children and parents both need to know the boudaries by setting them themselves or learning them from others.

when a parent is going to punish a child, the child needs to know what the punishment is for. the parent needs to know the difference between not enough, just enough, and too much. they also need to know the appropriate places to hit a child. all over is not good. that's just being abusive or losing your temper. on the butt would be best cause it's softest and you don't have to hit too hard to get your point across. but the parent should NEVER beat their child to the point of leaving a bruise. THAT is going too far.

I truly think abuse isn't needed at all.
I mean, when my parents got mad,
I just got worse.
They just had to play my game,
and I stopped.
I'm not sure how,
but they laughed at me when I freaked out and stuff.
It sounds lame/bad,
but honestly. The mind thing works.
My parents are smart ones. O:

The difference between child abuse and child discipline may seem obvious to most. However, to an inexperienced parent who isn't sure where to draw the line, there may be some confusion. Or to extremists on both sides of the child-rearing fence, there may seem to be no difference. The Bible offers many guidelines and lessons that help to clarify the difference.

Child abuse is just what the words imply. . .abusing a child, sometimes resulting in death. Child abuse consists of anything that endangers or impairs a child's physical or emotional well being and development.

Four categories of abuse are briefly defined:

* Physical Abuse - Any non-accidental, out-of-control injury.
* Sexual Abuse - Any sexual act between adult and child.
* Neglect - Failure to provide for the child's physical needs.
* Emotional Abuse - Any attitude or behavior interfering with a child's mental or social development, including lack of love.

Adults who go beyond the boundaries of proper discipline to abusive treatment of a child are child abusers. Unfortunately, Child Protection Services report that in 1999 there were 3,244,000 cases of abuse reported. As long as we refuse to seek the guidance, patience, and wisdom that God so willingly provides, this number will continue to climb.
Personally I could tell about the effects of being physically abused but that would be another story >.<

Originally Posted by Trinitydoll

The difference between child abuse and child discipline may seem obvious to most. However, to an inexperienced parent who isn't sure where to draw the line, there may be some confusion. Or to extremists on both sides of the child-rearing fence, there may seem to be no difference. The Bible offers many guidelines and lessons that help to clarify the difference.

Child abuse is just what the words imply. . .abusing a child, sometimes resulting in death. Child abuse consists of anything that endangers or impairs a child's physical or emotional well being and development.

Four categories of abuse are briefly defined:

* Physical Abuse - Any non-accidental, out-of-control injury.
* Sexual Abuse - Any sexual act between adult and child.
* Neglect - Failure to provide for the child's physical needs.
* Emotional Abuse - Any attitude or behavior interfering with a child's mental or social development, including lack of love.

Adults who go beyond the boundaries of proper discipline to abusive treatment of a child are child abusers. Unfortunately, Child Protection Services report that in 1999 there were 3,244,000 cases of abuse reported. As long as we refuse to seek the guidance, patience, and wisdom that God so willingly provides, this number will continue to climb.
Personally I could tell about the effects of being physically abused but that would be another story >.<

i knew a couple that did all but sexual abuse to their daughter (tht im aware of at least) and finally got her taken away. they have yet to see her since then because the foster mom has proven that the parents have emotionally scarred her so bad that the thought of them will bring the kid to tears. its really really sad. it took forever to get the cops to do something though because they had to show up when she was doing it or when she left her daughter alone in the house (the kid is 2 btw). CPS did nothing. they tried calling the mom a few times but she would just hang up on them or say she was busy. it was such a load of bull shit. it pissed everyone off that was trying to help the kid how little child protection services did for the situation.

Originally Posted by gato

I hate parents that pinch, and parents that use anything more severe than a clothes hanger to spank their children. Rulers are okay. Belts and sticks are not. I don't care HOW lightly you go, I've seen the aftereffects (not on myself, but on my cousin). Bruises, bruises, and more bruises.
And spankings should be for the clothed bottom, or for the palms of the hand. Not anywhere else. ><;

Exactly. My mom spanked me when I was a kid (I only remember it happening a couple of times, and I deserved it), but it was always bare handed slaps. She said that way she knew exactly how much I was being hurt. Usually I just lost privileges or got lectured by her (that was the worst), or occasionally grounded. I didn't usually disobey, especially if I was given what I felt were valid reasons. I think kids would obey more often if parents explained their reasons for certain rules.

Every kid gets displined differently. Some react better to beatings then a sit down and talk to.

It depends on how the parent wants to raise the child, and the government should not be interfering with this.

However, it's very hard to determin abuse from just displin. Obviously, if a mark is left behind, or when a child says "I'm afraid of going home and being beaten within an inch of my life", then it's abuse.

When an issue is reported, kids shouldn't be automatically ripped from their folks. Child protection Services should investigate for an extended period of time, it might help.

Before I start saying what I'm about to say, I will point out that I realize that every child is different.

---

I was never smacked, hit, spanked, or even grounded as a child. (Well, I was never grounded even as a (pre) teen.)
I was sent to my room a good one time before I and my parents both realized, "Hey. Toys are in that room. She'll have fun if she's in there!"

With my lack of ever really being punished out in the open, I was never even a bad child. Neither I nor my brother (which leads me to believe it wasn't just me, but how my parents raised us) ever caused much trouble for my parents. I threw a tantrum once in a restaurant and my father picked me up, brought me out of their and told me "We're not going back in there until you calm down." And I did. So we went back in to eat.
Other than that, I was not a trouble-maker.

But I believe that the kids who are trouble-makers, or who otherwise should be punished, would not do what they are doing if they were afraid of the punishment to begin with.
And if your kid doesn't already know that screaming in the middle of Publix because he wants Captain Crunch is bad, then I'm not sure what the parent is enforcing in the first place. :?
Why didn't the parents explain first off that screaming and crying is not the way to get something?
And if they did, and the kid still cries, obviously he thinks it's going to work. The parent would have had to let the kid think that crying would work in the first place.
So hitting the kid, or sending the child to their room, would just make them angry, as opposed to... taking them out of the store and saying no.

I believe in letting a child know what is appropriate and when.
I don't think hitting, spanking or grounding will really solve all problems in the end.

>>I was hit by my parents, especially my dad for sometimes good reasons and sometimes bad. I was really a horrible brat when younger and I know that, but still sometimes it wasn't needed.

Also the punishment needs to be controled. It shouldn't really hurt them at all but still send the message. I remember when i was little I accidentally opened a door as my dad was walking by and he ran into it. He thought it was me playing a joke and hit me onto the floor right then and there. That obviously wasn't the right thing to do, but there were also repeat incidents where similar things happened.

I haven't been really punished for a long time but then again I'm a pretty good kid. Don't really think it was from anything from when I was younger but I don't know. I have never been grounded really other than for maybe half a night of not watching tv or something minuscule like that anyways.

I know what you mean. In my opinion kids tend to get out of hand once. I know one time a friend of mine caught his daughter hanging out the top floor window in there 3 story home. He grabed her wrist and pulled her inside but he caused a bruse on her arm.....she went to her school guidance office and claimed he had abused her. I think thats going a bit far.

On the other hand where exactly can we draw a line....I mean the line between is really rather fuzzy so its hard to debate the clear cut answer.

ya kids misbehave so you ground them, send them to their room and shut the power off, give them time outs, etc... but not smack them or kick or whatever physical damage you can do thats just not right we are not bullies...wel not suppost to be

UGH! I have so many feelings about this, but that's because I come from a Taiwanese family-you get what you deserve.

Personally, I think the whole "grounding, taking away items, time outs, yelling" is not very effective. Taking away priviledges does not show the kid that what they did was very upseting. Sure, doing this for minor ideals, can be fine-but on a large scale that grealy upsets the family needs physical discipline. Priviledges only make kids more rebellious and such.

I believe in disciplining with a smack on the bottom is more efficient. You will remember the pain. The reason why you got the pain. And you will remember that it's best to avoid said pain. Taking away priviledges? Pfft. Anything can keep a person's mind busy (like dreaming, fantasizing, etc.) so it wouldn't be too much of a hassle. But when that bottom is vibrating red, it'll keep your mind sharp.

But discipline and abuse have a very fine line. Disciplining kids should always include the reason WHY, make the kid understand why, and then doing it. So many times, I've seen kids complain that their parents hit them when they fail to realise that breaking somebody's precious antique is wrong. They also fail to realise that they were the ones at fault.

A combination of these two will suffice, but I believe that society now a days have gone way to soft. Kids learn best from being involved. There's a quote from a poster in my freshman HS's english class teacher's room:

"Tell me, and I'll forget. Show me and I might remember. Involve me, and I'll always remember."

Most children get disclipline not abuse. I don't think that hitting your child should be used at all. Another common way is giving them a time out or teaching them a lesson. Hitting them? I experianced what it was like. I don't want my child to go throught that.

no child should go through that

I strongly believe in disipline, but the line has to be drawn somewhere before it becomes abuse.

I've been through abuse, both mentally/verbally and physically, and it's not such a pretty sight. I know it's nothing compared to what others have been through when they were children, but it definitely counts as abuse. When I was six or seven it started, smacking and hitting, things being thrown at me... and it just got worse as I got older. My mother especially loves to yell at me and call me a failure and complain about every little thing I've done wrong, no matter how long ago or meaningless it was, and she tends to have a way about it to get me crying, even though I am indeed a strong person. I don't anger easily, I don't get upset easily. Yet, every single time she yells - even now that I'm an adult - she finds a way to make it get to me... and although most people when they think "abuse" they only think of the physical side of it, the mental side can be just as decomposing to a child's spirit.

I guess I have a strong viewpoint on this seeing as I've been through a lot of things and so have others that I know, both IRL and online. I know that I think that in schools, it should still be allowed to spank a child if they go to far (when they're younger), although now parents tend to yell "ABUSE!" for just about everything, and they let their children run wild thinking that they can't do any wrong. I know that when I have children, I'm going to be spanking when they're young, telling them right from wrong, and teaching them more properly than my parents "taught" me. I will never, ever, ever raise my hand to my children, and I won't raise my voice unless it's a last resort. I believe that all children can learn right from wrong at a young age and that you just have to raise them right... and being violent in any way, shape, or form with them isn't anything that's the least bit proper.

Originally Posted by Spicy Chicken Wings

Every kid gets displined differently. Some react better to beatings then a sit down and talk to.

It depends on how the parent wants to raise the child, and the government should not be interfering with this.

However, it's very hard to determin abuse from just displin. Obviously, if a mark is left behind, or when a child says "I'm afraid of going home and being beaten within an inch of my life", then it's abuse.

When an issue is reported, kids shouldn't be automatically ripped from their folks. Child protection Services should investigate for an extended period of time, it might help.

GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INTERFERING WITH THIS?????
SMACKING A CHILD IS NOT THE WAY YOU SHOULD DISAPLEN THEM HUH WHAT IF I SMACKED YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU DID WRONG HUH HOW WOULD YOU FEEL??????
you tick me off, god, VIOLENCE ISN"T THE WAY TO STOP THINGS

When I was young and did something wrong I got a swift smack on the ass. My dad would threaten to hit me with his belt saying "You think my hand hurts, think about this." Did he ever hit me with said belt? No. Did my parents abuse me? FUCK NO. My parents even rarely spanked me. Why? Because fear of punishment and looking forward to reward was how my parents raised me. I was given rewards for doing good and spanked for doing wrong.

Can we say Pavlov's dog? Woof. Woof.


I believe in spanking. When I get kids of my own I will spank them. No one will ever tell me I cant because I was raised like this and I turned out really well. My parents were not perfect but they did what they thought best for me and, for the most part, they were right.


There is a line between discipline and abuse. In some cases its a fine line. My mum and dad were once told they were abusing me when dad gave me a swift smack on the ass to get me to stop throwing a fit in the store. Thats not abuse. But taking out a belt and smacking the kid in the store is.


But we do have to look at the type of kid. What about kids that just dont get it? They are spanked daily but they still go out and vandalize, terrorize, ect. I've KNOWN people like this. Hell, my brother WAS a person like this. 2 things happen to people like this. A, the parent gets tougher with the kid, sometimes to the point of a militaristic feel (I'm a full believer in military school when called for). Or, B, the kid grows up, gets out into the real world, hits rock bottom. My parents picked B with my brother. It took him 10 years before he shaped up no matter what my parents did (they just couldn't make themselves do the military thing). If they went back and did it again, they'd choose A instead of B. In the long run, it would have been better for my brother.


So you cant really say how "bad" it is unless your in that situation.

Beating a kid is wrong but walking that line can and will be better then doing nothing.

Spanking to me, isn't necessary.

I'll just insist they do something to make up for what they did incorrect. If they stole, they need to return it, apologize verbally and finish a 10 page essay to give to whomever they wronged--I'd check the essay, and if it's not to my liking I'd make them rewrite it...Until it was ok.

If they refuse, begin by taking things away. Such as car keys, freedom to go outside the house, accept phone calls, receive mail, or use the computer.

If they run away, oh well, call the police.

I don't care to spank children because I don't even spank puppies when they poop on carpet. There are ways around it. I feel that spanking would be admitting I'm unable to come up with a more effective method of punishment, and that I've let my anger take control of something, and that I hurt something dear to me...whereas discipline is discipline, spanking is physical violence.

Originally Posted by ScarletStratholme

Spanking to me, isn't necessary.

I'll just insist they do something to make up for what they did incorrect. If they stole, they need to return it, apologize verbally and finish a 10 page essay to give to whomever they wronged--I'd check the essay, and if it's not to my liking I'd make them rewrite it...Until it was ok.

If they refuse, begin by taking things away. Such as car keys, freedom to go outside the house, accept phone calls, receive mail, or use the computer.

If they run away, oh well, call the police.

I don't care to spank children because I don't even spank puppies when they poop on carpet. There are ways around it. I feel that spanking would be admitting I'm unable to come up with a more effective method of punishment, and that I've let my anger take control of something, and that I hurt something dear to me...whereas discipline is discipline, spanking is physical violence.

(speaking from someone who saw how the things you listed didn't work)

See, the difference between "spanking" a dog and spanking a kid is the dog literally does not have the mental capacity, no matter what you do, to understand it. Dogs react better to verbal punishment rather then physical.

Maybe it is a personality thing then.
My parents never spanked me, and it worked out fine.
Dogs do have the mental capacity to learn from spanking. That's why abused dogs hide from their owners--they might not know why they're being spanked, but they do know something bad is gonna happen if the owner gets a hold of them. The same with small children. I think once you learn to speak and actually understand what is being said, reasoning and witholding something from the child, and offering rewards for good behavior works well.

This is kind of one that's been going around in developmental psychology a while though, and I think there were a lot of weird studies done, but not a really good singular answer. So on this one, though I realize citing just my own experience is a fallacy of its own, there are too many studies on both sides for me to give credit to just the ones I dig up that would support my opinion without crediting the other side also.

In the end, parenting's the parent's problem. We're just on the outside looking in, and prolly have our own ways of doing things, but meh. Not really my concern, just voicing an opinion.

Originally Posted by ScarletStratholme

Maybe it is a personality thing then.
My parents never spanked me, and it worked out fine.
Dogs do have the mental capacity to learn from spanking. That's why abused dogs hide from their owners--they might not know why they're being spanked, but they do know something bad is gonna happen if the owner gets a hold of them. The same with small children. I think once you learn to speak and actually understand what is being said, reasoning and witholding something from the child, and offering rewards for good behavior works well.

This is kind of one that's been going around in developmental psychology a while though, and I think there were a lot of weird studies done, but not a really good singular answer. So on this one, though I realize citing just my own experience is a fallacy of its own, there are too many studies on both sides for me to give credit to just the ones I dig up that would support my opinion without crediting the other side also.

In the end, parenting's the parent's problem. We're just on the outside looking in, and prolly have our own ways of doing things, but meh. Not really my concern, just voicing an opinion.

I think it depends on a case to case basis. Like I said, my parents tried all that with my brother and it didn't work. But dad only really spanked me once or twice then all he needed to do was threaten. I was rewarded when I did good and threatened but rarely ever acted on when I did bad.

Though I did have a different personality then my brother. The biggest punishment my parents can lay on me is the "disappointed look".

Children need discipline and boundaries. I believe in a swat on the butt to get the point across once in a while but some people go a little overboard. There is no reason to smack the kid in the head just because he or she spoke in a tone you don't like or didn't shut up when you told him or her to. I think that a lot of parents want total control of the kids and will do whatever it takes to get that control, like my father and husband. I can't count the number of times I have been between my husband and kids because I feel he is trying to go too far. The only thing my husbands tactics are doing is making my daughter want to leave home before she is ready and I can't say I blame her, I want to leave most of the time too.

Originally Posted by stilettolover

I do not personally believe in corporal punishment. I know that studies show that physical punishment (with school age children) is the least effective way to modify behavior. On the flip side, I agree that parents need to be more strict with their children in general--but this does not necessarily mean physical punishement.

About the time a child enters primary school, physical punishment stops working as well and punishment has to be increased to acheive the same results. Fear is not a very good control... eventually that child will either do something drastic to rebel or will buckle under the pressure. Neither are good. It's a bad sign when children strike back at their parents--physically or emotionally. And remember, even if it's punishment, violence begets violence.

Parents need to be firm, consistant and steadfast. A strong will goes a long way.

When I was a small child my mother used to smack my hands, but I was never spanked. When it got to the point where I used to be snarky about getting hit, I was assigned chores. The worse I behaved, the more chores I had to do. The better I behaved the fewer chores I had or the more help I would get since there were some chores I always had to do regardless. I was never grounded-- I was not allowed to go outside, talk on the phone, play, listen to music, etc, until all of my chores and homework was done and done correctly. I would have to do this same ammount of work every day until my mother felt that my appologies were sincere enough, which trust me, never took more than a couple days. This worked with me and all five of my siblings.

Corporal punishment does, actually, work. But it's one of those "you can JUST use corporal punishment" using it in conjunction with explaining why they are being punished, and then grounding them usually works. I have seen more behaved children who were spanked vs. not spanked. Working with 7-10 year olds over a 2 year span, i discovered that children who's parents were against corporal punishment had the worst kids i've ever seen in my life, because they realized that if they did something wrong they didn't actually get punished all that much. My parents tried it with me at one point. "Okay, you did this wrong. We're going to take away your play station for a week." Big freaking deal, i went and read a book or something. It's when Daddy spanked me that i listened, because i didn't want to get hit. It was much more effective. Why do we drive safely? So that we don't get hit by another car. Same thing applies. Follow the rules, don't get hurt.

That new law they are passing (or maybe they already did?) in California about not being able to spank children before they are three years old is just ridiculous. Children, especially when that young are going through their learning ages and when they do do something wrong, I would spank them.

I would never take a belt on my kid, but they are going to get spanked if they do something wrong. Seriously, a slap on the hand is not going to teach them a lesson. Children do need discipline.

Kids are getting way outta hand, and sometimes I'll see parents let them do whatever they want. Example: Screaming and throwing fits in stores because they want something. I'll see the parent get very upset over this and just end up buying the wanted thing for their child. If it was my kid, they would be in the bathroom and be spanked for showing such behavior.

Of course when they get older I wouldn't do this to them anymore..just probably take away privileges and such things. Like you said in the first post, if they teenager or whatever tried to hit me and such, I probably would smack it across the cheek. It isn't going to kill them, just give them a red mark across their face for a few hours. I would never do something that would damage them.

Physical punishment has to be used VERY CAREFULLY, and I don't mean because you might hurt the child. If you don't reprimand your child immediately after they do something wrong, and instead wait until their other parent gets home or some such ridiculous thing, they'll have already forgotten what the fuss is all about, and they won't correlate the spanking and, say, yanking on their sister's hair.

On the other hand, I can see where parents' punishment would get out of hand. I watched a video in Developmental Psych where this mom and dad were just plain abusive. Instead of spanking the children and explaining WHY they were spanking them, they simply abused them. For example, one of their little girls tugged on her sister's braid, and to 'teach her a lesson', her mother pulled the girl's braid so hard, her little head snapped backwards. I was amazed her neck wasn't broken after this.

Ever heard the phrase "Kids today.. They've got no respect!"

This is saddeningly true.

My secondary school was one of the worst in the county. It wasn't because the teachers weren't up to scratch, it wasn't because there weren't effective policies in place, and it wasn't because the school itself was in bad shape.

It was because the disciplinary system, while perfectly legal, was effectively useless. Basically, it goes like this: Student acts out, student gets detention, then either student skips detention and has no further punishment, or student does detention and brags about it to their friends afterwards. Moral: Detention DOES. NOT. WORK. It used to, but now its just as passable as a lesson. The students don't care that they're getting a detention, and the school can't legally use corporeal punishment anymore, so the teachers have no way of disciplining students anymore.

Want to know what the worst bit is?
Primary schools are becoming like this too, because staff can't discipline children and parents in most cases will not.

It's not a case of abuse vs. discipline, its knowing when discipline is drastically needed and applying it correctly. If this is done abuse doesn't come into the equation unless it actually is outright physical abuse.