Hmm...Elliquiy...is spanking a child..a bad form of punishment?

[Wolfy]

I was just wondering what you all thought of the matter..is there a matter anymore? O-o

I know when I was a child, if I did something that bad, I'd get spanked...usually with a belt..or worse, a branch from a tree....

So what do you think, E? What do you do to punish your children if they Misbehave? Time-out? Grounding? Taking their Cell-phone away? o3o

[Brandon]

Keep in mind this is all my opinion, you dont have to like or agree with it and I dont have any kids yet, or at least that I know of

For me I think it depends on what kind of spanking were talking about. I think there is nothing wrong with an open palm swat on the butt when a kid does something really wrong. My parents did that to me when I was a kid and its been done through countless generations before.

Now spanking with any kind of object, being it belt, branch, cane, etc is totally out of line for disciplining someones child. If used I think those items eventually become psycological symbols of pain and humiliation

Then there is the reasons for spanking. I said before that it should be done when the kid does something really wrong. To me that often translates into putting himself or others in danger. Not doing his/her chores or homework just doesnt constitute a big enough crime to me there are other positive and negative reinforcment techniques a person can use in those cases

[Oniya]

For me I think it depends on what kind of spanking were talking about. I think there is nothing wrong with an open palm swat on the butt when a kid does something really wrong. My parents did that to me when I was a kid and its been done through countless generations before.

I'm going to have to agree with this.  Key words are that the palm is open (spreads the force out = more sting, less damage) and the swat is on the butt (high padding, generally.)

Now spanking with any kind of object, being it belt, branch, cane, etc is totally out of line for disciplining someones child. If used I think those items eventually become psycological symbols of pain and humiliation

Also agreed.  In addition, if you spank with your open palm, you have a better way to judge the force that you're using, which should never be excessive.  One or two swats, maybe three on the outside, should be sufficient

Then there is the reasons for spanking. I said before that it should be done when the kid does something really wrong. To me that often translates into putting himself or others in danger. Not doing his/her chores or homework just doesnt constitute a big enough crime to me there are other positive and negative reinforcment techniques a person can use in those cases

Three for three here.  That danger should also be something so immediate that it doesn't provide enough time for 'I really don't think you should do that.'  Not doing chores and homework can be punished by removing privileges.  Doing something of low-level destruction (writing on the walls) can be punished by making them clean up the mess.

In addition, if it has to be used (which should be sparingly), it should be done at the time of the incident.  None of this 'wait until your father gets home.'  If you put your hand on a hot burner, you get the physical pain immediately, and you learn very quickly not to do that again.  If (somehow) you put your hand on a hot burner and the physical pain didn't hit you until an hour or two later, you might have even forgotten what it was that caused the pain.

Just as a note - I do have a child, and in nine years I've only resorted to a single swat once.

[MasterMischief]

I believe spanking should be a last resort.  I think all too often it is a response in anger and therein lies the real problem.  I would not dream of telling parents they can not spank their children, but I do think there are other effective options that are often over looked.

[Treble]

Spanking has become such a touchy subject of late. When I was younger it was perfectly acceptable to be taken, though pulled and yanked is a more apt term, from the dinner table to be spanked. And I don't disagree with the discipline at all. Brandon worded it pretty much perfectly, though I'll add a little more to that.

If my child is just discovering that they want to touch the stove, I can't see a problem behind telling them no, that's hot, and smacking their hand. Not punching, nor screaming and berating. It's hard sometimes to decide whether or not you want to let your child experience it, so they know -why- the don't want to touch that stove, or just reprimand them for it. But I'm all for smacking their hands, or bottom in other cases.

Good question, Wolfy.

[Noelle]

There have been studies done that show that use of corporeal punishment often leads to lower IQ in children. Most people just say "eh, whatevs, my parents did it to me and I turned out fine," but it's just something to consider, I guess.

Regardless, corporeal punishment should always be THE last resort and should not be done out of anger. Ever. You're the adult, you're in control, and so you need to have all of your senses about you and be able to act like and adult and control yourself accordingly. People who are angry lose their ability to rationalize efficiently, and that's when you start getting cases where people go too far. Respect will get you much farther than fear, I think.

[Imogen]

I don't see that much wrong with a slap on the fingers or a swat on the butt when a child does something really wrong or potentially dangerous. A swat on the fingers when a kid is reaching for a burning stove - it seems fine with me. A smack on the bottom when a kid is caught climbing over the fence and running to the street after excessive warnings, all fine with me.

It all depends, in my opinion, in the how and why. I am in full agreement with what Brandon and Oniya said.

[Inkidu]

What my parents used to use was paint stirrers. You know flat, short broad proportionately. The important things was they were made out of what was essentially nerfed balsa wood and you would break the stick before you every truly injured a child but they would sting and were a lot safer than say a hand hit.

I agree though that spanking should fit the crime but if your kid is older say about seven spanking should cause humiliation, and for this reason: He's a grown-up enough child to know that any behavior worth a spanking should be beyond him.

Eventually though all punishment takes the form of guilt. Mothers know this tool well...

[Chevalier des Poissons]

I think it's completely irrelevant. My parents never touched me, regardless of what I did in the past, and my punishments used to be negotiable. I could help the family with other things and show discipline, in order to reduce my punishments.

That's a very interesting question, considering that recently, here in Brazil, the act of spanking was forbidden by law. You can go to jail if you spank your kid.

[Cassiopeia]

Regardless, corporeal punishment should always be THE last resort and should not be done out of anger. Ever. You're the adult, you're in control, and so you need to have all of your senses about you and be able to act like and adult and control yourself accordingly. People who are angry lose their ability to rationalize efficiently, and that's when you start getting cases where people go too far. Respect will get you much farther than fear, I think.

I agree with this completely.  I got spanked as a child, usually by my mom who always sat down and explained to me before hand exactly why I was being punished and that she loved me and that's why she was disciplining me.  As I got older she told me it gave her time to cool down as well as help me to understand what I had done wrong and still feel safe and secure.  In fact oddly enough I'd usually wind up hugging her afterward.  Now on the other hand my dad spanked me out of anger a couple of times and got pretty out of control, the force was excessive and I felt unsafe.  It was technically the same punishment but done in two completely different ways and with two different motivations, so I think there's something to be said for WHY the parent is doing it. 

I also think it should be done as a last resort.  Some children I don't think NEED spankings to get through to them (I probably didn't but what are you gonna do ) and some children practically only need to see that look of disappointment on a parent's face.  It's just something that's very dependent on the type of parent and the type of child, but it always needs to be done for the right reasons if it's done at all, not as a release of anger and frustration.

[Serephino]

I agree it should be used as a last resort; when nothing else works.  I know some will spout off all kinds of reasons why it should never be done, but I'm not so naive.  If my kid starts being a royal brat and refuses to listen I have no issue with laying down the law.  The way I see it, if you punish when the child does something wrong, but are loving and nurturing when the child is behaving, then the only thing to fear is misbehaving.  I guess I'm kind of old fashioned on that one.

My dad whipped me with a dog leash.  He did that because he was afraid of losing his temper and hurting me if using his hands.  He usually only resorted to that when I was out of control, and he did have a temper problem.  I inherited it. 

[Hemingway]

I have no experience with children myself, but I was never spanked, and I believe it's doing the children a disservice. I'm not going to suggest you've automatically failed as a parent if you do, but is there really any situation in which it's absolutely necessary? Saying it's only a last resort is well and good, but have you really exhausted every other option there is?

[Inkidu]

I have no experience with children myself, but I was never spanked, and I believe it's doing the children a disservice. I'm not going to suggest you've automatically failed as a parent if you do, but is there really any situation in which it's absolutely necessary? Saying it's only a last resort is well and good, but have you really exhausted every other option there is?

I can't say when it would be necessary for every child but I think when you tell your child not to do something you explain why the first time, the second time you punish them with chores or timeout or grounding, and if they continue to do it when everything else has failed and they know better, it's time to spank. 

[Jude]

Very often there seems to be this argument advanced in these discussions of, "Well I was spanked and I turned out just fine!"  Unfortunately, the only thing that evidence which you've presented really proves is that spanking does not cause death, illiteracy, or crippling fear of the internet (being that you are alive, typing a message to us, and using the internet to post it).  You know as well as I do that no one is perfect, and who is to say that some of your faults and problems aren't partly in due to corporal punishment?  It simply isn't a fair logical conclusion to assume from your experience that corporal punishment is a valuable parenting tool when human beings are such complex creatures (especially when you get into the realm of psychological complexities).

I can't say when it would be necessary for every child but I think when you tell your child not to do something you explain why the first time, the second time you punish them with chores or timeout or grounding, and if they continue to do it when everything else has failed and they know better, it's time to spank.

That's not everything though.  In fact it is a complete and utter logical misnomer to claim that you tried everything and had to resort to spanking; a more accurate statement would be "I tried everything that I could think of that I thought could work then chose to resort to spanking my child."

There are numerous problems with corporal punishment.  Studies have shown that it lowers the IQ Of children involved, cements patterns of aggression, and even the American Pediatric Association has taken a stance against spanking, however, I know that no amount of scientific evidence is actually going to be successful in swaying people's opinions.  The last few times this debate happened on E I quickly learned that.

It isn't that I think that parents who resort to light applications of corporal punishment dispassionately do their children great harm, I am merely mystified as to why so many people support it when it's shown to be a potentially damaging, largely ineffective practice.  It seems like any time a child is placed in even slight danger by external forces there's a public outcry.  Why then, are the parents of these children largely free from scrutiny?  I don't get it--sex offenders can't live within a 25 mile radius of a school in some states when there is a lack of evidence to back up the practice of removing them from the vicinity (I certainly haven't seen a single study suggesting that it actually protects children), but people get all up in arms when you talk about spanking being potentially dangerous (and the evidence is there to support that).

I agree it should be used as a last resort; when nothing else works.  I know some will spout off all kinds of reasons why it should never be done, but I'm not so naive.  If my kid starts being a royal brat and refuses to listen I have no issue with laying down the law.  The way I see it, if you punish when the child does something wrong, but are loving and nurturing when the child is behaving, then the only thing to fear is misbehaving.  I guess I'm kind of old fashioned on that one.

My dad whipped me with a dog leash.  He did that because he was afraid of losing his temper and hurting me if using his hands.  He usually only resorted to that when I was out of control, and he did have a temper problem.  I inherited it. 

I'm kind of confused, it seems like the first and second paragraphs of your post are in direct opposition (unless you're not seeing the connection between being an object of someone's temper at a developmental stage and consequently having a temper of your own).

[Inkidu]

Very often there seems to be this argument advanced in these discussions of, "Well I was spanked and I turned out just fine!"  Unfortunately, the only thing that evidence which you've presented really proves is that spanking does not cause death, illiteracy, or crippling fear of the internet (being that you are alive, typing a message to us, and using the internet to post it).  You know as well as I do that no one is perfect, and who is to say that some of your faults and problems aren't partly in due to corporal punishment?  It simply isn't a fair logical conclusion to assume from your experience that corporal punishment is a valuable parenting tool when human beings are such complex creatures (especially when you get into the realm of psychological complexities).That's not everything though.  In fact it is a complete and utter logical misnomer to claim that you tried everything and had to resort to spanking; a more accurate statement would be "I tried everything that I could think of that I thought could work then chose to resort to spanking my child."

There are numerous problems with corporal punishment.  Studies have shown that it lowers the IQ Of children involved, cements patterns of aggression, and even the American Pediatric Association has taken a stance against spanking, however, I know that no amount of scientific evidence is actually going to be successful in swaying people's opinions.  The last few times this debate happened on E I quickly learned that.

It isn't that I think that parents who resort to light applications of corporal punishment dispassionately do their children great harm, I am merely mystified as to why so many people support it when it's shown to be a potentially damaging, largely ineffective practice.  It seems like any time a child is placed in even slight danger by external forces there's a public outcry.  Why then, are the parents of these children largely free from scrutiny?  I don't get it--sex offenders can't live within a 25 mile radius of a school in some states when there is a lack of evidence to back up the practice, but people get all up in arms when you talk about spanking being potentially dangerous (and the evidence is there to support that).I'm kind of confused, it seems like the first and second paragraphs of your post are in direct opposition (unless you're not seeing the connection between being an object of someone's temper at a developmental stage and consequently having a temper of your own).

You know those scientific studies are hardly definitive. I'm sure in about five to ten years spanking will be good for kids. It's wrong to say that not spanking your child will make them grow up to be fine stable individuals. The truth is some children are just petulant. I'm not saying spank at every offense but if the child knows that if he or she does this, and that they know they shouldn't be doing it and they do it anyways and threatening to put them in a corner or take away their toys isn't working a spanking might just have to do the job. It is humiliating but humbling is the key word a person should pick up there. If the kid knows better being spanked when they're throwing at tantrum especially in public places is a nice big piece of humble pie.

It's the job of the parent to know their child and what the child will respond to (again not advocating spanking immediately) and running to the nearest journal for the latest scientific study is just crazy especially when it's going to change and trust me it will.

I mean spanking lost it's edge over me quickly because by the age of ten I'd been through so much pain from just what life had dealt me it was ineffective. It was the threat of getting a spanking and in knowing that I had let my parents down in some way that worked.

[Jude]

The reason why scientific evidence often seems to fluctuate back and forth with such regularity is because the media does such a poor job of explaining, analyzing, and contextualizing individual scientific studies.  You see a lot of conflicting evidence out there if all you pay attention to is mainstream media outlets, especially in areas such as nutrition, because individual studies have given conflicting results.  There are reasons for this; flukes, poor methodology, etc cetera.  These mainstream publications don't bother to delve deeper into the article and analyze it with a proper critical edge because it softens the conclusion (and thus makes for less compelling journalism) amongst other reasons.

Even Yahoo News is guilty of such; they regularly post articles based on the results of a singular study and act like there's some massive revelation contained therein.  The problem is, in science one study proves absolutely nothing.  In order for a particular outcome to have any weight, it must be reproducible; scientific consensus is never built on a singular piece of evidence.  And there is scientific consensus on this issue:  the American Academy of Pediatrics, Canadian Pediatrics Society, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society all have stated in an official capacity that physical punishment often does not work and causes psychological damage as well as long term negative behavior consequences.

The majority of those groups (I think Australia being the only exception, it uses slightly less pushy language) go as far as to say that it should not be done.  You trust these people to take your children's life in their hands when they're sick in prescribing them medicine, doing surgery, or performing other medical tasks, so why disregard this piece of advice?  Is it because doing so is convenient?  I often think so.  And you don't need to run to the nearest journal to get expert advice; ask your pediatrician.

If corporal punishment is such a necessary tool when raising children, then why have so many places in the world successfully made it illegal even for parents to administer?  Now, before you go assuming that these states are all European bastions of crazy Liberalism, consider that Israel is on the list.  Spain, Germany, Denmark, Austria, the Neatherlands, Norway, New Zealand, the Ukraine (and many, many more); I bet their children are totally out of control.

[Inkidu]

The reason why scientific evidence often seems to fluctuate back and forth with such regularity is because the media does such a poor job of explaining, analyzing, and contextualizing individual scientific studies.  You see a lot of conflicting evidence out there if all you pay attention to is mainstream media outlets, especially in areas such as nutrition, because individual studies have given conflicting results.  There are reasons for this; flukes, poor methodology, etc cetera.  These mainstream publications don't bother to delve deeper into the article and analyze it with a proper critical edge because it softens the conclusion (and thus makes for less compelling journalism) amongst other reasons.

Even Yahoo News is guilty of such; they regularly post articles based on the results of a singular study and act like there's some massive revelation contained therein.  The problem is, in science one study proves absolutely nothing.  In order for a particular outcome to have any weight, it must be reproducible; scientific consensus is never built on a singular piece of evidence.  And there is scientific consensus on this issue:  the American Academy of Pediatrics, Canadian Pediatrics Society, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society all have stated in an official capacity that physical punishment often does not work and causes psychological damage as well as long term negative behavior consequences.

The majority of those groups (I think Australia being the only exception, it uses slightly less pushy language) go as far as to say that it should not be done.  You trust these people to take your children's life in their hands when they're sick in prescribing them medicine, doing surgery, or performing other medical tasks, so why disregard this piece of advice?  Is it because doing so is convenient?  I often think so.  And you don't need to run to the nearest journal to get expert advice; ask your pediatrician.

If corporal punishment is such a necessary tool when raising children, then why have so many places in the world successfully made it illegal?  Now, before you go assuming that these states are all European bastions of liberalism, consider that Israel is on the list.

I've seen conflicting evidence in scientific journals two issues apart. Doctors certainly have conflicting opinions views and are wrong. They're human that's why you can't look to them or some journal article or another country to say whose right. I'm a product of the medical system myself having been cut on for treatments that now need drugs because the medical establishment isn't as progressive as you would think. Yes and as a parent it might not do well to spank your child and it might. Parents are wrong too. There is no inherent evil in it. It's a tool and some people use ineffectively some do not. Charles Manson was supposedly never spanked. Go figure. It's just not some over-arching thing that you can point to and say, "evil!" because it's hitting.

I've never met a child who had any respect for fire until they burned themselves.

[Jude]

I've seen conflicting evidence in scientific journals two issues apart.

And journals are published studies.  Studies can conflict, I already talked about that so I'm not sure what your point is.

Doctors certainly have conflicting opinions views and are wrong.

Sure, and science has currently accepted ideas that are also wrong (just as a matter of probability it has to), but at least you know they're based on something substantial and rigorous as opposed to nothing concrete.

They're human that's why you can't look to them or some journal article or another country to say whose right. I'm a product of the medical system myself having been cut on for treatments that now need drugs because the medical establishment isn't as progressive as you would think. Yes and as a parent it might not do well to spank your child and it might. Parents are wrong too. There is no inherent evil in it.

Your evident resentment for empiricism aside, I agree there, just because you do it doesn't make you evil.

It's a tool and some people use ineffectively some do not. Charles Manson was supposedly never spanked. Go figure. It's just not some over-arching thing that you can point to and say, "evil!" because it's hitting.

Boiled down to pure logic your point seems to be:

Person A is damaged.
Person A never had action B done to them.
Therefore Action B is not harmful.

That's like finding a corpse and concluding that being stabbed can't kill you because the body was shot to death.

I've never met a child who had any respect for fire until they burned themselves.

So... in order for a child to respect you, you have to prove that you're capable of harming them?  Do you not see how barbaric that is?

[Inkidu]

And journals are published studies.  Studies can conflict, I already talked about that so I'm not sure what your point is.Sure, and science has currently accepted ideas that are also wrong (just as a matter of probability it has to), but at least you know they're based on something substantial and rigorous as opposed to nothing concrete.Your evident resentment for empiricism aside, I agree there, just because you do it doesn't make you evil.Boiled down to pure your logic your point seems to be:

Person A is damaged.
Person A never had action B done to them.
Therefore Action B is not harmful.

That's like finding a corpse and concluding that being stabbed can't kill you because the body was shot to death.So... in order for a child to respect you, you have to prove that you're capable of harming them?  Do you not see how barbaric that is?

"Can't you see my logic is perfect."
"Yes, but it seems too, heartless."

I Robot (film.)

Well, yes in a way, not physically but aren't you exerting your control you have been neatly sidestepping my whole point that while it's not the first option it, spanking itself not the person using it. The person using it could be the most evil person in the world. He could be completely logical and still be evil. Logic does not equal right, it does not equal good.

Since you only seem interested in picking the nit I'm going to walk away and we can agree to disagree.

[Noelle]

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." - Gone With the Wind

Movie quotes with no actual credibility aside, the problem with your argument is that you're responding to a claim nobody has made. Nobody has said "no spanking = perfect child", but picking and choosing what you want to believe for whatever reason just because there is "conflicting evidence" without examining the actual "conflicting evidence" is completely illogical. If all the research is done in a fair, consistent, and unbiased manner, doesn't that tell you something if, for example, 90/100 tests done indicate something? The possibility of doubt doesn't mean that doubting is a good choice or that it automatically makes the 90% that has come up with something different irrelevant.

Taking a step back:

They're human that's why you can't look to them or some journal article or another country to say whose right.

So what you're saying is that you can know better than someone who has extensive education and has spent years of their life devoted to gaining advanced insight into the discipline of their choice, just because they're human? That's what I'm getting out of this statement, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The probability of someone knowing more about a subject than you is entirely possible regardless of the human tendency to commit errors. In fact, I would argue that the more educated a person is on a subject, the smaller that margin of error tends to be. The human experience is entirely subjective to each individual, which is why it is not nearly as unreliable as a system that goes through a rigorous process to try and separate what's fact and what's not. Personal experience and what you think to be the case has no tangible way of translating into well-established fact -- merely perceived trends.

Yes and as a parent it might not do well to spank your child and it might. Parents are wrong too.

Except that the most grounded and solidified evidence says that it doesn't do your child well to spank them. Personal anecdote is not on the same level as researched evidence -- they are not equal tools for determining what is what. If somebody tells you that spanking lowers the IQ of your child and can breed aggression, why would you not try to do everything in your power to give your child the best opportunity for success later on in lieu of what seems to be a temporary fix for now?

Charles Manson was supposedly never spanked. Go figure. It's just not some over-arching thing that you can point to and say, "evil!" because it's hitting.

Again, arguing a point that was never made. The lack of spanking is not the panacea to smart, sociable, well-behaved children just as spanking your children does not automatically lead to a homicidal sociopath later on -- that's a slippery slope on both accounts.

I've never met a child who had any respect for fire until they burned themselves.

Is it respect or is it fear? As far as I know, people fear pain and seek to live most of their lives avoiding the direct source of it -- avoiding the fire itself, but not the match. Instead of asking themselves "how can I do what's right?" they ask themselves "how can I escape pain?" -- and one tends to be much more superficial than the other.

[Cassiopeia]

Personally I look at it like this ... yes, there are studies to suggest that spankings may cause some developmental issues, and that does make sense.  However, IF your child does not respond to any other form of punishment you can come up with (and I have seen this with a friend of mine's children, absolutely NOTHING worked and they were out of control) is it more damaging to explain to them what they did wrong, give them a very controlled spank, and let them learn, or is it more damaging to let them continue with the harmful behavior which can very often become a pattern?  Sometimes even spanking doesn't work, I realize that, but sometimes it really is the only thing that does and I would rather risk some minor developmental/aggression issues then basically have my children live without discipline if nothing else seemed to be working.  I know for a fact that that is both damaging and stunting.

Is it respect or is it fear? As far as I know, people fear pain and seek to live most of their lives avoiding the direct source of it -- avoiding the fire itself, but not the match. Instead of asking themselves "how can I do what's right?" they ask themselves "how can I escape pain?" -- and one tends to be much more superficial than the other.

Once again, like I said in my original post I think that's highly dependent on how it's delivered.  When my mother spanked me I absolutely respected her and knew she did it because she loved me.  There was an edge of fear, but it's similar to the one that comes along with the impending feeling of any punishment, perhaps a bit heightened but I wasn't terrified.  When my father did it I was completely frightened and I didn't respect him at all.  So I think you have to look at the degrees and motivation here before a blanket statement is made "all spanking will make your child a mess when they grow up".  Have they studied different types of spanking?  Just like any other form of punishment spanking can be misused and turned into something damaging.  I think the only way a parent can really make that decision is to know their child and really know themselves.  The studies mean something yes, but you could apply the same logic to the issue of vaccinations being harmful and causing damage and the studies they've done on it.  Are you willing to risk your child catching the disease by not getting it, or are you willing to risk side effects?  Pros and cons to both, and it's something only each parent can decide for themselves and their child.

[Noelle]

If you read my first reply to this thread, I don't deny that spanking happens, or even that parents should rule it out as an option completely. I don't automatically see a troubled adult (or even teenager) and think "they must have been spanked", because people aren't just a summation of one individual happening, but rather a culmination of things that they have experienced. Still, any parent should want to give their child every opportunity to succeed in life, so it's worth considering if this can't be included in as a part of that.

Ultimately, I'm not telling anyone how to parent, and just to reiterate, I did mention that if an adult deemed spanking necessary, it should always be last-resort, and done with a clear, rational head and not out of reactionary anger -- and follow up after with gentle, calm words that reiterate why their actions were wrong instead of just leaving the spanking as the lesson to be learned.

Once again, like I said in my original post I think that's highly dependent on how it's delivered.  When my mother spanked me I absolutely respected her and knew she did it because she loved me.  There was an edge of fear, but it's similar to the one that comes along with the impending feeling of any punishment, perhaps a bit heightened but I wasn't terrified.  When my father did it I was completely frightened and I didn't respect him at all.  So I think you have to look at the degrees and motivation here before a blanket statement is made "all spanking will make your child a mess when they grow up".

In terms of your own parents, one versus the other, how did their behavior differ that made you respect more than the other? My mom was often the one to use words and disciplinary action, whereas my dad often just yelled and got angry. I was very, very rarely spanked, which says in hindsight that it really was a dead-last resort and that my parents found other ways that were more effective and remained consistent.

And there's no blanket statement being made here at all -- in fact, if anything, I'm trying to assert that spanking your child will not automatically turn them into a sociopath, but that there can be subtler damages done that you are unaware of.

[Serephino]

I'm kind of confused, it seems like the first and second paragraphs of your post are in direct opposition (unless you're not seeing the connection between being an object of someone's temper at a developmental stage and consequently having a temper of your own).

Yes, well, see, he was bi-polar, and so am I.  The corporal punishment itself had nothing to do with my temper problem, but of course you wouldn't know that not knowing the full situation.  I inherited a mental disorder.  He was never diagnosed, but I was, and I did research, and he displayed much of the same behavior. 

Of course, even if it did have something to do with events in my developmental years, it could have been the constant bullying in school, or my parents' constant arguing, or, the verbal abuse my father dished out when he was in a bad mood, or even my mother losing her temper and beating me with an ice cube tray.  Hell, it may be all of the above.  My mother left marks, which I am definitely against.  You said yourself we human beings are complex creatures.         

[Jude]

The only thing that I really know for sure is that it sucks that you had to put up with all of that.

[Serephino]

My childhood was not a happy one.  I think my dad tried, and when he was in control he did use other forms of punishments like making me sit in a corner, though I was a very stubborn child.