that social sciences are also often manipulated or obfuscated by a corporate, political, or personal agenda.

Well it is one reason why social science isn't respected. But people do it even for the hard sciences. "Homeopathy/chiropracty/crystals worked for me!" Or the anti-vaccer movement.

People do believe what they see. But our own perceptions aren't the best. Hard data is best. I have no problem with criticism of social science, but laypeople's criticism amounts to "this contradicts MY personal anecdotes" or some bullshit about the sample size not being big enough, when statistically it often is big enough.
 
I would assume around teenage years.

I came from a mexican family, so I wasn't exempt from spankings. Looking back though, I understand why it happened. I was a jerk to my parents, and i'd act out when things didn't go my way. I don't know if i'll follow suit with my kids though.
 
Well it is one reason why social science isn't respected. But people do it even for the hard sciences. "Homeopathy/chiropracty/crystals worked for me!" Or the anti-vaccer movement.

People do believe what they see. But our own perceptions aren't the best. Hard data is best. I have no problem with criticism of social science, but laypeople's criticism amounts to "this contradicts MY personal anecdotes" or some bullshit about the sample size not being big enough, when statistically it often is big enough.

Absolutely, people do it with the hard sciences too. Social science is just much more susceptible to it, which is why there seems to be so much denial compared with other sciences. You call it hard data but its really not though. Social science even admits that its findings are not universally consistent or predictable; it deals in likely outcomes. Which is why someone can say "well, this works for my child" and they may be correct, a psychologist has no way of proving otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that social sciences are not deserving of respect. I think there is tremendous value in understanding human behaviors and its silly for people to out right dismiss it. However, I do think that when we're talking about individuals, that the data should be under greater scrutiny.
 
Absolutely, people do it with the hard sciences too. Social science is just much more susceptible to it, which is why there seems to be so much denial compared with other sciences. You call it hard data but its really not though. Social science even admits that its findings are not universally consistent or predictable; it deals in likely outcomes. Which is why someone can say "well, this works for my child" and they may be correct, a psychologist has no way of proving otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that social sciences are not deserving of respect. I think there is tremendous value in understanding human behaviors and its silly for people to out right dismiss it. However, I do think that when we're talking about individuals, that the data should be under greater scrutiny.

To be fair, the hard sciences sometimes deal in likely outcomes too. Maybe not physics, but biological sciences and medical science especially. Mostly because bodies are very complex and one body can vary from another enough to make an observation not true in 100% of cases.

I would agree though that soft sciences are less absolute in what we can say with them. Which is why I've been reluctant in this thread to state that spanking is never acceptable. I've only been stating that it seems to be consistently found to be the least effective method on average. Averages won't capture everyone of course.

Anyway at this point I'm basically just agreeing with you, but adding some small caveats. So I'm gonna stop rambling on. :)
 
Child abuse and mental disorder. I challenge anyone to find me a study which supports spanking. To all those who support spanking, what would you recommend the optimum force and velocity of the attack be? You know, because it's not a slippery slope at all. And also, do you have any other defence than the completely unbiased "durr hurr I turned out fine!!!11"?

Umm, OK. I didn't read the whole thing, but the overview finds that Conditional Spanking is better than almost all other forms of Alternative Punishment used in the study.

Conditional spanking is defined as nonabusive physical punishment (e.g., 2 open-handed swats to the buttocks) used when young children (e.g., 2 to 6 years old) respond defiantly to milder disciplinary tactics.

I think that seem people tend to think everything is black and white, that you either spank or don't. I wouldn't consider myself an non-spanker, but I very rarily spank my daughter.
 
I think it is pretty clear that I found the contrast between her lack of punishment as a child and her desire for punishment as an adult interesting, but carry on, social warrior.

The two have nothing to do with each other. So instead of throwing "social justice warrior" around like people who have nothing to actually justify what they said with, please explain to me how being punished as a child and a sexual fetish as an adult have anything to do with each other and how the lack of one seems to have caused the other, like you tried to imply.
 
Hitting kids are for people too lazy to spend the time and actually reach kids manners and morals. I get it with a baby to scare him into not sticking objects in a socket, but once they can reason, you should start teaching them how to reason.
 
It's almost universally agreed upon.

Corporal punishment is -at best- as effective as other forms of punishment in a very tiny window in a childs life - and only a few people say that. Tons of evidence shows that even light spanking can cause negative effects.

Wiki:

A meta-analysis of 88 research studies testifies to many long and short-term dangers of corporal punishment and concludes that corporal punishment of children is “associated with all child constructs, including higher levels of immediate compliance and aggression and lower levels of moral internalization and mental health.”[88] A 2003 review of available research into parental punishment concluded that "strong evidence exists that the use of physical punishment has a number of inherent risks regarding the physical and mental health and well-being of children".[92]

Other links specifically talking about non-abusive spanking:

http://www.theledger.com/article/20130111/columnists0419/301115000?p=2&tc=pg
Analyzing data from 3,870 children and families participating in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, the researchers found that while many children were spanked at 1 year of age, those who were still being spanked at age 3 demonstrated significantly more behavioral issues at 5 years than those who were not spanked at 3 years of age.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...+usatoday-NewsTopStories+(News+-+Top+Stories)

"There is a significant link between the two," says Afifi, an assistant professor of epidemiology in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba, Canada. "Individuals who are physically punished have an increased likelihood of having mental health disorders." Approximately 2% to 7% of mental disorders in the study were linked to physical punishment, she says.
The study's findings add evidence to the argument that "physical punishment should not be used on any child, at any age," she says.


http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/04/12/peds.2009-2678.abstract
Mothers' Spanking of 3-Year-Old Children and Subsequent Risk of Children's Aggressive Behavior


Frequent use of CP (ie, mother's use of spanking more than twice in the previous month) when the child was 3 years of age was associated with increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5 years of age (adjusted odds ratio: 1.49 [95% confidence interval: 1.2&#8211;1.8]; P < .0001), even with controlling for the child's level of aggression at age 3 and the aforementioned potential confounding factors and key demographic features.

I mean.... I could provide torrents of more links just by typing in 'corporal punishment study' into google. It's not like I have to tweak my queries or anything. If you're the type of person to value overwhelming data in support of one argument over another, then it's no contest. Corporal punishment is at best a short term compliance generator for a very select age group.
 
My sister has her Ed. S (Educational specialist) in School Psych and currently is working in the educational system, primarily with children with learning disabilities and aspergers. I texted her about this subject and here's what she had to say. Was a text convo so it might sound a bit disjointed
Positive reinforcement is more effective w significantly better long term effects. I think there is a balance between positive and negative reinforcement weighting much more on the positive side. And punishment should be in the form of ignoring. Depends on the function of the behavior (attention, escape, or to obtain a tangible). But hitting? Never needed. Teaching with words and kinder actions? Absolutely. We are models of behavior...why inflict pain if we'd punish such actions
this concept of inflicting pain for "their own good" is so twisted and counterintuitive I'm surprised it has manger to endure into the 21st century

I was hit as a child. I don't think my parents were bad people for doing this, simply doing the best they could with the knowledge available to them. My grandfather treated my father MUCH worse than my father did to me, I'm thankful my dad was able to partially stop the cycle of violence. With better boundaries and structure, I don't think even "mild" (what ever the fuck that means) spanking would have been necessary. I'm certainty not a better person for having been struck. We have much more information now than we did 25 years ago and we no longer have the excuse of ignorance to continue the cycle.

This thing is a hold over from ancient times. It's thankfully slowly diminishing and becoming more unacceptable. We'd be better off as a society to consciously eliminate this shit and put this old, harmful custom to rest forever.
 
Never.

Corporal punishment just teaches children that violence is a means to an end. When you resort to hitting your child to correct them you've failed as a parent, just means that you either can't or won't bother to actually talk and teach your child and came to the conclusion "fuck it, i just psychically beat him/her until she learns this behavior", you're basically a bully.

It says a lot when a lot of the people that been abused like this are the ones that defend this shitty non-parenting thinking and perpetuate it against their own kin, because that was what their parents taught them regarding violence. Children are very impressionable, especially when it comes to violence.
 
Alright.

Out of curiosity, isn't that what most spanking is? For very young children, and not as the only form of child-rearing, but as one of them?

For example, the last link says "frequent use."

In the study from Afifi, there was also this-

"A 2005 scientific review he co-authored, of studies comparing spanking with non-physical discipline methods, identified an "optimal type of physical discipline," referred to as conditional spanking, and said that when it was used as a backup to nonphysical discipline it was better at reducing noncompliance and antisocial behavior.
While the new study rules out the most severe cases of physically lashing out at children, , "it does nothing to move beyond correlations to figure out what is actually causing the mental health problems," says Larzelere. He criticized the study's reliance on memories of events from years earlier, and says it's not clear when punishment occurred. "The motivation that the child perceives and when and how and why the parent uses (spanking) makes a big difference. All of that is more important than whether it was used or not."

^- Seems to indicate that it's actually better at reducing bad behavior when used with nonphysical discipline.


I don't have children, but I'll liken my dog back to a small child (one that doesn't fully understand the concepts of humanity).

I teach my dog to poop outside. When it did, every time it went outside, which was everyday, three times a day... I praised him or fed him a treat. I petted and cooed over him for his success.

However, that doesn't mean the dog will know pooping inside is bad. That means the dog will only know pooping outside is good.

Once the dog decides to try pooping inside, a quick smack to the rear with a "bad boy," then carrying him outside, letting him finish, and then praising him, would seem to be more effective than simply saying "bad boy" and moving him out.

In the above case, I would want research about whether a quick smack is detrimental to the dog's mental and physical health any more than a mother's nip or simply saying "no." If the answer is no, why is it "wrong"?

(This applies to kids as well- and that study: how can we be sure it's the physical punishment causing problems, and not simply a more mentally hyper/active/etc kid to begin with?)


There are very very very few studies that show any positive result from spanking - and the ones that do all usually have very convoluted requirements. One I saw said it was only effective on children around age 2, and only if done at a particular frequency while mixed with non-corporal punishment.

But literally... well over 90% of studies I've read have shown that non-corporal discipline is significantly better than corporal. They don't teach it in child psychology, it's not considered useful and the associated risks are great enough that it almost entirely abandoned in every professional setting.

There is no good reason to hit your kids. You can raise wonderful kids without ever hitting them, and if you believe that's true, there is good chance you can raise your child without ever hitting them.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx

http://www.acei.org/corporal-punishment/all.html
 
There is no one size fits for all for kids. A good parent tries to do what they feel necessary at the time and sometimes that might mean a kid gets their ass beat. I feel it should be used as a last resort but as with almost everything, shouldn't be left completely off the table.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom