Is it ever okay to hit kids?

Now calm down! lol. I mean if they do something bad. Some of the best raised people have parents who whipped them like no tomorrow.

As long as it's only to teached them that what they did was wrong?

No.

Hell no.

No.

And how does hitting them show them they were wrong?

No.

If it works then fair enough, a smack is fine, but really beating a child is wrong.

I dunno. Wouldn't it teach them that the world isn't all hugs and smiles?

Mind you, I've never hit a child. But I noticed people who were spanked are more well behaved, and have a "tougher hide" than people who were raised with no disipline.

Of course it's never okay to go crazy and beat the s*** out've them. But a simple slap in the ass, or punch in the arm?

WTF? So you should teach kids reality by hitting on them? You can teach a kid the world is not all hugs and smiles in other ways than beating on them.

Yes, hitting them will get kids behaved. Goes without saying. But it creates a host of other problems.

And the reason you sometimes see them better behaved than those who aren't hit is because it takes more work to discipline kids without hitting them, something many don't have the will or ability to do.

You can discipline a child without hurting them.

I was hit as a child and I've never forgiven my father, it's part of the reason I don't get along with him.

"whipped them like there is no tomorrow"
no, never right, you should not hit a child out of anger. That phrasing screams anger to me, and that is not disciplinary but something worse.

to me that is way further than a spanking, which I can see instances of it working as disciplinary method, but probably should be used as a method of last resort.

I think anger on the parent's part should not be part of the equation, if they are so upset they can't think straight, the "punishment" should wait until the parent has a clear head.


I think that line between discipline and abuse can be very hard to define for some people. Extreme cases on both sides are easy, it's the grey stuff in the middle, sometimes it varies so much by situation and child that it's hard to deal in absolutes. What works easily for some, will not work at all for others. And yet the end goal for the parent is to instil that there are consequences for actions, and a general expectation in society to act a certain way.

There are some non physical punishments I have heard of parents doing that seem just as abusive as beating, but not hitting the child doesn't make those ok either. They were just as angry and wanting to hurt the child rather than demonstrate consequences.

Mostly I guess I'm saying the way you say it sounds wrong, but its not an easy yes or no question all the time.

No I wouldn't. But for others with the preference to do so.

It can show them that you're serious about the ground rules. But that doesn't mean you have to always be the punisher. You could also be there for them when they need you.

If I had a parent who hit me, I would never go to them for anything

I spanked my kids with my bare hand on their bottoms .
There are times when a smack or two on the butt will get their attention quick and completely.
I learned very early in my tenor as a parent that as soon as I lost my temper I lost the 'war of wills'.