I cannot believe there are still people out there spanking their children...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

Maybe abusive is too strong a word. Dysfunctional is apt. Using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust.

So when I held my child down to change his dirty diaper, that exemplified a dysfunctional (if not abusive) relationship?

I wasn't there, so I can't say. I had the most success with rowdy diaper changes by cooperating with my kid, meeting him where he was. When he didn't want to be changed flat on his back, I did it with him standing -even #2. Trying to change him while he's screaming and flailing around would be stressful for both of us and potentially messy and dangerous. I never used my strength against my kids, who are now bigger than me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

Maybe abusive is too strong a word. Dysfunctional is apt. Using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust.

So when I held my child down to change his dirty diaper, that exemplified a dysfunctional (if not abusive) relationship?

It's crazy to me how often this comparison has been made on this thread.

Restraining a child (or an adult) in order to do a necessary form of care, like changing a diaper, cleaning their body, putting on a seat belt, etc., is not the same as spanking a child for punishment.

When you restrain a baby to change their diaper, you aren't restraining them as a punishment for bad behavior. They can't sit around in their own feces, it is your job to prevent them from doing that, so if you have to hold the child down to do it, that's what you do.

As a nurse upthread pointed out, this is also the sort of thing she sometimes has to do with adult patients who are incapacitated in some way. It's obviously not ideal, but sometimes adults are determined to be unable to make choices about their own medical care, and in those limited situations, they are restrained in order to perform basic medical care, like washing a wound or changing a bed pan. The restraints are not a punishment, they are deemed necessary to help the patient while also protecting the nurse from injury.

Spanking is punishment. It is never necessary in order to care for a child. It is done purely as a consequence for what the parent has deemed bad behavior. Studies show that it is a very ineffective form of discipline. So even if you don't think it's cruel, there is no reason to do it. Whereas there IS a reason to restrain a child in order to change a dirty diaper, and almost no one would tell you that the solution in that situation is to just let your kid sit in the dirty diaper.

These are very different situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

Maybe abusive is too strong a word. Dysfunctional is apt. Using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust.

So when I held my child down to change his dirty diaper, that exemplified a dysfunctional (if not abusive) relationship?

are you hurting your child when you do this?

He seemed to think so. But is that the criterion, or was it “using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust”?

well, no.
the aim of spanking is to inflict pain. That's why the consequence works. If perceived discomfort is a side effect of a necessary action, and you are aiming to avoid pain and discomfort, that is very different from an action intended to inflict pain and discomfort as its sole objective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

Maybe abusive is too strong a word. Dysfunctional is apt. Using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust.

So when I held my child down to change his dirty diaper, that exemplified a dysfunctional (if not abusive) relationship?

are you hurting your child when you do this?

He seemed to think so. But is that the criterion, or was it “using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust”?

Aaaand that is why parents need to have patience, compassion and creativity while raising and caring for spirited, sensitive children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

Maybe abusive is too strong a word. Dysfunctional is apt. Using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust.

So when I held my child down to change his dirty diaper, that exemplified a dysfunctional (if not abusive) relationship?

It's crazy to me how often this comparison has been made on this thread.

Restraining a child (or an adult) in order to do a necessary form of care, like changing a diaper, cleaning their body, putting on a seat belt, etc., is not the same as spanking a child for punishment.

When you restrain a baby to change their diaper, you aren't restraining them as a punishment for bad behavior. They can't sit around in their own feces, it is your job to prevent them from doing that, so if you have to hold the child down to do it, that's what you do.

As a nurse upthread pointed out, this is also the sort of thing she sometimes has to do with adult patients who are incapacitated in some way. It's obviously not ideal, but sometimes adults are determined to be unable to make choices about their own medical care, and in those limited situations, they are restrained in order to perform basic medical care, like washing a wound or changing a bed pan. The restraints are not a punishment, they are deemed necessary to help the patient while also protecting the nurse from injury.

Spanking is punishment. It is never necessary in order to care for a child. It is done purely as a consequence for what the parent has deemed bad behavior. Studies show that it is a very ineffective form of discipline. So even if you don't think it's cruel, there is no reason to do it. Whereas there IS a reason to restrain a child in order to change a dirty diaper, and almost no one would tell you that the solution in that situation is to just let your kid sit in the dirty diaper.

These are very different situations.

So curious if this is the same poster waaaay back on page two who keeps responding with these apples to oranges comparisons: "
Taking away a toy, timeout, leaving the playground, revoking TV teaches kids that they can get someone to do what they want by taking their stuff, confining them to a chair or step, taking them from something they want to do, or preventing them from watching a show."

Only Jeff will knoooowwwwww.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

Maybe abusive is too strong a word. Dysfunctional is apt. Using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust.

So when I held my child down to change his dirty diaper, that exemplified a dysfunctional (if not abusive) relationship?

It's crazy to me how often this comparison has been made on this thread.

Restraining a child (or an adult) in order to do a necessary form of care, like changing a diaper, cleaning their body, putting on a seat belt, etc., is not the same as spanking a child for punishment.

When you restrain a baby to change their diaper, you aren't restraining them as a punishment for bad behavior. They can't sit around in their own feces, it is your job to prevent them from doing that, so if you have to hold the child down to do it, that's what you do.

As a nurse upthread pointed out, this is also the sort of thing she sometimes has to do with adult patients who are incapacitated in some way. It's obviously not ideal, but sometimes adults are determined to be unable to make choices about their own medical care, and in those limited situations, they are restrained in order to perform basic medical care, like washing a wound or changing a bed pan. The restraints are not a punishment, they are deemed necessary to help the patient while also protecting the nurse from injury.

Spanking is punishment. It is never necessary in order to care for a child. It is done purely as a consequence for what the parent has deemed bad behavior. Studies show that it is a very ineffective form of discipline. So even if you don't think it's cruel, there is no reason to do it. Whereas there IS a reason to restrain a child in order to change a dirty diaper, and almost no one would tell you that the solution in that situation is to just let your kid sit in the dirty diaper.

These are very different situations.

So curious if this is the same poster waaaay back on page two who keeps responding with these apples to oranges comparisons: "
Taking away a toy, timeout, leaving the playground, revoking TV teaches kids that they can get someone to do what they want by taking their stuff, confining them to a chair or step, taking them from something they want to do, or preventing them from watching a show."

Only Jeff will knoooowwwwww.....

The criticism is “you wouldn’t spank an adult, why can you spank your child.”

The response is “there are a lot of things that you wouldn’t do and couldn’t do to an adult that you routinely do to your child.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

Maybe abusive is too strong a word. Dysfunctional is apt. Using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust.

So when I held my child down to change his dirty diaper, that exemplified a dysfunctional (if not abusive) relationship?

It's crazy to me how often this comparison has been made on this thread.

Restraining a child (or an adult) in order to do a necessary form of care, like changing a diaper, cleaning their body, putting on a seat belt, etc., is not the same as spanking a child for punishment.

When you restrain a baby to change their diaper, you aren't restraining them as a punishment for bad behavior. They can't sit around in their own feces, it is your job to prevent them from doing that, so if you have to hold the child down to do it, that's what you do.

As a nurse upthread pointed out, this is also the sort of thing she sometimes has to do with adult patients who are incapacitated in some way. It's obviously not ideal, but sometimes adults are determined to be unable to make choices about their own medical care, and in those limited situations, they are restrained in order to perform basic medical care, like washing a wound or changing a bed pan. The restraints are not a punishment, they are deemed necessary to help the patient while also protecting the nurse from injury.

Spanking is punishment. It is never necessary in order to care for a child. It is done purely as a consequence for what the parent has deemed bad behavior. Studies show that it is a very ineffective form of discipline. So even if you don't think it's cruel, there is no reason to do it. Whereas there IS a reason to restrain a child in order to change a dirty diaper, and almost no one would tell you that the solution in that situation is to just let your kid sit in the dirty diaper.

These are very different situations.

So curious if this is the same poster waaaay back on page two who keeps responding with these apples to oranges comparisons: "
Taking away a toy, timeout, leaving the playground, revoking TV teaches kids that they can get someone to do what they want by taking their stuff, confining them to a chair or step, taking them from something they want to do, or preventing them from watching a show."

Only Jeff will knoooowwwwww.....

The criticism is “you wouldn’t spank an adult, why can you spank your child.”

The response is “there are a lot of things that you wouldn’t do and couldn’t do to an adult that you routinely do to your child.”

Not really. I model good behavior and tell my kids they can put me in time out if I do the same as them. They think this is funny, but the thing is, they also never get to enact this privilege because I don't do things that are unacceptable for them to do (ie spank, hit). They will say "If you can make me do xyz, can I make you do xyz?" And I inevitably point out that I always do xyz.

I return to saying it's lazy parenting. It's also an unethical choice. There are alternative options that impact kids' behavior, provide repercussions, that don't involve hitting. You make an unethical choice when you choose to spank when you very well could have gotten the same outcome without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

Maybe abusive is too strong a word. Dysfunctional is apt. Using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust.

So when I held my child down to change his dirty diaper, that exemplified a dysfunctional (if not abusive) relationship?

It's crazy to me how often this comparison has been made on this thread.

Restraining a child (or an adult) in order to do a necessary form of care, like changing a diaper, cleaning their body, putting on a seat belt, etc., is not the same as spanking a child for punishment.

When you restrain a baby to change their diaper, you aren't restraining them as a punishment for bad behavior. They can't sit around in their own feces, it is your job to prevent them from doing that, so if you have to hold the child down to do it, that's what you do.

As a nurse upthread pointed out, this is also the sort of thing she sometimes has to do with adult patients who are incapacitated in some way. It's obviously not ideal, but sometimes adults are determined to be unable to make choices about their own medical care, and in those limited situations, they are restrained in order to perform basic medical care, like washing a wound or changing a bed pan. The restraints are not a punishment, they are deemed necessary to help the patient while also protecting the nurse from injury.

Spanking is punishment. It is never necessary in order to care for a child. It is done purely as a consequence for what the parent has deemed bad behavior. Studies show that it is a very ineffective form of discipline. So even if you don't think it's cruel, there is no reason to do it. Whereas there IS a reason to restrain a child in order to change a dirty diaper, and almost no one would tell you that the solution in that situation is to just let your kid sit in the dirty diaper.

These are very different situations.

So curious if this is the same poster waaaay back on page two who keeps responding with these apples to oranges comparisons: "
Taking away a toy, timeout, leaving the playground, revoking TV teaches kids that they can get someone to do what they want by taking their stuff, confining them to a chair or step, taking them from something they want to do, or preventing them from watching a show."

Only Jeff will knoooowwwwww.....

The criticism is “you wouldn’t spank an adult, why can you spank your child.”

The response is “there are a lot of things that you wouldn’t do and couldn’t do to an adult that you routinely do to your child.”

Not really. I model good behavior and tell my kids they can put me in time out if I do the same as them. They think this is funny, but the thing is, they also never get to enact this privilege because I don't do things that are unacceptable for them to do (ie spank, hit). They will say "If you can make me do xyz, can I make you do xyz?" And I inevitably point out that I always do xyz.

I return to saying it's lazy parenting. It's also an unethical choice. There are alternative options that impact kids' behavior, provide repercussions, that don't involve hitting. You make an unethical choice when you choose to spank when you very well could have gotten the same outcome without it.

Not sure why you're bragging about modeling 100% perfection as if it's a good thing. Children are supposed to learn at some point that their parents are human and flawed. Not that their parents are flawless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

Maybe abusive is too strong a word. Dysfunctional is apt. Using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust.

So when I held my child down to change his dirty diaper, that exemplified a dysfunctional (if not abusive) relationship?

It's crazy to me how often this comparison has been made on this thread.

Restraining a child (or an adult) in order to do a necessary form of care, like changing a diaper, cleaning their body, putting on a seat belt, etc., is not the same as spanking a child for punishment.

When you restrain a baby to change their diaper, you aren't restraining them as a punishment for bad behavior. They can't sit around in their own feces, it is your job to prevent them from doing that, so if you have to hold the child down to do it, that's what you do.

As a nurse upthread pointed out, this is also the sort of thing she sometimes has to do with adult patients who are incapacitated in some way. It's obviously not ideal, but sometimes adults are determined to be unable to make choices about their own medical care, and in those limited situations, they are restrained in order to perform basic medical care, like washing a wound or changing a bed pan. The restraints are not a punishment, they are deemed necessary to help the patient while also protecting the nurse from injury.

Spanking is punishment. It is never necessary in order to care for a child. It is done purely as a consequence for what the parent has deemed bad behavior. Studies show that it is a very ineffective form of discipline. So even if you don't think it's cruel, there is no reason to do it. Whereas there IS a reason to restrain a child in order to change a dirty diaper, and almost no one would tell you that the solution in that situation is to just let your kid sit in the dirty diaper.

These are very different situations.

So curious if this is the same poster waaaay back on page two who keeps responding with these apples to oranges comparisons: "
Taking away a toy, timeout, leaving the playground, revoking TV teaches kids that they can get someone to do what they want by taking their stuff, confining them to a chair or step, taking them from something they want to do, or preventing them from watching a show."

Only Jeff will knoooowwwwww.....

The criticism is “you wouldn’t spank an adult, why can you spank your child.”

The response is “there are a lot of things that you wouldn’t do and couldn’t do to an adult that you routinely do to your child.”

Not really. I model good behavior and tell my kids they can put me in time out if I do the same as them. They think this is funny, but the thing is, they also never get to enact this privilege because I don't do things that are unacceptable for them to do (ie spank, hit). They will say "If you can make me do xyz, can I make you do xyz?" And I inevitably point out that I always do xyz.

I return to saying it's lazy parenting. It's also an unethical choice. There are alternative options that impact kids' behavior, provide repercussions, that don't involve hitting. You make an unethical choice when you choose to spank when you very well could have gotten the same outcome without it.

Not sure why you're bragging about modeling 100% perfection as if it's a good thing. Children are supposed to learn at some point that their parents are human and flawed. Not that their parents are flawless.

Don't worry, I also regularly point out our flaws or that we also find things difficult or annoying to do.

Still, no reason to hit your kid when you can enact repercussions and get the desired outcome without it and without giving them the very confusing message that "You can't hit but I can do it to you" ... Because why? Because I'm the parent, that's why. It's simply not hard to show your kids you live by the same rules you apply to them and the benefit js longer lasting and more impactful to their long term development than spanking them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

Maybe abusive is too strong a word. Dysfunctional is apt. Using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust.

So when I held my child down to change his dirty diaper, that exemplified a dysfunctional (if not abusive) relationship?

It's crazy to me how often this comparison has been made on this thread.

Restraining a child (or an adult) in order to do a necessary form of care, like changing a diaper, cleaning their body, putting on a seat belt, etc., is not the same as spanking a child for punishment.

When you restrain a baby to change their diaper, you aren't restraining them as a punishment for bad behavior. They can't sit around in their own feces, it is your job to prevent them from doing that, so if you have to hold the child down to do it, that's what you do.

As a nurse upthread pointed out, this is also the sort of thing she sometimes has to do with adult patients who are incapacitated in some way. It's obviously not ideal, but sometimes adults are determined to be unable to make choices about their own medical care, and in those limited situations, they are restrained in order to perform basic medical care, like washing a wound or changing a bed pan. The restraints are not a punishment, they are deemed necessary to help the patient while also protecting the nurse from injury.

Spanking is punishment. It is never necessary in order to care for a child. It is done purely as a consequence for what the parent has deemed bad behavior. Studies show that it is a very ineffective form of discipline. So even if you don't think it's cruel, there is no reason to do it. Whereas there IS a reason to restrain a child in order to change a dirty diaper, and almost no one would tell you that the solution in that situation is to just let your kid sit in the dirty diaper.

These are very different situations.

So curious if this is the same poster waaaay back on page two who keeps responding with these apples to oranges comparisons: "
Taking away a toy, timeout, leaving the playground, revoking TV teaches kids that they can get someone to do what they want by taking their stuff, confining them to a chair or step, taking them from something they want to do, or preventing them from watching a show."

Only Jeff will knoooowwwwww.....

The criticism is “you wouldn’t spank an adult, why can you spank your child.”

The response is “there are a lot of things that you wouldn’t do and couldn’t do to an adult that you routinely do to your child.”

Adults can retaliate against abuse and insult, children can't. When you punish your kid using force, you are breaking them and imposing your will. You don't use those tactics on an adult because they wouldn't stand for itand they may just bite back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think spankers are defensive because they have had to tell themselves it's 'necessary' and 'different from hitting/ abuse' because otherwise most of them probably wouldn't do it. And then you'd be left with having to figure out other approaches.
But where a chain on time outs, cry it out etc would have engagement centered around is that or is that not abusive (and quite a good debate to be had), it's different in that most of us are saying there is no 'gray area' with spanking. You are hitting a kid, so it's not really 'up for debate' as to whether that is ok, in our eyes.

+1. I agree with this. My own experience is that, before kids, I thought I'd probably spank my own if necessary. I hadn't given the matter a great deal of thought, but my parents had spanked me. My wife, however, was firmly against it. She had a lot of childhood development knowledge, having studied to be and then having been employed as a teacher. She also resented her own parents' overuse of spanking. So we did it her way. I came to recognize that other approaches (timeouts, etc.) were very effective with my kids even if they sometimes required a fair amount of patience and required me to disregard my own annoyance and frustration as we gave those approaches time to work.

On top of that, the people I saw who spanked their kids tended to be pretty bad with their own emotional regulation. The types of people who got mad at others more often and couldn't or didn't bother to control their expression of that anger. That's anecdotal, of course, but it reinforced my happiness that my wife led the way on effective discipline for our kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing my point, and in response to the spousal comparison, spouses do not hold legitimate authority over one another. You could not spank your spouse against his or her will anymore than you could seize their iPhone, or confine them to their room, or the time out chair. If you put your spouse in time out against her will, that would likewise be considered domestic violence.

If you wouldn't treat an adult that way, why on earth would you subject a child to that? Is it, perhaps, because the child has no power and no means of defense or retaliation? If your child is so out of hand that hitting them seems like your best option, then you suck as a parent and as a human.

What do you mean if I wouldn’t treat an adult that way? Do you put an adult in time out when they are crying and don’t want to sit there? Do you force an adult physically into their seatbelt if they are refusing to do so? If an adult is dirty, do you pull their clothes off and set them in the bathtub even if they are resisting?

I never did those things with my children. Having been abused as a child, I am very sensitive of my children's needs. When they were little and acting out, it was usually because they were tired, hungry or in some challenging developmental phase. I never forced my child into any seat, tub or situation by force or threat of force. When logic and bribery failed, natural consequences ensued. You don't get in your seat, we don't drive anywhere, etc. I am by no means a perfect parent, I am definitely good enough and I have never abused my kids. To be clear: I consider your examples to be abusive.

OK. Got it.

Maybe abusive is too strong a word. Dysfunctional is apt. Using physical force on a child violates so many boundaries and erodes trust.

So when I held my child down to change his dirty diaper, that exemplified a dysfunctional (if not abusive) relationship?

I wasn't there, so I can't say. I had the most success with rowdy diaper changes by cooperating with my kid, meeting him where he was. When he didn't want to be changed flat on his back, I did it with him standing -even #2. Trying to change him while he's screaming and flailing around would be stressful for both of us and potentially messy and dangerous. I never used my strength against my kids, who are now bigger than me.

LOLZ