It's insane the level people go to in order to defend child abuse.

It's called discipline.

I was hit as a child and I turned out fine.

Of course you shouldn't beat up your kids, I'm just talking about spanking!

You're soft.

I was hit as a child and I turned out fine.

Always said by someone who did not turn out fine.

I was hit as a child and it fucked me up, shit's rough.

Though I do have a distinctly beautiful memory of the exact moment I realized my chud dipshit stepdad had become scared to hit me because I was taller and generally much bigger than him in my teens. In my face, huffing and puffing, waiting for the slap or punch to the face and then he just...didn't. Just flared nostrils and a puffed up chest.

Really pissed him off when I smiled as I realized what had happened.

I was never hit, just sent to my room when I fucked up. I completely hated it, but I probably deserved it every time

What's an acceptable form of discipline against children?

Because people could argue all manner of things have the potential for psychological abuse, such as being grounded etc. That stuff can easily fall under restrictive practices in several adult jobs involving care of people

Parenting looks so hard

Back in the 80s, when I grew up, spanking your child was almost considered something you had to do. If you weren't willing to spank your kids when they REALLY need it, you were a bad parent.

My parents rarely did it, and it was only spankings. So it was less painful and less scarring than parents who really beat up their kids. I don't think it traumatized me in any way. I think it was like that for a lot of people like me--who had loving, sensible parents who went against their better judgements because society told them they had to, but they didn't like to do it and they never lost control or tried to really hurt their children. I think most people like us probably did turn out "fine" in the sense that it had little to no negative effect.

But it never has any GOOD effect. I want to emphasize that. The best defense people can make is that it doesn't harm the kid, and sure, there may be cases that it's true. But no one can come up with any even slightly compelling evidence or logic that it actually is better than not using violence for anyone. It doesn't actually teach the child anything. Even if you ask the people saying it was fine that it happened to them, they can't come up with any concrete ways that the spankings improved them. If you ask them whether they stopped the behavior, either they stopped because they understood it was bad, or (more often) they just tried harder not to get caught. So if you knew that something could be bad, or really bad, or really REALLY bad, but best case scenario is that maybe it actually won't be bad... Why the fuck would you do it?

That's what I want to say to anyone who is like "I got spankings, and it didn't hurt me." Okay, fine, maybe. But how was it GOOD for you? Because they won't have any real answer.

Hurting your kid to discipline them is about as effective as torturing a captive to get information from them.

If it isn't acceptable to strike an adult (and it isn't), it isn't acceptable to strike a child.

None of the excuses people make for hitting children would stand up if applied to an adult. 'It's the only way they'll learn', 'I don't hit them hard or anything', 'I was hit as a child' etc. etc.