Slapping Your Children

No never,i have never slapped my daughter,a stern telling of with a deep voice does for me,she knows when im angry with her when she has done something wrong,never slapped her and never will.
 
phonemonkey said:
Couldn't you apply that principle to any justify any aspect of a parents behaviour towards their child? Including sexual abuse.

I hope you can see from that example that sometimes what a person does with their child is very much the business of any decent person.
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum

There is a vast difference between sexual assault and a minor slap to correct a minor.
 
I wouldn't slap a strike a stranger for doing something wrong nor stupid, so why would you hit your child, whom you (apparently, despite striking them) love.
 
Children need boundries, and at a real early age when they are still learning the only real way to set these boundries is with operant conditioning. It's pretty black and white and easy to understand. Do something bad, negative effect. Do something, good positive. All children can relate to this at any age. (whether that be smack or shouting at)

I am not a parent, I can sit here and say I will never smack my child. But I feel I will just be lying to myself. I was smacked as a kid and it did me no harm, and looking back on it now it worked, and there were times I pushed my parents and was a brat.

For those shouting abuse, there is a quantum leap from smacking a child when he/she is misbehaving and after warnings, then actual physical abuse that should be met with jail time. Let's not water down the latter because some people feel they are whiter than white and anyone who smacks a child is a child abuser.
 
Oh look, it's this thread again!

I've never needed to slap my kids, but having mellowed since the last time this topic was raised I do understand that some kids def. do need a smack on the backside.
 
Something Else said:
Reductio ad absurdum

There is a vast difference between sexual assault and a minor slap to correct a minor.
Click to expand...

I never said there wasn't. I was responding to the idea that a parent has the right to do whatever they like with their child without recourse.

Of course I wouldn't intervene if I saw a parent lightly smacking the hands of a toddler who was trying to stick their fingers in a socket. That doesn't mean that the parent has the right to do what they like with that child without being challenged if they step over the line though does it?
 
Rilot said:
My order of discipline:

Tell not to do something
Explain why I don't want them to do something
Warn that if they continue to do it, there will be consequences
Threaten consequences that can be followed though on (take away TV time, slap on the legs etc. Using something you can't follow through with - such as not going to disneyland this year - is counter productive)
Follow through with consequences

I do use a light slap on the bottom or legs as a last resort. Not enough to leave a mark or actually hurt but enough to shock. I've only had to do this twice in 10 years though. Normally raising my voice is enough.
Click to expand...

This is a similar system my parents used when raising me and my sister and I don't see anything wrong with it.
 
Spook187 said:
I think it's different now days given the the generation change from like my days of old fashioned values where the belt was brought out as a deterrent to show that's what you get if you step out of line, look at the past with caning in schools it brought discipline, not saying that was right mind you.
Click to expand...

I remember my grandfather telling a story about his classmate grabbing the cane as it hit his hand and giving the teacher a whack.

I don't think it brought that much discipline, judging by some of the stories he's told me :D

I mean they didn't have that when I was at school but I do remember having a chalkboard eraser hurled at my face one or two times.
 
Meh, I've smacked my son more than once, but only after going through all other options as someone said above. Its a last resort, but rather that than him brain himself jumping off the sofa/chair/slide/trampoline/anything. He is especially prone to hurting himself this way - he's somewhat oafish like that haha.

He used to get very over-excited and wouldn't listen or respond often whilst running around, so after exhausting all other options a light smack to get his attention then sit on the naughty step to calm down did the job. Wish I didnt have to do it, but sometimes it was the only way to get through to him.

Almost 5 now and we've not had to do it for a long time - he's a really lovely lad now, always getting positive feedback about being polite and really friendly from his school/friends parents. I hope I wont have to do it again, but dont feel bad about having to in the past. For those who read this and are thinking "your should have done this, you should have done that" I've not had to do it to his little sister at all and we bring them up the same way. If you've not had a toddler/child that behaves like that, be glad of that fact, dont be quick to judge.
 
Last edited:
IA smack was only ever a last resort and it was only where harm was going to be the end result of not intervening - someone else hurt, the child harmed etc. Theres a difference between hurt and harm and when the child does not know the difference you have to intervene.

Would you let a child touch a cactus? I did. Because no matter what I told them, they still wanted to touch. They cried. They didn't do it again. Are they traumatised by cactuses now? Nope, but they don't play with them either.

Would you let a child touch an electric fire? No way. And a smack was what they got if they persisted. Because the alternative was a severe burn and probable scarring for life.

I haven't changed my stance on either.
 
Using violence as a method of control simply teaches a child that it's acceptable to use violence as a tool to get your own way.

Not a great thing to teach a child tbh.

Saying that, it is worth making a true distinction between the regular use of physical violence as a method of discipline to using it in extreme circumstances, my main concern is the average person being the insufferable moron they are is likely to consider the situation extreme when in reality it's the end result of more bad parenting.
 
I think there is a time, A place but also a certain level of severity to what is acceptable.

Obviously if your kid is throwing a tantrum in a Supermarket as they want something smacking this child is not acceptable as they haven't really done anything wrong. But if your child has gone up to another and slapped them or bitten them then I believe a slap (I do not mean with all your strength) that is strong enough to shock but not hurt the child can be necessary. Admittedly I do not have kids but do have a 5 year old brother who is an absolute nightmare as he does not get punished and only ever gets his own way. We were at lego land the other week and he ran up to me and out rightly told me he was going to "punch me in the willy" It barely even registered what he had said before he did it, My dad did nothing (I am unsure as to whether he heard or saw what happened) but I shouted at him and slapped his bum then firmly told him he must never do that to anyone again for no reason.
 
I don't believe a smack on the arse is violence.
A beating is violent. A mugging is violent. An armed robbery is violent.

A smack on the arse is just unpleasant.
For everyone involved unless they're odd.
 
skyripper said:
I don't believe a smack on the arse is violence.
A beating is violent. A mugging is violent. An armed robbery is violent.

A smack on the arse is just unpleasant.
For everyone involved unless they're odd.
Click to expand...
So would you describe a child which smacks other kids as a violent child?.
 
elmarko said:
So would you describe a child which smacks other kids as a violent child?.
Click to expand...

Well actually, no.

Remembering that a smack is somewhat less forceful than a hit, a child doing that to another is not being violent; they are merely strongly admonishing. Though they would, of course, need to be told that it is not their place to smack another child (it's for mummies and daddies)
 
cheesyboy said:
Well actually, no.

Remembering that a smack is somewhat less forceful than a hit, a child doing that to another is not being violent; they are merely strongly admonishing. Though they would, of course, need to be told that it is not their place to smack another child (it's for mummies and daddies)
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the term violent simply has to fit the criteria of the standard definition.

"Using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." - " Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:"

Assuming the child intention is to hurt then does it not fit the above definitions?, from what I recall the term admonishing isn't synonymous to any other terms which imply the physical - just psychological or verbal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom