Disciplinary Measures for 17-Year-Old Teens: Is Spanking Justified?

Parental guidance and discipline remain at the heart of raising teenagers effectively. However, the debate over whether a 17-year-old should be spanked as a form of discipline is fraught with opinions and is often driven by individual experiences and cultural norms.

Existing Parental Perspectives

Many parents and guardians strongly believe in the necessity of disciplining a 17-year-old teen if they have done something that warrants it. They argue that such measures serve to instill discipline and set clear boundaries. For instance, one parent recalls a past experience where they administered a caning to their 16-year-old son for smoking, stating:

Yes, if they deserve it! I was caned over the kitchen table when I was 16 and Dad caught me smoking! I can well remember having to lower my trousers and bend over for that caning.

Another individual suggests that spanking is a legitimate form of discipline, especially when the child has been naughty:

If they have been naughty then yes they should get their bottom turned thoroughly red.

The emphasis on firm discipline is further emphasized when one parent mentions:

it should be mandatory.

While some parents admit that they last resorted to spanking their 17-year-old child three months ago, it still remains a decision faced by others, particularly those whose teenagers are undergoing formative years.

Parental Authority and Responsibility

Parents often stress the importance of following house rules and address issues based on the seriousness of the incident. One parent shared their view:

A 17 year old shouldnt have to be spanked BUT if he or she is acting like a child they get treated like a child so yes bare bottom with a strap or the parents instrument of choice.

These incidents also highlight the varying thresholds at which disciplinary actions are deemed appropriate. Parents generally agree that spankings should be reserved for more serious infractions, such as lying or causing significant trouble:

If they need it absolutely. As long as they live in their parents house they follow the rules or else.

Another parent points out the differentiating factor between minor and serious actions:

I would never whoop a 17 year old teen for little stuff like spilled milk. No. But would I whoop a 17 year old teen child for lying Yes. Would I whoop a 17 year old teen child for disrespect Yes. But that also depends.

Parental Concerns and Considerations

Parents are careful to differentiate between trivial and significant incidents that warrant punishment. They also highlight the importance of reasoning behind the spanking, as it can serve as a teaching moment:

Would I whoop a 17 year old teen child for driving my car for a joy ride without permission Yes. Like I said it depends on what they did to get the whooping. Enough said.

Moreover, the discussion emphasizes the concept that if a teenager lives under the parents' roof and behaves irresponsibly, they must face the consequences. This perspective reinforces the idea that age does not necessarily exempt a child from discipline:

If they live under your roof and do something that deserves one absolutely. Age doesn’t make any difference.

Conclusion

Parenting a 17-year-old can be challenging, and the decision to spank or not to spank depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the misconduct and the household's values and rules. While some parents firmly believe in using spanking as a form of discipline, others prefer alternative methods of correction. Ultimately, the conversation reveals the complexity of the issue and the diverse range of opinions within the parenting community.

It is important to note that each family's approach to discipline may be unique, and the key is consistency and open communication within the family unit. Parents should consider the long-term impact of their disciplinary actions and ensure they align with their values and the child's well-being.