Slapping Your Children

[LateX'Dog]

Adults and older children have the ability to make a choice and understand the consequences. If my child constantly wants to touch a hot stove and refuses to listen to me, would I consider a smack for their safety? Yes I would.

I think it's important for parents to enforce boundaries and I hope that good parenting and words of advice will suffice in the vast majority of situations.

As opposed to removing your child from the situation? First thing that comes to mind is abuse.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Actually I'm interested to hear what actions LateX'Dog would have used on my 2 year old version of Damien from The Omen.
How would you have controlled her?

I have no idea what that is.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Context is hugely important. You slap someone on the face and that's assault, you slap someone's hand and that's a high five.

Right, so smacking a person on the legs is abuse, but hitting a child on the legs isn't. Apparently.

 

[RDM]

Nothing wrong with a smack as children don't understand reasoning the same as an adult.
It's a nice threat to have, but I have seldom had to use it.

The threat is enough, which is kind of a win - win situation IMO.

No smack, required and kids that realise there IS a line that shouldn't be crossed.

Personally I would prefer my child not to fear me.

 

[£15]

I am a firm believer that if your child really misbehaves, you have to look no further than your own parenting.

Parents can really dig themselves into a rut by basically being crap parents from day one and letting their child run riot. Children learn from a very early age what they can and cannot get away with and they will take what they can get.

I am very calm with my child and so is my partner. He is as good as gold 99% of the time, unless he is tired or hungry or bored.

I always keep some easy to eat fruit for him, like grapes, blackberries or olives and it works all the time. If he is bored I just get out one of his books which he can learn from. I use one book at the moment with pictures of lots of different types of vehicles and I teach him what they are called. I only started on this book about a month ago and he already knows 26 different types of vehicle and he is only 18 months old.

If I know he is likely going to be tired, I just will not take him into a situation where I cannot put him down if he does.

With all due respect, he's only 18 months old. Try that approach in a few years time and see how far it gets you.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Removing them from harm would work a lot more effectively so why hit them?

Yes and that would be my initial response. If the curiosity meant that they kept putting themselves in danger then you either let them endure the consequences (which could be very detrimental) or you use another technique. That may not include smacking, but in a small number of situations it may make the difference.

At what age does it no longer become acceptable to hit a child to make a point?

Probably at an age when they can understand and endure the consequences of their actions.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Right, so smacking a person on the legs is abuse, but hitting a child on the legs isnt. Apparently.

That's because a parent has the right to lawful chastisement.

 

[LateX'Dog]

With all due respect, he's only 18 months old. Try that approach in a few years time and see how far it gets you.

Thats why you adjust your parenting as they become older. You don't do things that worked when they are 2, when they are 16.

 

[LateX'Dog]

That's because a parent has the right to lawful chastisement.

Ah ok, so labelling it as something else, makes it ok.

So rape is sex? You don't have the permission to smack your child, like you dont have permission to rape someone. But if you label it differently, its ok? (Generic you)

 

[Burnsy2023]

Personally I would prefer my child not to fear me.

I agree. I don't think that just because a parent may have smacked you once or twice in your lifetime, that may lead to a fear of them though.

I also think it's important that the reasons for resorting to a smack are discussed with the child so the understand why you did it. That is just as important as the smack itself as children need to learn from it.

 

[Gimpymoo]

So rape is sex?

And on that point, I shall leave this thread.

 

[RDM]

Yes and that would be my initial response. If the curiosity meant that they kept putting themselves in danger then you either let them endure the consequences (which could be very detrimental) or you use another technique. That may not include smacking, but in a small number of situations it may make the difference.

Such as? I am really struggling to see where hitting a child could make a difference when another method wouldn't work more effectively.

Probably at an age when they can understand and endure the consequences of their actions.

So if they cannot understand or endure the consequences hitting them is acceptable? I just don't see it, if they are too young to understand then hitting really isn't going to help as they won't really understand why you hit them, unless you think one slap is enough to invoke some sort of Pavlovian response?

 

[Domo]

Personally I would prefer my child not to fear me.

Agreed. Occasionally when out and about there's that odd moment every now and then when you see kids flinch at the sight of their parent raising an arm or raising their voice. So sad.

 

[RetiredGreyFox]

I have no idea what that is.

How would you control an uncontrollable 2 year old child who was a danger to herself?
What amazing talents would you have?

Just remember that talking would do no good whether loud or soft.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Ah ok, so labeling it as something else, makes it ok.

So rape is sex? You don't have the permission to smack your child, like you dont have permission to rape someone. But if you label it differently, its ok? (Generic you)

Your argument is ridiculous. So is a high five assault? Your argument would suggest so.

At the end of the day, parents are in a position of authority over children who need boundaries and loving guidance. That's what I intend to provide.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

I work in statistics, any analysis would factor in pre-existing bias unless it was done by utter incompetents.

To determine if the relationship appears causal they will find a sub-set of children with identical characteristics (age, socio-economic class, parental style, education level of parents etc) then compare children like for like to determine if by just adjusting the factors related to physical punishment it because a predictor for later life.

I have also used statistics extensively, in both academia and industry. I wasn't asking how, merely if they had accounted for other potential factors in those papers.

Obviously numerous other factors can cause these issues, nowhere in the study does it say that ALL mental health problems are caused by hitting a child - just that hitting a child overall has the potential to cause adverse side effects.

I'm not sure why people find it so hard to believe that hitting a child is harmful, why on earth of all things would that not have an impact? - or why would that impact be positive?.

I can easily imagine that people who were themselves hit don't want to believe that it has impacted on them, or know people who were hit and don't appear to have been affected. The positive impact is, presumably, manifest in a behavioural change that is beneficial.

It's hardly an outlandish & unrealistic theory - it fits very well with countless other studies which overlap.

Countless ? Here we go again...

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

That's because a parent has the right to lawful chastisement.

It's a VERY thin line, all you smackers better be careful because smacks that result in visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts can result in a prosecution for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or in some cases more serious charges. At the very least you will have social services looking into your childs home-life (and rightly so)

Your argument is ridiculous. So is a high five assault? Your argument would suggest so.

At the end of the day, parents are in a position of authority over children who need boundaries and loving guidance. That's what I intend to provide.

And you're not intelligent or civilized enough to do this without resorting to violence ?? Millions of other parents manage it so I don't see why others cant???!

 

[RDM]

I agree. I don't think that just because a parent may have smacked you once or twice in your lifetime, that may lead to a fear of them though.

I also think it's important that the reasons for resorting to a smack are discussed with the child so the understand why you did it. That is just as important as the smack itself as children need to learn from it.

Have a look at the post I was replying to:

It's a nice threat to have, but I have seldom had to use it.

The threat is enough, which is kind of a win - win situation IMO.

That is using the fear of being hit as a control method. Not really something I want to keep in my parenting toolbox as it were.

 

[Castiel]

How would you control an uncontrollable 2 year old child who was a danger to herself?
What amazing talents would you have?

Just remember that talking would do no good whether loud or soft.

Can you simply not restrain a two year old or remove them from the danger?

It all I ever had to do.

 

[arc@css]

It's interesting to read some comments that refer to child abuse. I wonder if those that think this (and I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad view point), would have come to the same conclusion...say fifteen years ago. Do you think your view has been influenced by something?