The use of spanking as a punishment

So a school district in Missouri decided that spanking was an acceptable form of punishment
Spanking has essentially the same psychological and physiological effects as other forms of sexual abuse


I’m against the use of corporal punishment in any sense.

The fact that public schools are, to this day, still allowed to strike a child as a form of disciplinary action is a testament to a gross and repugnant failure on the public to disentangle their desire to instill what they perceive as “values” from actions that only hold such significance because they are traditional, in nature, even when such actions fail to meaningfully promote such values.


it´s also a sign of the double moral of society …

“sex Ed? No that hurts children” “Hurting children? Ah that only makes them tougher” … and the worst that often comes from the same people -_-


“Sex ed traumatizes children, hit them with a belt instead!”


A bit late to the thread, but spanking is one (among many) of my own CSA experiences, and the one that haunts me the most now, over two decades later. The idea that it would not only be legal, but also encouraged by teachers, who are meant to protect children, is sickening.


I just saw this old, dead thread because Juniper performed necromancy on it by leaving a reply. And I just realized more of how being spanked as a child fucked me up. That bit my dad said about it hurting him more than me was total bullshit.

We wouldn’t do it to adults. It would even be considered sexual abuse if done to an adult, so why is it somehow not considered sexual abuse when done to a child? Like Chie said, it’s (unfortunately) traditional.


My parents never spanked me, but from talking to people whose parents did, it sounds like a lot of time it’s not recognized as the cause of any associated trauma unless they specifically think about how it affected them. That’s probably why there’s never been a big social movement against it despite all the harm it causes.

Calling it out as abuse doesn’t generally get much support from the public either, which is likely why Prostasia is one of the few organizations that does so.


My own father’s favourite phrases were “It’ll hurt more if you struggle” and “I’ll give you something to really cry about”, and he used violence against every perceived slight or any of my autism symptoms. He’s since apologised and recognises the harm he did for so many years, and admits the cycle of abuse from his father and grandfather, but I still get deeply afraid whenever he’s too close or I’m alone with him. I’m glad to finally have a supportive environment away from my parents.


When I would be spanked, it would be paired with threats that it could be worse, and I should be thankful that it’s just a belt and not a paddle with holes drilled in it. I think it probably happens a lot of the time, that physical abuse is paired with mental and emotional abuse, too. There’s an obsession with parenting through fear, and that to me is even more abusive. Spanking, and the threat of spanking, plays right into that toolbox of parenting through fear.

It absolutely sickens me that schools continue to support this.


Bravo to Anakin, the autistic 6 year old, who’s parents opted out of allowing the teachers to spank him, because he would spank back. That’s my spirit animal child!


Currently, this is the top comment of the petition and I think it deserves to be highlighted here:

I saw this quote recently:
“When you hit a child you are grooming them to be compliant and docile and helpless. You teach them that they don’t have a right to say “no” and that they are not fully human enough to set their own boundaries. You are priming them to be the perfect targets for future predators.” - Dr Stacey Patton

Adults who say that physically abusing children is ok because it happened to them and they turned out fine were groomed as children into thinking it was ok to have their physical boundaries violated, and now they have grown into adults who feel entitled to violate the boundaries of the next generation of impressionable children and continue this cycle of abuse, which also creates an environment where children are more vulnerable to other forms of abuse including sexual abuse.

Experts agree that physically abusing children has negative affects on child development, not positive effects.

Nothing good can come from this, it is archaic child abuse and it needs to be stopped.

According to Wikipedia, this is a list of countries that have outlawed corporal punishment (including spanking) of children. Of particular note is this:

According to a 2014 estimate by Human Rights Watch, “Ninety percent of the world’s children live in countries where corporal punishment and other physical violence against children is still legal”.

Now you might be wondering “but what about Canada?” Well, there was an attempt to make corporal punishment of children outlawed, in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (AG) (2004), mainly because it was argued that it violated the rights of children. However, here’s what the Supreme Court stated:

Section 43 of the Criminal Code (which allows parents and teachers to use force to correct a child’s behaviour) does not infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provided the section is interpreted as follows: (1) The force must be intended to actually correct the child’s behaviour. (2) The force cannot result in harm or the prospect of harm.

Actually, the court added that there were limits of reasonableness to corporal punishment of children. Here’s what Wikipedia states:

The court first defined what types of force could be considered reasonable in the circumstances, the court held that in order for corporal punishment to be considered reasonable it could only be used for corrective purposes against children capable of appreciating it, could only be “transitory and trifling” in nature, and could not be done in a degrading or harmful manner. The court ruled that in order to be protected by section 43 and not be considered assault, corporal punishment must:

be done by a parent or someone in the standing of a parent (effectively outlawing corporal punishment in schools),

only be used against children between the ages of two and twelve,

not be conducted in a manner that either causes or has the potential to cause harm, including bruising or marks,

not be used out of frustration, loss of temper, or because of the caregiver’s abusive personality,

not be conducted with objects, like belts or rulers,

not hit the child on the head

not be done in a manner that is otherwise degrading, inhumane, or harmful, and

not be used against children with disabilities that make them incapable of appreciating the punishment.

Do you think people necessarily follow these rules or even know about them?

However, slowly but surely, things are changing. More and more countries are outlawing corporal punishment of children. According to this Wikipedia article (Corporal punishment in the home), Sweden was the first country to ban corporal punishment of children. Here’s what it says about it:

Sweden was the world’s first nation to outlaw all forms of corporal punishment of children. In 1957, the section permitting parents to use force in reprimanding their children (as long as it did not cause any severe injury) was completely removed from the Penal Code. The intent of this change was to provide children with the same protection from assault that adults receive and to clarify the grounds for criminal prosecution of parents who abused their children. However, parents’ right to use corporal punishment of their children was not eliminated; until 1966, parents might use mild forms of physical discipline that would not constitute assault under the Penal Code. In 1966, the section permitting parents to use physical discipline was removed and fully replaced by the constitution of assault under the Penal Code.)

Even though parents’ right to use corporal punishment of their children was no longer supported by law, many parents believed the law allowed it. Therefore, it was necessary with a more clear law which supported children’s rights and protected children from violence or other humiliating treatment. On 1 July 1979, Sweden became the world’s first nation to explicitly ban corporal punishment of children through an amendment to the Parenthood and Guardianship Code which stated:

Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment.

Some critics in the Swedish Parliament predicted that the amendment would lead to a large-scale criminalization of Swedish parents. Others asserted that the law contradicted the Christian faith. Despite these objections, the law received almost unanimous support in Parliament. The law was accompanied by a public education campaign by the Swedish Ministry of Justice, including brochures distributed to all households with children, as well as informational posters and notices printed on milk cartons.)

One thing that helped pave the way for the ban was a 1971 murder case where a 3-year-old girl was beaten to death by her stepfather. The case shook the general public and preventing child abuse became a political hot topic for years to come.

In 1982, a group of Swedish parents brought a complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights asserting that the ban on parental physical punishment breached their right to respect for family life and religious freedom; the complaint was dismissed.

According to the Swedish Institute, “Until the 1960s, nine out of ten preschool children in Sweden were spanked at home. Slowly, though, more and more parents voluntarily refrained from its use and corporal punishment was prohibited throughout the educational system in 1958”. As of 2014, approximately 5 percent of Swedish children are spanked illegally.

In Sweden, professionals working directly with children are obliged to report any suggestion of maltreatment to social services. Allegations of assault against children are frequently handled in special “children’s houses”, which combine the efforts of police, prosecutors, social services, forensic scientists and child psychologists. The Children and Parents Code does not itself impose penalties for smacking children, but instances of corporal punishment that meet the criteria of assault may be prosecuted.

From the 1960s to the 2000s, there was a steady decline in the numbers of parents who use physical punishment as well as those who believe in its use. In the 1960s, more than 90 percent of Swedish parents reported using physical punishment, even though only approximately 55 percent supported its use. By the 2000s, the gap between belief and practice had nearly disappeared, with slightly more than 10 percent of parents reporting that they use corporal punishment. In 1994, the first year that Swedish children were asked to report their experiences of corporal punishment, 35 percent said they had been smacked at some point. According to the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, this number was considerably lower after the year 2000. Interviews with parents also revealed a sharp decline in more severe forms of punishment, such as punching or the use of objects to hit children, which are likely to cause injury.

The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and Save the Children ascribe these changes to a number of factors, including the development of Sweden’s welfare system; greater equality between the sexes and generations than elsewhere in the world; the large number of children attending daycare centers, which facilitate the identification of children being mistreated; and efforts by neonatal and children’s medical clinics to reduce family violence.

While cases of suspected assault on children have risen since the early 1980s, this rise can be attributed to an increase in reporting due to reduced tolerance of violence against children, rather than an increase in actual assaults. Since the 1979 ban on physical punishment, the percentage of reported assaults that result in prosecution has not increased; however, Swedish social services investigate all such allegations and provide supportive measures to the family where needed.

According to Joan Durrant, the ban on corporal punishment was intended to be “educational rather than punitive”. After the 1979 change to the Parenthood and Guardianship Code, there was no increase in the number of children removed from their families; in fact, the number of children entering state care significantly decreased. There have also been more social-service interventions done with parental consent and fewer compulsory interventions. Durrant writes that the authorities had three goals, namely: to bring about a change in public attitudes away from support for corporal punishment, to facilitate the identification of children likely to be physically abused, and to enable earlier intervention in families with the intention of supporting, rather than punishing, parents. According to Durrant, data from various official sources in Sweden show that these goals are being met. She writes:

Since 1981, reports of assaults against children in Sweden have increased—as they have worldwide, following the ‘discovery’ of child abuse. However, the proportion of suspects who are in their twenties, and therefore raised in a no-smacking culture, has decreased since 1984, as has the proportion born in the Nordic nations with corporal punishment bans.

Contrary to expectations of an increase of juvenile delinquency following the ban of corporal punishment, youth crime remained steady while theft convictions and suspects in narcotics crimes among Swedish youth significantly decreased; youth drug and alcohol use and youth suicide also decreased. Durrant writes: “While drawing a direct causal link between the corporal punishment ban and any of these social trends would be too simplistic, the evidence presented here indicates that the ban has not had negative effects”.

Further research has shown no sign of a rise in crimes by young people. From the mid-1990s into the 2000s, youth crime decreased, primarily owing to fewer instances of theft and vandalism, while violent crime remained constant. Most young people in Sweden who commit offences do not become habitual criminals, according to the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. While there has been an increase in reports of assaults by youth against others of similar age, official sources indicate that the increase has been largely due to a “zero-tolerance” approach to school bullying resulting in increased reporting, rather than an increase in actual assaults.

TL;DR There were no negative effects of Sweden outlawing corporal punishment of children.

Like I said, more countries are outlawing. Among the ones who have done so are France, Japan and South Korea.

Also, has anyone noticed that corporal punishment can be shortened to “cp”?

1 Like

The same could be said about loli/shota. Once again, I`m gonna use Canada as an example.

The following quote (which is from R v Sharpe) is taken from: Child pornography laws in Canada - Wikipedia

Interpreting “person” in accordance with Parliament’s purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that ‘person’ in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that “person” in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.

Translation: Just as depictions of actual minors is illegal, loli/shota is “gross” and should be criminalized because it involves characters that look like children. If it looks like a child, then it represents a child, which means that it could be harmful to children.

Btw, here’s a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision regarding Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (AG) (2004) (the original text can be found here and here):

Section 43 does not discriminate contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter. A reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, apprised of the harms of criminalization that s. 43 avoids, the presence of other governmental initiatives to reduce the use of corporal punishment, and the fact that abusive and harmful conduct is still prohibited by the criminal law, would not conclude that the child’s dignity has been offended in the manner contemplated by s. 15(1). While children need a safe environment, they also depend on parents and teachers for guidance and discipline, to protect them from harm and to promote their healthy development within society. Section 43 is Parliament’s attempt to accommodate both of these needs. It provides parents and teachers with the ability to carry out the reasonable education of the child without the threat of sanction by the criminal law. Without s. 43, Canada’s broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment. The decision not to criminalize such conduct is not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families — a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process.

Translation: If we ban corporal punishment (including spanking) of children, it could ruin lives and break apart families. As long as it’s not harmful, corporal punishment is fine. It’s definitely not child abuse in the slightest. NO, WE AREN’T HYPOCRITES, WE KNOW WHAT’S RIGHT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

It’s unfortunate that society has let this form of child abuse perpetuate. However, like I already said, things are changing, albeit slowly.

Edit: I forgot to add this, but I remember seeing a YouTube comment in which the person compared hitting or spanking a child to hitting a computer (although I don’t remember what it specifically said).

It went along the lines of: “When a computer doesn’t work properly, you don’t fix it by hitting it. Instead, what you get is a broken computer. Same thing with kids.”


That’s so dumb. If you’re hitting a child there’s an abusive component to your personality.

1 Like

Not necessarily. A swot on the rump to reinforce a correction, is not abusive. Bruising the child, is. Doing it bare assed, is. Not all punishment is abusive. The level of correction, the manner of correction matter.

I grew up in a state where the schools were banned from corporal punishment and my parents did not utilize it. That doesn’t mean it can’t be instructive or that it MUST be abusive. Many young children have learned by getting their hands slapped.

1 Like

I’d disagree. I know people who still suffer from trauma from spanking that didn’t cause any physical harm. Touching a child without their consent, especially on a “private part,” is a violation of boundaries at best. If we as a society want to prevent abuse, we should be teaching children that they, not specific adults, have the authority to decide they don’t want to be touched.

If a kid holds the mindset that it’s ok for adults to be physical with them as a punishment, I’m willing to bet it wouldn’t be difficult for an abuser to convince them that the same applies to sexual assault. That would make it really easy to convince the child that what happened was their fault, which is a common tactic for preventing a kid from disclosing abuse.

Specifically regarding what you said, I guess I could see an argument for the actual act of spanking not being inherently abusive in all cases, but I’d still consider someone who uses physical contact as a punishment as having an abusive mindset. Especially if they know about the harms.


I’m an example, it’s been well over twenty years since then but the trauma is still there, and it’s honestly been difficult reading this thread and responding to it. Still, I felt I should speak up, as a victim. I faced physical punishments at home, at school, and at daycare, and I still get flashbacks and anxiety attacks whenever someone gets within arm’s reach of me.

This, and other forms of abuse, led me to dream of being a teacher so I could protect children from as much harm as possible, but my disabilities and my attractions make that an impossibility. Instead, I’ll just keep signing petitions and speaking up to help convince people to change.