Slapping Your Children

Well you're hitting them in both cases, but the difference is the amount of force used.

And there is no age when your parents cannot give you a good slap in my view. If my dad hit me now, I'd be surprised but that is his right as a father and I'd not get him done for assault. My father loves me and I trust that he'd not do so unless I did something extreme and needed the sense knocked into me.

I think there's an important point in there too, trust and certainty that your parents love you is key to understanding what discipline is all about, it's not ruining their fun, taking out your bad day on them, wanting to hurt them or whatever.

I always make sure that after any sort of incident where she's been sent to her room or whatever, we talk about what happened and often the reason I have to discipline her is for her safety, playing with plug sockets, jumping on her top bunk, etc, etc.

I make sure that she knows the reason that i asked her to stop is that i love her and don't want her to get hurt.
 
Threads like this seem a bit stupid neither for or against is going to convince the other. The simple answer when it comes to parenting is "Do what feels right" some kids respond better to a smack than just being talked at, and for some kids, well some kids for just messed up beyond repair
 
Threads like this seem a bit stupid neither for or against is going to convince the other. The simple answer when it comes to parenting is "Do what feels right" some kids respond better to a smack than just being talked at, and for some kids, well some kids for just messed up beyond repair
Instead of doing what feels right - how about doing what's best for the child & the society they will grow up in.
 
Instead of doing what feels right - how about doing what's best for the child & the society they will grow up in.

Who is to say they are not the same thing?

Strong argument for maternal/ paternal instincts that have been developed over millions of years vs strangers telling you, in their opinion, what you should be doing.
 
Who is to say they are not the same thing?

Strong argument for maternal/ paternal instincts that have been developed over millions of years vs strangers telling you, in their opinion, what you should be doing.
Instincts are not always reliable, you should do what is most likely based off reason & observed trends to result in your child having a good overall upbringing.

You make it sound like one persons subjective opinion is in any way equal or even greater than a body of research. People who actually genuinely beat their children hard use that line of reasoning - I'd wager most child abusers simply follow instinct with no greater consideration to the facts at hand.
 
Why is that so hard to believe?

Hitting your child in any manner be it light or hard is physical abuse. If i walked up to you in the street and slapped your partners arse, she could get me done for abuse.

But it didn't leave a mark, it didn't hurt, so what's the problem?

The problem is that my partner is a) an adult b) you're not responsible for her well being and c) why on earth would you be trying to discipline her?
 
But i was heavily abused as a child and i hope to god that i have the strength to never pass that burden onto my kids.

Ah so there we have it. The reason for your stance is based on your past experiences. Funnily enough a lot of people who were occasionally smacked as a child don't see the problem with doing the same to their kids as there's a world of difference between the two things which you can't see because of your experiences.
 
Ah so there we have it. The reason for your stance is based on your past experiences. Funnily enough a lot of people who were occasionally smacked as a child don't see the problem with doing the same to their kids as there's a world of difference between the two things which you can't see because of your experiences.
Not really, the studies do indeed show that severe abuse is much much worse, but it also shows it's negative impacts seem to be linear, increasing in severity with frequency.

The reason he likely feels strongly about it is because of his experience who has led him to investigate further & read up on the subject more than the average person.
 
Instincts are not always reliable, you should do what is most likely based off reason & observed trends to result in your child having a good overall upbringing.

You make it sound like one persons subjective opinion is in any way equal or even greater than a body of research. People who actually genuinely beat their children hard use that line of reasoning - I'd wager most child abusers simply follow instinct with no greater consideration to the facts at hand.

I never said they were, I just said who is to say they aren't?

That's the point, with regards to this matter there is research to back up both sides of the argument.

Crux of the problem is people not being able to differentiate between a smack that shocks, as a last resort, to discipline, and outright abuse / neglect.

Think I summed it up here:

'If you never have to smack your child fantastic. Combination of parenting and having a passive child.
If you have smacked your child, sorry to hear. I know you didn't want to but I hope it brought clarity and developed their understanding.

Ultimately if you have had a child, and you get them to adolescence and they have stayed on the straight and narrow you have succeeded as a parent, smacking or not smacking aside. (if anyone quotes this and then uses the word abuse please remove yourself from this thread, I am not talking about abuse, and anyone who can seriously not draw a line between the two needs a re-think)'
 
Not really, the studies do indeed show that severe abuse is much much worse, but it also shows it's negative impacts seem to be linear, increasing in severity with frequency.

The reason he likely feels strongly about it is because of his experience who has led him to investigate further & read up on the subject more than the average person.

I don't understand what you are disagreeing with in his post?

He didn't deny that severe abuse is much worse? He just commented on his stance on the subject probably came from the fact he was abused as a child. Someone who was actually abused would take a strong stand against any kind of physical discipline to a child, it would be natural. He then went on to explain that because of this unfortunate past, and that he has this strong view against it, it makes it difficult for him to see that a 'smack to shock' does not tantamount to abuse. Where as people who were not abused and were smacked, do not see a 'smack to shock' as abuse. As they were not abused.
 
Do you have kids? I don't. I just want to see what point of view you are coming from.

You use that word abuse. To me, smacking your child as a last resort to discipline them is not abuse. A child crying after they are smacked is most likely down to shock, not actual pain. It's a defence mechanism.

I would agree with the studies if by the word abuse, they mean actual beatings, sexual, constant belittling, etc.

I have 2 kids.
 
LOL, this is funny.

99% of parent's do not want to smack their kids, and when they do, its a light slap. It shocks them, not hurts them.

Did you know up until 1987 open heart surgery was performed on infants without pain relief under the impression they didn't feel pain.

It was proved that they did.

Abusing your child by slapping them, does hurt them.
 
Is that another form of human that a child is not privy too?

Your removing the humanity from the child by labelling it as a child and as such justifying inappropriate actions.

A child is by it's very definition, not an adult. There is no removing of 'humanity' by recognising this fact. Children are like clay; they need to be shaped and moulded.

I think they key point you need to understand is that, most people's parents loved them. Your experience, whilst although not rare, is not common. Assuming of course you suffered severe abuse and not just a few bouts of shouting and the odd slap.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom