You can say what you saw. In the OP you said it "came close to a spanking" and then later you implied the child's pants were pulled down and the spanking happened. So which was it?
I assumed he was in line, thinking a spanking was about to happen, and wondering whether to ____ (say something, turn away, act like nothing was going on...) and that he was uncomfortable because he assumed the parent would pull the child's pants down to do it. Then he was relieved that it didn't happen, but still wondered how others would have reacted, so he asked here.
There are countless studies using empirical data about the negative effects. But, there is no real data that supports that it’s effective or not harmful. Most of that is just anecdotal things like I was spanked & I’m fine & my kids are fine. For those who are for it, I am honestly curious, was it used as a last resort b/c other methods of discipline weren’t working or was it just the most effective (in your opinion) so it was the first thing used? I’m also curious what ppl say to the fact that we agree we can’t hit anyone else for any other reasons, but then you say it’s ok to hit kids. That seems like the most logical argument against it. I really want to know how ppl dismiss this incongruency.
The thing about any studies of this sort of thing is that they aren't, by nature, carefully controlled studies. It's not exactly ethical to randomly assign one group to spank and another not to, nor is there an effective way to truly isolate that one variable when we're just collecting data from people's real lives.
I definitely agree that a big part of the debate is different opinions of what "spanking" means. I said before I was OK with one swat on the (clothed) bottom to get immediate cooperation in a dangerous situation, but I'm
not personally comfortable with whipping, or paddling, or even the "set-up" hand spanking after cooling down.
I do think that the kids who turn out OK are the ones who learned from their parents’ discipline, in whatever form, to have self-discipline later on. And I believe that’s easiest for kids if the consequences are related to the misbehavior.
So for the “running into the street” example, I am OK with that single-swat "spanking". The lesson I want to teach is that “if you run into the street, you’ll get hurt”. Since we obviously need to stop the child before natural consequences teach that, I'll settle for a swat on the bottom with a hand. It’s a much milder form of the
actual consequence for breaking that rule in the later life.
But say I didn’t believe in any spanking at all, and instead I tried to do something else – like take away a toy. The child sees no connection at all. And say his grandparents gave him the toy - how is it fair for
me to take it away? To him,
that is a bigger person arbitrarily using their power. The lesson of not running into the street is lost as the child concentrates on the unfair punishment.
In a similar vain, I think time out is appropriate if the transgression is, say, hitting a playmate. It’s a temporary version of what will
actually happen if you don’t play nicely – nobody will play with you. It’s a direct consequence, a lightened version of the real thing, because we know kids are still learning.
Don't behave in the restaurant, you stay home with a sitter next time; break a neighbor’s window with your baseball, you pay for it (or part of it) from your allowance or extra chores, and help sweep up the mess. Why would I ground
or spank for this, as neither is at all related to the problem?
I think consequences should be as logical as possible, and only as severe as it takes for the child to get the message. (So sometimes, even a lecture or "look"
is enough.)