Do you believe bare bottom spanking is more effective, no difference or totally inappropriate?

Question

I saw another Mom had posted a similar question and it surprisingly did not get much response.I would have thought there would have been a lot since spanking itself is so controversial.

I am primarily interested in the thoughts of those parent who believe in spanking. But of course, anyone is free to speak up and they do.

At one time this was not that unusual of a way to spank at all. I think it is much less so now. I want to know whether you think it works better than an over clothing spanking, makes no difference, is safer, less safe, is too humiliating, is appropriate, totally inapproriate, totally disgusting--whatever.

I will give my thoughts later.

Answer 1

More Effective:

Growing up I got it both pants up, and down. For me naturally down was way more effective. The key for a old fashioned spanking to work is the spanker's stress level. My parents didn't just over react and spank the tar out of us, it was more "this is the punishment for doing ________" very clear cut. My parents (mainly my dad) always looked sad, and in no way mad when I was to get a spanking. I always knew, doing them was never easy for him either.

With our girls-
We do use other "new age" methods first, but when they break down, or if my girls break one of our "core rules" pants come down, they go over the lap for a good old fashioned spanking. It has worked for generations, why fix something that's not broke. Spankings in our home are very rare, I think in part because when we do them, it's on the bare bottom. I can deal with the criticism better then I could deal with rotten children.

My earlier question on this subject didn't get a lot of response because, when I posted it, for some reason it didn't show up until about 1 hour later (must have been some yahoo problem) then they placed it with the other questions that had already been posted for a hour. Questions seem to get most of their answers in the first hour or so. Needless to say, it was kind of pissing me off, but what can you do. Thank You for posting a similar question, at least this one got some responses. If I posted it again people would think I am some sort of weirdo, lol.




EDIT: Wow just read all the answers, I knew most people would disagree with my stance, but the following quote

"I question the integrity of anyone who feels empowered by the touch of their hand on the bare bottom of a child"

lol, come on people, why do they always try and turn this into a sexual thing? Their your children for cryn out loud! you never gave your children a playful swat on the rear before? jeeeze. this is getting out of hand.

Answer 2

Whenever a reasonable amount of privacy is available (in front of family members is fine), I believe spanking should always be administered on the bare bottom for several reasons, such as: The ritual of a punishment spanking is an important factor in effectiveness, and spanking on the spur of the moment should be avoided. The time taken to bare the bottom and properly position the child allows time for the parent to 'cool off', and spanking must never be administered out of anger or frustration. The additional embarrassment can add to the punishment value so that less actual spanking is necessary, and the additional pain can do the same. Spanking over clothing such as jeans with pocket seams and rivets can result in bruising. Having the bottom bare allows the parent to see the progress and avoid going too far and leaving marks or bruises. Edit: After reading some of the other answers I have to repeat what I've said so many times in the past: There is nothing even remotely sexual or perverted about a parent spanking their child - period. The vast majority of parents do not think about or act toward their children in any sexual way.

Answer 3

I find it inappropriate. The goal is to discipline your child, not humiliate them. And honestly, do you really want to teach your child that it's ok for an adult to take their pants off and touch their naked private parts?? I'm not saying the the parent has bad intentions, but it does sound like they could be unwittingly setting their child up to be an easy target for child molestors. And also, depending on the age of the child, they may need the spanking to happen right away. A toddler has such a short attention span, so taking the time to make it into a ritual and take their pants off seems stupid. My siblings and I were only spanked between about the ages of two and five, and my mom would just pop us one or two times right then and there (and of course explain why we were spanked afterwards). I think the key is for it to be the last resort. My mom NEVER had to spank us bare bottomed, use any objects, or smack us more than a couple times. It didn't hurt us, but just showed that she meant business since it was so rare for her to do that. I just think it's disturbing if you're actually trying to hurt and embarrass your child when you spank them.

Answer 4

Spanking Bare

Answer 5

This is not a simple question to answer. But my short answer is, bare-bottom spanking is wrong but a slap or brief spanking on a clothes covered bottom is acceptable in certain situations.

The goal of punishment to teach the child that their behaviour is wrong or inappropriate. In most cases, the type of punishment required to achieve this should be non-coporal. The type of punishment that has the longest lasting effect is simply taking away something the child likes, i.e. video games. There are also timeouts. The only downside is that it must be repeated over time. I do admit there are some situations in which the child must change immediately and corporal may be necessary.

In these situations, corporal-type punish is better. But that doesn't mean it must physically hurt. Usually, just hurting their feelings or self-esteem is enough. For instance, you want your 2-year-old to stop running across the street. For this a slap on their closed covered butt will do the trick.

Some parents resort to the bare-bottom spanking and that's wrong (according to me.) First, it's less effective in the long run and next, you're physically hurting them when it's not necessary. Some parents really are just taking out frustration in an inappropriate way.

-- Liam

Answer 6

Personally, I dont think spanking should be preformed on a child younger than 3, possibly excluding firm pats, but I absolutely dont believe in bare bottom spanking under any circumstances. Psychologically it serves only to demean the child, humiliating it, and removing what little diginity the child might have. In todays world there are so many other options afforded one other than spanking. At the same time a child over the age of 8 whould have the basic mental capacity to understand verbal demands and consequences. It also seems that people who feel it is ok to spank a child over the age of 12 are pretty much on the verge of creepy street and immoralityville. If i were the child i can say id really just prefer a good jab or two in the gut, face, or back of the head.

Answer 7

I was always spanked on my bare bottom and I didn't and don't see why it's supposed to be some big awful deal. Parents see their kids' butts at other times, it's pretty much unavoidable when you live in a house with other people (and the smaller the house and the larger the family, the more unavoidable it becomes.)

The point of a spanking is to deliver pain to a particular area of the body. Clothes get in the way. I don't see why bare bottom spanking is any more of an controversial issue than bare bottom bathing!

Answer 8

My question is: why is it necessary?
If spanking is done to teach a lesson, how is that lesson enhanced by the fact that a person's buttocks are exposed?
If this child is in public, the humiliation that follows will not necessarily lead to a reduction of the activity that caused the spanking, but pure resentment of the person who meted that punishment out. Disciplining should be done, whenever possible, in private to filter out background influences and make a direct line between cause and effect. A negative action results in punishment. The fact is not emphasized by nudity. I question the integrity of anyone who feels empowered by the touch of their hand on the bare bottom of a child, especially when that touch is intended to inflict harm.

Answer 9

I don't believe spanking teaches anything except your mom
can love you one minute, then beat you the next--and as a
child, you have no idea what you did wrong--and in fact, they
don't even know right from wrong. A 2 yr. old that's throwing
a temper tandrum needs to be restrained, That means maybe putting them in a chair with some play toys and not letting them up for 3 minutes.

Older children are trying to test authority. There are always ways to restrict what they like or where they want to go...
or even negotiate using a game of points (Gee,like Yahoo!
Answers). Toys, videos, movies all can be used to motivate
a child to do what's right. (Not necessarily what the parent
wants/but what's right in a high anger situation.)

Answer 10

Highly effective. In fact I am an advocate of hands are fvor hugging so use a neutral object (spoon brush paddle etc) and make it sting like heck so the kid does not forget it. Corner time after works well too. Always forgive after that however and clean the slate.