View Full Version : Smacking Kids

24-Jun-03, 11:11
I see form the news today that the UK government are contemplating makeing the smacking of kids illegal. In the same story it basically related the brutal killing of that poor wee lassie (think it was Victoria Climbie) with chastisement of children - sorry but I think we are talking about very different things here, the ritual and sadistic abuse of children is different from a quick skelp when you are out of order.
All I can see happening is that decent parents will get dragged through the courts and the likes of those who cause untold damage to kids like the scum that killed that wee lassie will continue to do exactly the same. :mad:

24-Jun-03, 19:23
Decent parents should not hit their children, nor anyone else. Anyone who causes physical pain on another SHOULD be "dragged thru the courts" as you say. It's called battery, and it is against the law.
Your argument implies that children are chattel, like livestock, and can be battered for their own good. You are so wrong. :~(

24-Jun-03, 19:44
Dont think I have an argument ht, was simply saying that I think there is a difference between a skelp if necessary and as you say battery/abuse.

24-Jun-03, 21:24
When is physically striking a child "necessary" and how is it better than talking with them about their behavior?

24-Jun-03, 21:37
Only parents know best how to bring up their own children. If a child is getting out of hand there is nothing wrong with a smack. Obviously the parents know the limits.
I'm not condoning smacking, but, it did me no harm when I was younger. Also in those days we would get the odd smack from neighbours if we were cheeky to them. We couldn't tell our parents because if we told them why, we would get another smack.

Trouble with nowadays is, political correctness. How long will it be before parents can't even shout at the kids? We've only to hear the way children speak to their parents now.
Why? Because the kid knows that if a parent hits their child then they are on the phone to childline. Then social services are involved (for ever), parents are prosecuted and children are put on the "At risk" register.

Leave the choice to the parents. If a child does not like being told off or punished he/she will behave themselves. Not 100 percent I know, but at least they know what the consequences could be. I am trying not to sound too harsh, but, I feel that, if a parent feels their child needs a smack then why shouldn't they be able to do it?

As for comparing it with the Victoria Climbie situation is utterly and totally ridiculous.

24-Jun-03, 22:06
Well said Deacon Blue. Reasonable chastisement can include physical punishment as long as it is controlled. I have given my kids a skelp on the odd occasion with good reason but it is a struggle as this left wing namby pamby papers that keep raising their head always spout about childrens rights. Sadly with rights comes responsibility and this is never mentioned.

Teachers struggle because all they can do is "talk" to their pupils or send them to the head teacher who will "talk" to them as well. I'm a forty something and when I was out of line as a pupil I got belted and boy did it hurt. I got it on a few occasions but it was there as a deterrent.

It has become madness at school with the thinking that there should be no more winners on sports day so everyone can get a best effort prize. Its not the real world. Where will it all end. You can imagine the Formula one season coming to an end with everyone getting a best effort prize.

I'm not proud that I have cracked my kids backsides on the odd occasion but it was a reality check and invariably brought instant reality back to my kids. They were hurt that I had clipped them not hurt at the severity of the smack because it was never hard.

Real world, I got a hot backside when I was younger more times than I care to mention and I am thankful I did because I learned more about right and wrong that way than listening to someone trying to discuss adult values with me when I had an attention span of about 40 seconds. :~(

24-Jun-03, 22:27
When I was very young I ran out across Traill Street, right in front of a car. Fortunately the driver had very quick reflexes and managed to stop in time. I can still remember my mother running into the street behind me, grabbing me by the scruff of my neck, and literally lifting me back onto the pavement. She shouted that I was never, ever to do that again and reinforced the message with a smack.

Not only am I convinced that she did the right thing, but I am also glad that she did it. I was VERY quick and made quite a game of running ahead of my parents whenever I could break away. Even when the car had narrowly missed me, I don't think I had any real notion of just how close to death I had come. But when I got a smack I knew that I had done something seriously wrong.

Another time, still very young but not as young… there was an old, ruined cottage near our house. The walls were still intact but the roof had gone and there was a tree growing inside the house. The ends of the building came up to a point about 25 feet in the air and my brother and I made up a game where we both climbed to one of the points with pockets full of stones, which we were going to throw at each other to see who got hit first ( :eek: ).

Fortunately we got caught before either of us had perfected our aim. We were welcomed back to the ground with a stern word and a smack.

I could go on and describe more circumstances where I got a smack as a child, but I don't think I need to. What I think is important is that I CAN remember each smack, and the reason why I got it.

My parents smacked my siblings and me for very good reasons and only when the message had to be relayed (immediately and without question) that what we had done was not only wrong, but also deadly dangerous. When they did smack us you could see that they were getting no pleasure from it at all (far from it). This meant that when we were smacked we learned the lesson and understood that it was important.

As I was a hyperactive child who tended not to listen to a thing I was told, I can't imagine how difficult it must have been for my parents. I dread to think what would have happened to me if my parents hadn't been able to reinforce those vital lessons with a smack. They certainly aren't inarticulate and would certainly have put the message into my head eventually, but there are some lessons that must be learned without delay. A short, sharp shock at the scene of the offence will often serve better than a procrastinated lecture after the fact.

Oh, I've just remembered, I also once stuck a stick in the spokes of my sister's bike as she cycled past quite quickly – Sister, if you are reading, I'm sorry and I learned my lesson.

25-Jun-03, 13:57
I too was smacked as a child and i have smacked all three of my children.

There is a right way to administer a smack and that is with on open hand on the bottom or the legs it should never be done in anger - although i have to admit i havent always followed that rule. It is a short sharp punishment which gets the point accross well and with effect.

I found that as my children get older the necessity of smacking is diminished. They become aware that they will get a smack and it does act as a deterrent.

Any punishment must be followed by a cuddle and a loving doiscussion as it is vital fort he child to know that they are both loved and forgiven

25-Jun-03, 14:19
It's a world gone politically correct mad and i'd like nothing better than to see corporal punishment brought back to our schools, have none of you that disagree with physical punnishment actually taken a good look at some of this generations kids? a lot of them are out of control, and why? well because they know full well that they can get away with the most terrible of things absolutely scot-free.
I'm not an old person with old fashioned views and i'm not advocating actual physical harm to anyone, but i see nothing wrong with giving a primary aged child a skelpt backside or a teenager six of the best, maybe some of them would learn a little respect for others then.

25-Jun-03, 22:08
Gizmo i completely agree! ive just left high school, and every year for the last 6 years the behaviour from certain (growing) groups of pupils towards pupils and staff has been appauling!!! One time a group of people in the pupil council discussed this, and it was agreed that when we were in 1st year or whatever we would never have dreamed of doing some of the things pupils do now!
it all comes down to respect - if you dont respect your parents how can you respect anyone else? etc friends teachers or other adults.
And besides if kids learn a lesson by being smacked why not? there is a huge difference between full blown child abuse and the occasional smack across the bum when their out of line!!

Bums are made for smacking! thats why they stick out!! (hehe only kiddin!!)

25-Jun-03, 22:29
A lot of the way kids are nowadays must also lie with the parents. If a child does something wrong and is not chastised, or the parents don't give a damn then the child only thinks he/she can get away with it.

I also have sympathy with school teachers, because they have had their powers of authority taken away.
The other day one of my children were being picked on at school by two lads. My son retaliated and one of them that was doing the bullying told a teacher and my son got into trouble.

I went to the school same day to see the headmaster and told her this had been going on for a while. She more or less told me she is powerless as to the form of punishment she could give out. I was then told the parents would be given a telephone call about their childs behaviour. Then to top it all, one of the kids that was doing the bullying and whose parent's the headmaster had phoned was not at school today, instead he was playing in his back garden.

A fine example of the parent not chastising the child.

Bring back punishment in school. At least if the deterrant is there then I am sure kids will be better behaved at school.
Bring back corporal punishment altogether!!!

25-Jun-03, 22:39
In this day and age, maybe we should introduce new techniques for disciplining. How about embracing technology and getting "stun guns". They're so advanced nowadays you could zap a disoderly child (or pet for that matter!) from the comfort of your own armchair from 20ft away. Now that's progress. I reckon I'll make great father!!!!

Although not administered by my parents, I remember getting thrown accross the room after sticking knitting needles into a socket. Must have taught me a lesson, I've never done it again.....

25-Jun-03, 23:19
LMAO!!....what a great idea, although i dont like the bit about zapping your pet

On the subject of your knitting needle incident, what is it when your a child that makes the stupidest of things seem like a good idea? :lol:
I remember once i licked my Scalextric track when i had it running..dont know why, i was just curious to see if anything would happen, i had a tounge like Jar Jar Binks after the pod racing incident for the rest of the day :lol: , i never ever did it again anyway :roll:

25-Jun-03, 23:23
I remember once i licked my Scalextric track when i had it running..
Oh my God... I thought it was only me that was daft enough to have done that :lol: I am not alone!!!!

"Hi, my name is JJC and I'm a Scalextric licker"

25-Jun-03, 23:49
Haha...no your not alone, there is probably a secret society of Scalextric lickers out there somewhere, i'll do a search and mail you the membership details :lol:

26-Jun-03, 07:59
Im like KW14, i dont have an argument about using violence against children. I avoid it myself but that might say more about my needs than any objective opinion about helping my daughters to face life by using violence against them.
I would certainly buy one of theones zappers though.
You guys make a reasonable case for the use of violence against your kids even tho your arguments are purely subjective as compared to the political correct whose arguments will be backed up by all the scientific investigations on the subject of the effects of violence on children.
As a neutral on the subject i noticed a number of anomalies in the pro violence postings.
Deacon Blue starts by saying he dosnt condone violence then goes on to condone it. Whats that about Deacon? Glad your still with us by the way.
Neils not proud about using violence against his children. Whats going on with you Neil?
I was surprised at the reaction of jjcs mother when he nearly got run down. Surely it was her job to make sure he didnt run in front of a car. Then he gets a smack for something that appeared to be his mothers fault. Confusing or what jjc?
Squidge makes a reasonable point but im curious about the notion of using violence where anger is excluded.
Gizmo blames the behaviour of the young on the non use of violence in schools. He suggests beating respect into them. Do you really believe that Gizmo?

I find this thread has created more questions than answers, not because you guys are being subjective, but because you knock the political correct, who may just have a new way of doing things which just may be to the advantage of a society on the verge of destroying itself.

26-Jun-03, 10:31
as compared to the political correct whose arguments will be backed up by all the scientific investigations on the subject of the effects of violence on children.
When considering the legislation to ban smacking of children under three years old, the Justice 2 Committee said,

…the Committee strongly supports any action which would prevent injury or harm - whether physical or psychological - to children. Having considered carefully all the oral and written evidence on this proposal, the majority of the committee concluded that there was no convincing evidence that the proposals here would reduce harm to children to such an extent as to justify a blanket provision of this kind.

In this situation I think you could probably find the evidence to suit whichever side of argument you wish to make. I don’t think it is either fair or accurate to claim that ‘all’ the evidence supports either side.

In answer to your thinly veiled suggestion that my mother was a bad parent, I can’t disagree enough (nor be insulted enough, I think). I’m not going to bother responding to that particular point in length, except to say that neither of my parents ever confused me with their parenting techniques. I am (I believe) a well-rounded individual with an equally well-balanced view of right and wrong and I owe that to my parents.

You seem to be viewing this whole thing as two-tone, black and white. Everybody with a sane mind will abhor violence, especially against children. They are defenceless and it is the job of every adult to protect every child.
However, can you not see that there are shades of grey in this debate? A short, sharp smack to the bum, which leaves no mark, and causes more of a shock than actual pain, is an entirely different thing to physical abuse.

I wonder how many people over the age of twenty can say that they were never smacked as a child? Can you, Gleeber? How many people who were smacked as a child (note: entirely different to beaten) can say that it did them any harm, or that they still suffer mental stress from the smack they got once for stealing a sweet?

Why do we suddenly now feel that children are somehow different, more sensitive, more fragile, less able to cope with the world?

Also, let me ask you this. Do you really think that the kind of person who is sick enough in the head to abuse a defenceless child is going to be dissuaded by a ban on smacking?

26-Jun-03, 11:38
I completely agree with what Squidge wrote about how smacking should be administered, and how it can work as a deterrent to bad behaviour. It's no better or worse (in terms of long term effects) than any other disciplinary technique, and it's up to the parent to decide an appropriate means of discipline at any one time.

Nor do I see anything contradictory or anomalous in what other people wrote. Parents can reserve the right to smack, but still wish it didn't come to that. That doesn't make them sadistic! Kids develop their sense of right and wrong over many years, and it is the parents' responsibility to help that development. And kids have rights, yes. But that doesn't mean that you can negotiate with them as you can with an adult. Only the parent can know if it's the right time for a discussion, or to send them to their room, or to smack them.

Squidge makes a reasonable point but im curious about the notion of using violence where anger is excluded.

I think this explains it all really. You describe yourself as neutral, but clearly regard smacking as violence. I disagree - there is a massive difference between smacking and physically abusing a child.

And JJC is right - no ban on smacking is going to stop an abusive parent. It might just make the abuse more secretive, more difficult for teachers and social workers to spot.

The state should not legislate on parenting styles. The country is already short enough on social workers without them focusing their efforts on decent parents who occasionally smack their kids. How many more Victoria Climbies would they miss as a result?

26-Jun-03, 13:48
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3.Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5.Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

All of the above are definitions of violence, if you were pedantic you could losely fit them into the child smacking scenario. But as a parent and a realist, the smacks were there and were short and sharp, controlled and without aggression.

IT could be argued any way but I won't bother. I'm not proud because I smacked my children, I would rather I didn't have to but at the time it was appropriate. Theres nothing going on with me Gleeber. Just a dad who gains no pleasure in physical chastisement. There are others that do, they can sort out their own demons. I can sleep at night.


26-Jun-03, 14:51
I not really sure how i feel about this all out ban on smacking, when I was young I cant remember being smacked. My mum and dad just needed to threaten it or "the slipper" and my brother and i sat down and shut up nearly everytime!!

Its seems to be the general lack of respect now that kids have, I cant tell you how many times I have just been innocently walking somewhere and some little person starts shouting abuse at you, to this day I am always still in shock when I see kids who are so fearless and horrible.

Also, I think my parents method of threat rather than action was quite effective as I know a lady who has kids and she gave them a smack when required but wishes now she never started that as they arent scared of it anymore, they know she isnt going to hit them hard enough to hurt them, so if they get a smack now its like, "is that all you've got mum?"

I dont think I will smack my kids, if I have any.

26-Jun-03, 14:57
Squidge makes a reasonable point but im curious about the notion of using violence where anger is excluded.

Smacking does not equal violence. Anger is part of viloence therefore you should not smack a child in anger. Not confusing at all

He is the dictionary definition of violence

Main Entry: vi·o·lence
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b : vehement feeling or expression :

in 1b it mentions an instant of violent treatment - smacking? well lets explore that

Main Entry: vi·o·lent
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity
2 a : notably furious or vehement b : EXTREME, INTENSE 3 : caused by force : not natural
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control b : prone to commit acts of violence

In no way is the i intention to injure or abuse my chid when i smack him. The main function of a smack is to shock the child into stopping what they are doing or into recognising that what they did was unacceptable or to punish the child and ensure they do not repeat the action that led to the smack. If you smack a child when you are angry then there is the potential for it to be a "violent" action, control can be lost and children can be hurt. That is why smacking a child should not be a reflex action or an action to make parents feel better.

Now of course this is all very well when you are a perfect parent and i would be surprised if any parent who does use smacking as a punishment can say they have NEVER smacked in anger but it is to be avoided. I think this is an issue for parents to decide themselves. To smack or not to smack is not a question for legislative control but a question for our own conscience. It is only when the line is crossed and the smacking becomes violent should the law be used

26-Jun-03, 20:04
Im the eldest of a family of 5 siblings who were given a skelping by both our parents when we did wrong ,and went to the school in the days of the "Lochgelly Tawes" which I received now and again.
As a result I have never been out of employment since I left school, I am a happily married man who has not long ago celebrated 40 years of marrige, I sired two sons who were skelped by both parents when they stepped out of line, they in turn both have been in employment since they left school and are now both in managerial jobs in their prospective fields, both are happily married and both have sired two daughters who no doubt get their share of skelps.
My point is that most parents know when to chastise their offspring, but I will agree there are the others who take it too far, but I digress, I say a skelping from my parents may at the time may have been the worst thing that I had ever experienced, but in the long run that skelping made me and my sons and I am proud of my parents and my sons

26-Jun-03, 20:10
Ok chaps, you make good points. I can see your uncomfortable with the idea of using physical violence for the good of your children but if all else fails, your prepared to do it.
Fair enough.
How about the wife if she continually over does the roast, or your neighbour who plays his music too loud, or your workmate who is just such a pain. How do you sort those difficulties out?

26-Jun-03, 20:43
Wouldn't dare complain if the wife overcooked the roast GLEEBER :eek:

26-Jun-03, 21:52
:) Can't s,ell any burnt dinners in this bit of ThursoGleeber :lol:

Just to throw another pebble into the mix...... sometimes I think that parents may smack because it helps them to express their own feelings.The mum who smacked her kiddy who was nearly hit by a car may be doing so because it is one way of expressing her fear, or relief that her child was safe, for instance. Or, does that seem fantastic to you all?

BTW. I use the term "smack" not meaning abuse, nor the kind of punishment which cases like the Victoria Climbie one demonstrated.

26-Jun-03, 22:14
As a neutral on the subject i noticed a number of anomalies in the pro violence postings.
Deacon Blue starts by saying he dosnt condone violence then goes on to condone it. Whats that about Deacon? Glad your still with us by the way.

As this is quite a debatable subject, how else can children be punished? Smacking isn't exactly violence. Violence is when things get out of control. As I said earlier I was smacked as a child. If anything, it made me into a better person. When I look back at my childhood,although it was relatively strict and some parts of it I would rather forget, I often wonder what I would have been like now had I just been left to do as I pleased.

I honestly think that if an adult had a trouble free childhood it reflects on their children.
Because of my upbringing I would rather my children were on the same level as myself.
I'm not saying because, I was brought up that way, that's the way you are going to be brought up. Far from it. But I do believe that, if a child has an element of fear if he/she does anything wrong then this will also make them a better person in older life.
There is no 100% deterrant. A parent will punish a child as they see fit without any violence.

26-Jun-03, 22:52
Okay... I mentioned the whole running out in front of a car incident by way of showing that smacking is sometimes necessary and never did me any harm... can we please stop analysing my mother's abilities as a parent because I personally believe she did rather well and it is starting to annoy me... Lay off, she's my Mum!!!

Gleeber, your first post in this thread says that you are neutral on this topic... are you sure, because your posts don't seem all that neutral???

How about the wife if she continually over does the roast, or your neighbour who plays his music too loud, or your workmate who is just such a pain. How do you sort those difficulties out?
The difference between smacking your child and the examples you have given above are quite simple. You are responsible for your child. You are responsible for their upbringing, their discipline, their safety, their health, their entire future. You are NOT responsible for these other people (except loosly responsible for your wife, but she had better have a pretty good grasp of how to be responsible for herself by the time she is old enough to get married).

Also, there are laws for dealing with the situations above. Noisy neighbour? Phone the police... Naughty child? Phone the police? Yeah, see how far that gets you....

27-Jun-03, 10:35
I am neutral although i have a tendancy towards non violence. All im doing is challenging the strongly held veiws of the pro violence lobby only because their posts have raised questions for me.
This is a very important debate not only for us as individuals but, i believe for society as a whole.
One problem (which for me embraces little Victorias brutal murder) about being able to smack our kids is that abusive parents will hide behind the cloak of justifiable punishment. So, theres an argument there to suggest that the pro smackers are creating an environment for the abusers to operate in safety.
The traditional argument of "I got smacked im ok" dosnt stand up as a defence. We used to send young children (the smaller the better) up chimneys to clean the bits the sweeps brush couldnt reach. 8 year olds were allowed to work in factories with machinary which very often killed them.
We evolve, continually changing but somehow violence is always a refuge we turn to as a last resort.
Maybe someday thatll change too. Perhaps this is the beginning of that change and the dinosaurs amongst us (not even thinking of you Golach) will need to change and perhaps embrace a new way of doing things. I hope so!

27-Jun-03, 12:04
One problem (which for me embraces little Victorias brutal murder) about being able to smack our kids is that abusive parents will hide behind the cloak of justifiable punishment.
No, I'm sorry, the terrible ordeal that Victoria Climbie went through before dying horribly at the hands of her great aunt and her boyfriend was not disguised as 'justifiable punishment'.

Victoria Climbie died because of failings in the Social Services and Police care which she should have received. She died because her great aunt and her boyfriend tortured her and abused her. She died because her great aunt saw her not as an innocent child in need of her protection, but as a means to claim extra benefit. She died because she was beaten with chains, hammers, belts, and wire, by a man who saw her as Satan. She died because those who were supposed to be caring for her were evil to the extreme.

She did not die because somebody who loved her gave her a light slap across the back of her legs whilst trying to raise her to be a responsible adult.

The emotive use of cases such as this horrific murder serve only to detract from the very important questions around smacking as a punishment. To bundle both situations, child smacking and child abuse, together detracts not only from the important question of the rights and wrongs of smacking, but also from the horrific ordeals that so many children are going through at this very moment at the hands of those like Marie Kouao and Carl Manning.

29-Jun-03, 15:18
somehow violence is always a refuge we turn to as a last resort.


Once again it is ridiculous to describe a smack as violence. and smacking should never be a "last resort" because that implies that there is an element of frustration and anger in it. Smacking a child as part of a way of disciplining children in a warm and loving home is not violence. It is ridiculous to say it is.

30-Jun-03, 22:25
Let the punishment fit the crime.

As an unruly youth, I participated in several questionable activities, and after being 'found out' each time, was appropriately rewarded with what the authorities determined was sufficient punishment to deter me from the same activity ever again.

If I didn't get the message, and got caught for the same thing again, obviously the punishment applied earlier was not enough, and so I received 'repeat offender' levels of discipline.

By the time I was 16, I had racked up many spankings, several applications of the belt - some of you even watched that being done, an application of the cane (six o' the best) from the headmaster, and a suspension from my school. On return to the school after the suspension, I was told that as far as the authorities was concerned, they had put the incident behind them. Yeah, right. I didn't believe that for a minute.

BUT... two years (of good behaviour) later, the staff granted me "prefect" status, which I could scarcely believe. Although I didn't recognise it until later, that action changed my view of authority.

I firmly believe that some discipline can be taught, and that some discipline has to be 'applied' in a more physical way. There is a place for both. There's a time to whack, and a time not to whack.

The answer lies in the wisdom of those in the position of authority. Now, if we have spent the last 50 or so years raising a generation that has no wisdom, we must expect them to have no idea how to pass on their wisdom to the next generation.

I know for sure that the percussive discipline I received did me a lot of good, and I have done my best to teach my kids through a variety of methods, some including spanking, how to be good citizens in today's society.

By way of precedent, look at the way God dealt with various behaviours throughout the Old and New Testaments. As part of being the God who is love, there were several occasions where a divine spanking was dealt. This same God teaches us "Spare the rod, and spoil the child."

Sage advice.

01-Jul-03, 05:04
I like "spoiling" my child, that is probably the main reason I work in the middle east so that she has every advantage I can give her. Does not meanthat she will be brought up without knowing how to respect and appreciate things.

Eve M
01-Jul-03, 13:02
My children are 'Spoiled' too I guess. But they are well mannered and have respect for others!

04-Jul-03, 22:48
ok just to add my piece.. i belive in spanking children.. and no i dont think it is demeaning to them.. what you have to remember about children they are not adults they do not percieve the world as we do. .ie they have no fear they have no responsibility they have no conceptions except what they are taught.. from teh day they are born they learn from us..
examples of why i would spank my child..
1: a small child...
if he was going to go for something dangers a hot stove eye or electrical socket . if i just said no.. dont touch that would hurt.. do you think that would be effective?
i would say no sharply and smack there hand.. not hard just enough to get the message across.. i would rather hurt their pride than to let them be seriously hurt or killed..
in an older child.. depending on what they did .. now if they were runnign thru the house and say knocked over a lamp and broke it no i wouldnt i would probably fuss about running thru the house but wouldnt spank.. however if they had pick up the lamp kknocked it over and broke it just to be mean then darn straight that bottom would be well warmed and they would be in teir room the rest of the day..
also if my child ever talked back the way i have heard children here talking back then you can be sure he would get him bum popped..
i was brought up to respect my parents and elders.. and i will teach my son the same ...
i dont think you should smack children for being children but when they are being purposlly mean an hateful then yes..
and then on older kids early teens and such i dont belive in smaking at all because by that time they are grown enough to know right from wrong ..
at that time is when grounding comes into full effect..
and if they get in trouble there will be no tv... no phone.. no pc.. no games .. no friends.. nadda..
i have been told that i cant do that cause its mean.. no its not.. if my child does something that needs to be punished then he will be punished.. grounding means grounding from everything.. you get no luxieries...
ahh im ranting and my spelling is getting worse *grins* so i will stop here!