Smack or not?

[hovis]

Thing is hovis, I have always said that the punishment should be part of the deterrent. On that basis does smacking a child become an acceptable deterrent ?

If you experience pain and shock then that becomes a deterrent. I've only ever touched an electric fence once!!!

If you can discipline a child without smacking then fantastic. An eg would be my nephew. You could beat him black and blue but he would still misbehave. Stop him from playing football for a week he becomes a model citizen

 

[guest100718]

More people are going down the route of crystal meth nowadays, Smack is so noughties

yeah brown is old hat these days

 

[richart]

Sorry to be a pedant Alex, but i think you are missing something i have been quite clear on:

violence
ˈvʌɪəl(&#601ns/Submit
noun
1.
behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something


The 'smack' would be there with the intention to shock, as i have said all the way through, there is not the force or intention there to hurt, its there to shock.

Think we may have to agree to disagree!! ;-)

The smack needs to be instant, so the child knows why they have received it. Doesn't have to hurt, just the shock will do.

Never held with punishment being given long after the event. That reminds me too much of Tom Brown's school days.

 

[woody69]

I think you have to be sick in the head to want to smack a child because it makes you feel better or prove your the man of the house. I smaked my daughter on the back of the hand last month and it broke my heart to see her upset. however, she seemed to have learned that hitting and bitting is not acceptable and hasn't done it since. So as much as it hurt me to do it i hope its made her a better person for the future .

As for alternative methods, kids are stupid . Look at the animal Kingdom . How many lions put their cubs on a naughty step?

Is this supposed to be ironic?

 

[woody69]

As with Hovis, I got the occasional smack as a child, but I've not once raised my fists in anger, never had a fight in 46yrs on this planet.

To a degree it is all semantics regarding the words violence, violent, smacking, people will spin them to however they see necessary to make their point. The point in question is whether smacking a child should be illegal, but there is more to it than that, smacking a child to shock them out of an action may be necessary, but the action of smacking must not leave a mark on the child, if it does then it becomes a violent act.

Leaving you handprint on a child's leg is wrong, a parent that does that needs to take a look in the mirror, that is abuse.

The purpose of smacking a child is not to harm or maim, leave a mark, but to protect, to induce a shock that breaks a repeated pattern, to stop them from doing something that may harm them if they continued.

Perhaps in your ideal world where the only resort left to stop a child doing something that may harm them is to give them a gentle tap across their ear / legs or whatever then we'd all be OK. However, smacking is rarely done in this way. It is usually out of frustration from the parent and they end up hitting them far harder than they intended.

My son drives me nuts some days, but there are far more effective ways to break this so called repeated pattern you keep talking about and stopping them from doing something that may harm them (other than the gently clip around the ear of course)

 

[Hobbit]

there are far more effective ways to break this so called repeated pattern you keep talking about and stopping them from doing something that may harm them (other than the gently clip around the ear of course)

What is this far more effective method? There's a lot of posts saying smacking is wrong, for all sorts of reasons. But how about some positive examples of what else works.

 

[Blue in Munich]

What is this far more effective method? There's a lot of posts saying smacking is wrong, for all sorts of reasons. But how about some positive examples of what else works.

Beat me to it……...

 

[bluewolf]

What is this far more effective method? There's a lot of posts saying smacking is wrong, for all sorts of reasons. But how about some positive examples of what else works.

I've been fortunate enough never to have felt the need to physically discipline either of my kids. They usually know when they're about to get in trouble just by the tone of my voice.

In my ever so humble opinion, the real problem with discipline is that it isn't actually carried out fully. If your kids know that the week you've just grounded them will only last a few hours. Or the ban from the X Box will last less than a day, then you're failing to teach the child.

Oh, and I was "physically disciplined" as a child. Quite badly on occasion. What it taught me was that fear is just as effective as respect, but it also nearly destroyed my relationship with my parents, and has affected my ability to make/keep friends.

I appreciate that the thread is talking about a gentle smack, but one persons smack is another persons punch. I'd rather parents had the option taken away and were instead taught about effective discipline without the need for a smack.

 

[Rooter]

The smack needs to be instant, so the child knows why they have received it. Doesn't have to hurt, just the shock will do.

Never held with punishment being given long after the event. That reminds me too much of Tom Brown's school days.

I did say I was out but was chatting to Al over pm and I mentioned this. You are right rich, if you have to think whether to smack or not, it's too late and is pre meditated. It has to be an instant reaction to shock the child out of the extreme behaviour they are displaying.

Someone earlier said they had to wait 4 hours for dad to get home for punishment, his was a chat, but if that dad came home and smacked the kid, that's not cricket.. That's abuse.

 

[SatchFan]

I think Bluewolf has hit the nail on the head. The punishment has to be carried out 100%. A week without a games console means a week and not two days. Same goes for no TV in the room, no smartphone, no sweets and no trip to McDonalds, although the last two would be advisable on health grounds anyway.

 

[c1973]

Smacking is sooooooo wrong. The pain the child experiences can't be measured by the person disciplining the child.

Much, much better to go down the mental torture route by depriving the child of contact with friends and social interaction by false imprisonment (sorry, grounding them) and stealing (sorry, removing access to) phone, tablet, computer etc.

No way does that do more short/medium/long term damage than the brutal assault of a smack on the bottom/back of the hand.


Won't somebody think of the children! 😱

 

[Khamelion]

Perhaps in your ideal world where the only resort left to stop a child doing something that may harm them is to give them a gentle tap across their ear / legs or whatever then we'd all be OK. However, smacking is rarely done in this way. It is usually out of frustration from the parent and they end up hitting them far harder than they intended.

There is no ideal world where a child should be smacked and we're not talking about abuse, which a lot of the retorts in this thread have alluded to. To smack a child has to be the last resort, it has to be for a reason, for arguments sake something the child is repetedly doing after several verbal warnings, something where the child is endangering themselves. I agree there are better solutions, the removal of a favourite item, stopping them going somewhere or playing out with mates for x period of time, but the latter here are punishments a smack should not be a punishment, telling a child, "just wait until your father gets home" and then getting smacked does not serve any purpose other than to breed resentment and fear in the child. The smack as written above in other posts has to be an instant response to an act the child is doing that requires immediate action, again as written above, where the child continues to bite for example.

As others have written, it would be good to read some examples of the far more effective ways of positive reinforcement that are used to break a repeated pattern.

 

[Deleted member 18121]

I was never hit by my parents, nor would I ever hit my son. Ever.

Physical abuse isn't a way to educate a child about life's right and wrongs.

 

[Khamelion]

I was never hit by my parents, nor would I ever hit my son. Ever.

Physical abuse isn't a way to educate a child about life's right and wrongs.

Smacking a child without leaving a mark when the circumstances warrant it is not physical abuse.

Smacking a child to make you feel good, or which leaves a mark is physical abuse, this thread is about the former not the latter.

 

[Deleted member 18121]

I 100% disagree. You lay hands on a child then it is physical abuse, you're inflicting violence on someone who can't protect themselves.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I 100% disagree. You lay hands on a child then it is physical abuse, you're inflicting violence on someone who can't protect themselves.

So are you saying that when my dad clip me round the ear or smacked my ass with a slipper to give me a short sharp shock he was "inflicting violence and physical abuse on me" ?!?!

 

[stevelev]

So are you saying that when my dad clip me round the ear or smacked my ass with a slipper to give me a short sharp shock he was "inflicting violence and physical abuse on me" ?!?!

People pay for that with a slipper now, and even dress as a school kid for effect... How times change

 

[davidy233]

There is no ideal world where a child should be smacked and we're not talking about abuse, which a lot of the retorts in this thread have alluded to. To smack a child has to be the last resort, it has to be for a reason, for arguments sake something the child is repetedly doing after several verbal warnings, something where the child is endangering themselves. I agree there are better solutions, the removal of a favourite item, stopping them going somewhere or playing out with mates for x period of time, but the latter here are punishments a smack should not be a punishment, telling a child, "just wait until your father gets home" and then getting smacked does not serve any purpose other than to breed resentment and fear in the child. The smack as written above in other posts has to be an instant response to an act the child is doing that requires immediate action, again as written above, where the child continues to bite for example.

As others have written, it would be good to read some examples of the far more effective ways of positive reinforcement that are used to break a repeated pattern.

Really scary that people still think it's OK to hit a wee child

 

[SocketRocket]

Homo Sapiens are animals, they may have big brains and like to think they are above nature but all the same they are an animal. All animals (especially mammals) use a level of force to maintain discipline so that the species can live in an ordered society. The level of force used is not normally more than necessary to maintain this order such that the species and group can continue to live in a structured society.

Ignore this natural instinct and the result will be chaotic.

 

[The Green Fairy]

So smacking, is physical abuse and should be unlawful?
How about indoctrination and brainwashing a child by threats of violence, death even, as a methodology for bringing up a child to believe in a specific cult.
Smacking doesn't even come close to the mental fears that are allowed to be instilled by religion.
When the do-gooders sort that one out, then I will agree that we have moved on from truly barbaric ways of reprimanding an unruly child, like a quick slap on the leg.