Wanted to add too that I firmly agree in explaining the purpose of the discipline or punishment every time. Otherwise a child really learns nothing.
Spanking is a last resort for us, and it's for things that usually involve endangerment.
Spanking is the exact same way for us, it's always a last resort and usually for things that are dangerous.
This is something I just don't understand. "Last resort."
If it's meant as a last resort punishment, then it has to be more punishing--more painful or miserable-- than anything else that might have led up to it. You need to be able to inflict enough pain (physical or emotional) into the spanking that it is worse than being grounded for a day, or a week, or worse than being yelled at, or anything else. It
has to be a miserable, scary, painful experience, or else it is pointless.
If it's anything else other than a punishment (getting their attention; letting them know that this is a serious matter, etc) then it shouldn't be a last resort. You don't do something that's meant to just get their attention
after you've already reasoning with them, talked to them and punished them a few times. It just doesn't make any sense.
So, as a last resort, it
only makes sense if it's a punishment, and as a punishment, it only makes sense if it's severe.
But then people say, "I don't leave marks. It's not really about the pain. I don't yell. I do it calmly. It's just a little thing--not that bad."
How does this progression make sense? You reason; you ground; you make them stand in the corner; you take privileges away; you do all sorts of other things, and then...you do something that isn't half as bad a week without video games?
It seems more like people have this concept of spanking as a thing that
has to be done, just because that's what you do...but they don't want to really do it. And so they kind of try to wedge it into relationships and dynamics where it doesn't really work or make sense.
Same when people say, "Spanking is fine--I spank my kids and they're great. I talk to them a lot and we have a great relationship. If they mess up, we talk about why they did it, and what they could have done better, and then sometimes I swat them once, lightly, over their pants. I only need to do that once every couple of months."
They don't seem to get that it isn't the spanking that's resulting in their kids being good, it's everything they're doing when they're
not spanking. It's literally, the
lack of spanking in their life that is making them good, and the slight amount that they're getting isn't enough to undo the good parenting they receive at other times. It's the same as the effect of mercury or lead: it is toxic. The more you get, the worse off you'll be. You should avoid it at all costs.
But, if you get below a minimum amount and are otherwise healthy, it's possible to get a low enough amount that it doesn't do you any harm.
That doesn't make mercury a vitamin, or spanking a positive parenting technique. It just means that not everything that's harmful is instantly fatal.
Ps: why would you even want to
have a "last resort" as a parent? What happens after that? Do you just stop parenting? A last resort is the
last thing you do. It's your big guns. Short of killing your kid or leaving them in the woods, you can't have a last thing you do, as a parent. Tomorrow has a way of always coming, and kids have a way of being persistent.
PPS: whenever I hear that, also, I remember what my mom told me about spanking me when I was little. After doing it once or twice as her immediate response to misbehavior, she decided that it would be her last resort--she'd only do it if she had no other options.
But, once she made that commitment--not to spank unless there were
no other options-- she realized that there were always other options! She never made a commitment to stop spanking, and she didn't decide until much later (when my sister and I were told old to be spanked) that it was a bad thing in and of itself.
She just decided to only do it if she
had to, and then realized she never had to.
