To smack or not to smack....that is the question!

[ElectricFetus]

Why would I want to inflict that kind of pain (or any other type of pain) on my kids?:bugeye:

The "smack" was not meant to inflict pain. If it is, it is no longer a "smack" but would classify as a beating.

Your too worried about inflicting pain and not worried enough about your child repeating what they did, for example (true story) if you tell your child repeatedly not to leave the gate to the stirs open because a younger sibling could roll down the sirs, your child does it anyways and a younger child rolls down the stirs and knocks out a few teeth, best once you jam the teeth back in and call an ambulance, to take off your belt and administer it, that mistake will never be done again. Of course you could just give a stern talking to and than next time the gate is left open the younger child dies.

I'm not advocating corporal punishment for everything, only when all else fails or the importance on not repeating that mistake cannot be stressed more.

 

[madanthonywayne]

EF that isnt how most parents work though. Mostly it goes this way

Parent "dont do this"
kid "but why mummy"
Parent "because i told you to and if you do i will knock your block off"

and people wonder why kids do the exact oposite.

Parents who threaten to "knock your block off" never do it, that's why the kids do the opposite.

The most important thing is consistency. The children must know that there will be consequences to bad actions. Spanking is, by far, the most effective method for small children. It's simple, it's quick, and they all do not like it. I've seen children in time out dancing around thinking it's playtime.

You need to teach them to obey when they're young, and they won't give you much trouble as they get older. Let a small child get away with stuff, and you'll have a monster on your hands when he/she gets older.

Spank them when they're young, take away priviledges as they get older.

As far as spanking teaching them to use violence, I say it's crap. It just teaches them the real life lesson that if you act like a jackass, you're liable to get smacked.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Well I would not smack a child for everything on the first error, but Anthony is right about consistency, you must be as consistent as humanly possible. I know that elevating punishment level per offense and scale of offense is affective and specific to the child, some children may never need the higher punishment levels, others are genetic assholes, and the only way to cure genetic assholitry is through nurture and a belt. But most of all you need to be consistent, if you warn them that the next time they do that your going the spank them, you better not go back on that promise. If you put them in time out and tell them to stay their for 10 minutes, you better make sure they stay their for 10 minutes!

Also not only punish the bad with negative reinforcement, but reward the good with positive reinforcement. Only using one form of reinforcement will not be as affective as both.

 

[Bells]

Your too worried about inflicting pain and not worried enough about your child repeating what they did, for example (true story) if you tell your child repeatedly not to leave the gate to the stirs open because a younger sibling could roll down the sirs, your child does it anyways and a younger child rolls down the stirs and knocks out a few teeth, best once you jam the teeth back in and call an ambulance, to take off your belt and administer it, that mistake will never be done again. Of course you could just give a stern talking to and than next time the gate is left open the younger child dies.

I'm not advocating corporal punishment for everything, only when all else fails or the importance on not repeating that mistake cannot be stressed more.

Err if either of my kids hurt themselves to the point where an ambulance had to be called, the ambulance would take precedence over any form of punishment. Call me weird, but my children's health and wellbeing takes precedence over a spanking or anything else for that matter. I would imagine the fear of seeing a younger sibling hurt to the extent where an ambulance had to be called and the child rushed to hospital would be punishment enough. If my eldest hurt his younger brother to such an extent, the injuries to my youngest child would come first and any discipline would come after we were assured that the younger child was safe and well. I would hardly smack my child as my youngest lay at the bottom of the stairs and then call an ambulance. Priorities and all that.

As I said, smacking is seen as the last resort in our household. Extreme and bad behaviour that is repeated and the lesson that has not been learned in the past is evaluated and if a light smack on the backside is deemed necessary, it is given. So far it has worked. Biting is something all children do and he was testing his boundaries and he found out he had gone too far. Again, hitting him was the last resort and will remain as such. He usually listens when we tell him not to do something or to do something (eg, putting his toys away). He is generally a well behaved child. Sometimes he gets over excited (usually when over tired) and that's when he has the tendency to misbehave. We counter that by making sure he gets the sleep he needs. Kids also tend to misbehave when they are bored, so we do what we can to make sure he's not bored. So we take each incident as it comes and deal with it as necessary. I'd said before that I can't say he won't be smacked again.. it's on a case by case basis. If it warrants it, then he'll get that light smack on his backside, told off and then sent to his room. To be honest, he finds getting told off and sent to his room and his toys removed from said room more upsetting than the one smack he did get.

Inflicting pain on a child is not teaching them any lessons. If you're hitting a child hard enough (like on the bottom of their feet ..?..) that it causes them long lasting pain or scarring, that's no longer a smack but is outright child abuse. I mean for goodness sake, he's two and a half. I'm not going to lie him down, and smack him with it on the soles of his bare feet. The pain he would feel would be excruciating. That wouldn't teach him anything. That would just inflict pain and there's no way I would do that to my kids.

My parents always kept "the smack" as the last resort and it worked for me. I wasn't just smacked for anything. It was only for when I did something really bad a third time (after being warned the first two times) that I got a smack on my backside. And I was not spanked after the age of like 6 or something because I knew what my boundaries were.

In our household, if he throws a car or toy at someone, as one example, he gets to watch us as we throw said car or toy in the rubbish bin. And he doesn't get it back. If he does it again, he loses that toy as well. And he's learning that if he likes a toy, he throws it, he loses it instantly. It's working so far. If he hits someone else, he gets sent to his room and his toys removed. I really don't see the value in hitting a child to teach him not to hit for example. As I said, each case is different and is dealt with differently. If he needs a smack, he'll get one. But not to inflict pain. That's just wrong in my opinion.

 

[Tiassa]

I'm going to disagree

Parents who threaten to "knock your block off" never do it, that's why the kids do the opposite.

Are you suggesting that if the parent follows through on the threat, the kids will obey?

I suppose you're right. I have a friend who is trying to raise his kids without violence. It's a mighty task, all things considered; he's conditioned by his own father to parental violence. And you're right. It worked. He finally got the message and quit using meth and heroin sometime in his thirties. That was before I knew him. And since he hit forty, he quit drinking, changed his diet, and started exercising. All those thrashings from his father finally paid off, eh?

Maybe he'll quit smoking pot and cigarettes, and make his father proud.

As far as spanking teaching them to use violence, I say it's crap. It just teaches them the real life lesson that if you act like a jackass, you're liable to get smacked.

You might have a point, depending on how broadly we define "jackass". For instance, if we take it to mean, "Acting in any manner that irritates or annoys another person, whether or not you know it or understand why," then maybe you're onto something.

However, in the same vein, you are teaching the child to smack people they think are jackasses.

Violence is merely a cruel convenience. No matter how much the politicians and civic leaders extol the virtues of "family", the reality is that people don't believe they have the time to train and condition children in other ways.

My daughter broke one of her toys the other day despite her mother's repeated warnings that if she kept using it that way, she would break it. In my day, that was the kind of thing that got a kid smacked for being a jackass. We don't use violence, though. Apparently, she waited patiently until her mother finished picking all the broken glass off her and said, "I shouldn't have dropped it."

And I admit, when you have a kid that's just that damn cool, you do have some extra time to wonder about the merits of a toy cel-phone that opens up to reveal lip gloss and a mirror.

One of the problems is that too many people think in simple dualisms: either you beat the child or you're coddling and spoiling her. There is a middle ground. It's just not always so easy to see. But then again, children are important to us, and most parents would say they would "do anything" for their kids. Great; let's try to prove it.

 

[EmmZ]

Yeah, smack the little sods, that'll teach 'em! I can't abide these lefties who talk about guiding their children into good and decent people by the use of non-violence and patience. It's all a load of bleeding heart liberalism. A "good smack" never hurt no one. In fact why stop there? Get the cane back in school, that's what I say! Let other people do your dirty work for you. Heck, we could even bring back capital punishment too. [Although some right-thinking places still do] Ahh, "Spare the rod, spoil the child" now where did I see that... Oh yes, well... um.

 

[Asguard]

smacking is the avinue of the lasy, there are better means of punishment avilalable. Lets look at what most kids are after when the "play up"

What is it they are trying to achive?
Atention from there parents or others.

So then if what they want is atention then smacking them is giving them exactly what they want

Whats the alternitive?
Withdraw atention when they do something you DONT want them to do and restoring atention when they do what you DO want them to do. If a kid throws a tantrum in a supermarket WALK AWAY. The kid wont sit on the floor crying for long if they know it wont get them anywhere. The problem with this is it takes time and effort and other people screw it up by trying to comfert the child.

The same goes at home or anywhere else. Put them in a room with 4 walls (and nothing they can break) and nothing to do until they apologise and eventually they will get the message.

I can compleatly understand bells case though because i had the same problem with a dog that was biting my cat and the only way to get it to let go was violonce but under normal circumstances seclusion works WAY better than physical abuse. Hell if you want to get creative put a driping tap outside the door so that all they can hear is time going by. As for teenages negotiation is going to work better than punishement because by that time you have little physical control over them anyway. Hell most 15 year olds could probably hit there parents back as hard as they hit them. Parenting by that stage is more about guidance than enforcement anyway (or should be) so show them WHY certian activities are a bad idea and expect them to fuck up. Let them come to you when they do and understand there mestakes.

Oh and for those who advocate vilonce a lesson on the law. If you leave a red mark or use ANYTHING other than your hands then you have comited criminal assult and YOUR the ones who will be punished.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Err if either of my kids hurt themselves to the point where an ambulance had to be called, the ambulance would take precedence over any form of punishment. Call me weird, but my children's health and wellbeing takes precedence over a spanking or anything else for that matter. I would imagine the fear of seeing a younger sibling hurt to the extent where an ambulance had to be called and the child rushed to hospital would be punishment enough. If my eldest hurt his younger brother to such an extent, the injuries to my youngest child would come first and any discipline would come after we were assured that the younger child was safe and well. I would hardly smack my child as my youngest lay at the bottom of the stairs and then call an ambulance. Priorities and all that.

You miss understood the situation: all assistance to the younger child was completed (in fact the younger child never went to the hospital, the teeth re-grafted) but while the younger child was sitting there with bags of ice on its teeth and the dentist grandfather saying "this should work" it was time to commence epic punishment.

As I said, smacking is seen as the last resort in our household. Extreme and bad behaviour that is repeated and the lesson that has not been learned in the past is evaluated and if a light smack on the backside is deemed necessary, it is given. So far it has worked. Biting is something all children do and he was testing his boundaries and he found out he had gone too far. Again, hitting him was the last resort and will remain as such. He usually listens when we tell him not to do something or to do something (eg, putting his toys away). He is generally a well behaved child. Sometimes he gets over excited (usually when over tired) and that's when he has the tendency to misbehave. We counter that by making sure he gets the sleep he needs. Kids also tend to misbehave when they are bored, so we do what we can to make sure he's not bored. So we take each incident as it comes and deal with it as necessary. I'd said before that I can't say he won't be smacked again.. it's on a case by case basis. If it warrants it, then he'll get that light smack on his backside, told off and then sent to his room. To be honest, he finds getting told off and sent to his room and his toys removed from said room more upsetting than the one smack he did get.

I don't disagree with this, elevating level of punishment, etc, but do note ever child is different, your child is not the universal standard of children! There are children that never need a "last resort" and their and children were "the last resort" is not enough and the child still repeats. I've seen them both, the angel, the demon, and all thing in between, and each needed to be raised differently and adaptively as they grew.

Inflicting pain on a child is not teaching them any lessons. If you're hitting a child hard enough (like on the bottom of their feet with a cane..?..) that it causes them long lasting pain or scarring, that's no longer a smack but is outright child abuse. I mean for goodness sake, he's two and a half. I'm not going to lie him down, get a cane and smack him with it on the soles of his bare feet. The pain he would feel would be excruciating. That wouldn't teach him anything. That would just inflict pain and there's no way I would do that to my kids.

First of all, you don't know what will teach them until you need to try. How to classify child abuse is a whole different issue for a different thread. Third your incapable of tough love, I hope your child never needs it or your going to end up with a died child.

My parents always kept "the smack" as the last resort and it worked for me. I wasn't just smacked for anything. It was only for when I did something really bad a third time (after being warned the first two times) that I got a smack on my backside. And I was not spanked after the age of like 6 or something because I knew what my boundaries were.

In our household, if he throws a car or toy at someone, as one example, he gets to watch us as we throw said car or toy in the rubbish bin. And he doesn't get it back. If he does it again, he loses that toy as well. And he's learning that if he likes a toy, he throws it, he loses it instantly. It's working so far. If he hits someone else, he gets sent to his room and his toys removed. I really don't see the value in hitting a child to teach him not to hit for example. As I said, each case is different and is dealt with differently. If he needs a smack, he'll get one. But not to inflict pain. That's just wrong in my opinion.

Again each child is different and is dealt with differently. What wrong for you may not be legally wrong or may not even be the be a universally applicable position to take in any specific situation, for example you my find it wrong to lie, but you may need to lie to the gestapo to save another's life ("The jew ran *point in opposite direction* that way!). All things being relative.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Tiassa

Your example is antidotel, nor does it prove cause and affect, the child may have became a drug addict no matter the parenting. Likewise the columbine kids were never spanked, should I blame non-violent punishment?

Does violence make children violent? Surely some child equate it that way, other children equate it as "If I do X, I get pain, better not do X" or "If I hit, I'll get hit back", as the child get older the though process gets more advance but for starts 'pain from doing X' may just be what is needed to start the thought process off. Some children even equate it oppositely eventually: never would they do what their parents did to them... and then the grandchildren are fucking awful monsters.

Asguard,

Some children may want attention, some may just want to throw rocks at other children, etc, to each their own punishment strategy.

Ever heard of the punishment closet, I think the last time was had one of these corporeal punishment thread many years ago, genius idea! Just gut a closet, put the child into it, lock the door.

 

[Bells]

You miss understood the situation: all assistance to the younger child was completed (in fact the younger child never went to the hospital, the teeth re-grafted) but while the younger child was sitting there with bags of ice on its teeth and the dentist grandfather saying "this should work" it was time to commence epic punishment.

By which time, the young child will have forgotten what the punishment is for. The problem with small children is that they are simply unable to assign the punishment given at a later time to the incident they are being punished for. For example, lets say a child does something bad and another child is hurt as a result and needs medical care. A couple of hours down the track when you are able to punish the small child, that child won't be able to connect the punishment and the 'crime' together to understand that is what they are being punished for. Any punishment, when needed, needs to be given immediately after the bad behaviour, so they can connect the two.

I don't disagree with this, elevating level of punishment, etc, but do note ever child is different, your child is not the universal standard of children! There are children that never need a "last resort" and their and children were "the last resort" is not enough and the child still repeats. I've seen them both, the angel, the demon, and all thing in between, and each needed to be raised differently and adaptively as they grew.

Of course every child is different. My eldest son, for example, is vastly different to what I was like as a child. I was a horror if my memory serves me well. And yes, there are probably children for who the "last resort" is not a viable option. But again, it takes trial and error.. it mostly takes time. Our second child is already displaying a lot more assertiveness and looks like the trouble maker compared to his older brother. He is only 1 and the child already looks like he's going to be a little devil. But so far, he does generally listen when we tell him no. If he stands up in his bath for example, we say "sit down", he sits down immediately. If he goes to hit his brother or pull his brother's hair, we say stop and he stops immediately. But there will come a time when he will test his boundaries and we'll deal with it as it comes. He may end up being a child who listens, or he may not. I can't say now how we'll handle each situation, because we can't know what situations may arise.

First of all, you don't know what will teach them until you need to try. How to classify child abuse is a whole different issue for a different thread. Third your incapable of tough love, I hope your child never needs it or your going to end up with a died child.

You don't know what I am and am not capable of.

If my child needs "tough love", he'll get it regardless. Just because I don't see the need to hit my child's bare soles until it stings, does not mean I am incapable of disciplining my child as the situation warrants. And yes, I view causing a child pain and suffering (even under the guise of discipline) as being abusive. Marking a child and causing so much pain that they aren't able to walk properly is child abuse.

My father was a strict parent and he was the one who generally smacked me.. he was my primary caregiver for a greater part of my childhood while my mother worked. And not once did he ever leave a mark on me. I've seen him jump his best friend after he saw his friend pound into his son to the point where the child peed and poo'ed his pants, leaving great welts on his body.. my father tackled the child's father to the ground to get him off the child. There is discipline and there is child abuse. If you're inflicting so much pain on a child that they lose control of their bodily functions or they aren't able to walk, sit or stand, then yes, that is child abuse. If I ever did that to either of my children, my parents would probably have me locked up, not to mention my husband and other family members.

There is a vast difference between abusive behaviour and discipline. But that divide can also be quite small, depending on how one decides to discipline one's child.

You may consider me to be a bad parent because I won't hit my son's bare feet so that it stings and hurt and causes him pain.. so be it... your prerogative. And seeing that one usually disciplines a child after the act, not before, your advice of my killing my child by not hitting him hard enough or with a cane is kind of pointless.

Again each child is different and is dealt with differently. What wrong for you may not be legally wrong or may not even be the be a universally applicable position to take in any specific situation, for example you my find it wrong to lie, but you may need to lie to the gestapo to save another's life ("The jew ran *point in opposite direction* that way!). All things being relative.

I agree. Each child and situation is different and one cannot apply a blanket rule of discipline to cover each child and situation.

 

[Asguard]

ElectricFetus there is a slight problem with using a closert and thats clostriphobia and lack of ventilation. The punishment is MENT to be bordum and emotional rather than sufercating the child or making them piss themselves with fear (wether imidiatly or in the future when they get into small area's)

 

[ElectricFetus]

ElectricFetus there is a slight problem with using a closert and thats clostriphobia and lack of ventilation. The punishment is MENT to be bordum and emotional rather than sufercating the child or making them piss themselves with fear (wether imidiatly or in the future when they get into small area's)

the closet was meant to be a exaggeration, but you can using a grated door and also there is no better cure for a phobia then forced exposure.

 

[Asguard]

actually there is no better CAUSE of clostrophobia than being locked in a small confined space for an indefinit peroid of time when. For instance people who get trapped in elivators tend to end up with clostrophobia. Its only when the person can reexert some control over the situation that they lose there phobia.

Empty bedroom is a MUCH better solution

 

[ElectricFetus]

By which time, the young child will have forgotten what the punishment is for. The problem with small children is that they are simply unable to assign the punishment given at a later time to the incident they are being punished for. For example, lets say a child does something bad and another child is hurt as a result and needs medical care. A couple of hours down the track when you are able to punish the small child, that child won't be able to connect the punishment and the 'crime' together to understand that is what they are being punished for. Any punishment, when needed, needs to be given immediately after the bad behaviour, so they can connect the two.

Again you assume the age and nature of the child. The child is not that young and this is not long enough after the offense. Stop making excuses, your basically stating never is never, never say never when raising a child!

Of course every child is different. My eldest son, for example, is vastly different to what I was like as a child. I was a horror if my memory serves me well. And yes, there are probably children for who the "last resort" is not a viable option. But again, it takes trial and error.. it mostly takes time. Our second child is already displaying a lot more assertiveness and looks like the trouble maker compared to his older brother. He is only 1 and the child already looks like he's going to be a little devil. But so far, he does generally listen when we tell him no. If he stands up in his bath for example, we say "sit down", he sits down immediately. If he goes to hit his brother or pull his brother's hair, we say stop and he stops immediately. But there will come a time when he will test his boundaries and we'll deal with it as it comes. He may end up being a child who listens, or he may not. I can't say now how we'll handle each situation, because we can't know what situations may arise.

We aren't disagreeing, perhaps we are nitpicking?

You don't know what I am and am not capable of.

You stated what you would not do, but if you will do it if the time comes... well can't say you won't only that you claim you won't.

If my child needs "tough love", he'll get it regardless. Just because I don't see the need to hit my child's bare soles with a cane until it stings, does not mean I am incapable of disciplining my child as the situation warrants. And yes, I view causing a child pain and suffering (even under the guise of discipline) as being abusive. Marking a child and causing so much pain that they aren't able to walk properly is child abuse.

I never said you need to hit your "hit your child's bare soles with a cane until it stings". Only "tough love" may very well be something like that or something you at present regard as abusive, but you would do it regardless so I think my point is taken.

My father was a strict parent and he was the one who generally smacked me.. he was my primary caregiver for a greater part of my childhood while my mother worked. And not once did he ever leave a mark on me. I've seen him jump his best friend after he saw his friend pound into his son to the point where the child peed and poo'ed his pants, leaving great welts on his body.. my father tackled the child's father to the ground to get him off the child. There is discipline and there is child abuse. If you're inflicting so much pain on a child that they lose control of their bodily functions or they aren't able to walk, sit or stand, then yes, that is child abuse. If I ever did that to either of my children, my parents would probably have me locked up, not to mention my husband and other family members.

I don't think what your describe is valid to this thread, this thread is about corporal punishment, which may need not involve "marking" the child, or causing lasting damage, or cause "lose of bodily functions" or any other red harring your presented. A simple spanking does none of those things.

There is a vast difference between abusive behaviour and discipline. But that divide can also be quite small, depending on how one decides to discipline one's child.

You may consider me to be a bad parent because I won't hit my son's bare feet with a cane so that it stings and hurt and causes him pain.. so be it... your prerogative. And seeing that one usually disciplines a child after the act, not before, your advice of my killing my child by not hitting him hard enough or with a cane is kind of pointless.

I never said your a bad parent, I was simply giving alternative options to spanking the butt, I never said "cane" either, you have been consistently distorting the argument into one that you can win, no arguments need not be competitions nor is a fallacy a winning argument (except in politics).

I agree. Each child and situation is different and one cannot apply a blanket rule of discipline to cover each child and situation.

Then we argee, and even if we were not no reason to put words in my mouth.

 

[ElectricFetus]

actually there is no better CAUSE of clostrophobia than being locked in a small confined space for an indefinit peroid of time when. For instance people who get trapped in elivators tend to end up with clostrophobia. Its only when the person can reexert some control over the situation that they lose there phobia.

Empty bedroom is a MUCH better solution

How big does the bedroom need to be to prevent claustrophobia? By your argument if consent exposure to darkness every night leads to nyctohylophobia, yet millions of children out grow a fear of the dark. A child locked in a closet will not fear it over time. Alternatively a light on the top of the closet and a slated door would provide some visibility or resemblance of the outside world.

 

[Roman]

Is smacking a child wrong?

I say yes, because for me its one step closer to abuse, and if you smack a child they very rarely learn anything from it, a smack is over and done with in seconds, other constructive methods of punishments are not,

i know people who smack they're kids and they're kids, are withdrawn and are very quiet, and not like young children at all, they walk around with they're heads to the ground, and will not dare to look at anyone in the face!

If a child is doing somthing really wrong is it ok, to smack that child?
also, if a child is smacked a lot by the mum and dad, then would that turn the kids into bullies, if its wrong to hit someone then its wrong in either case?

also, what would you smack a child with? a hand? cane? rolled up newspaper? slipper?

So how's the no physical discipline worked out for you? As you tell it, your children sound like brats.

 

[Roman]

EF who ever said profanity was so wrong anyway?

How many adults here use it?
I know i do so it would be hypocritical in the extreem if i disiplened my child for doing it, its like that McCains ad. The girl gets in the car and sticks her tongue out at this boy and the mother asks "wasnt that your friend". The kid responds "no hes a bloody idiot" and the mother responds "how dare you use such filth, where do you pick it up" only to then be cut off by another driver. The mother then windes the window down and shouts "bloody idiot, cant you see i have a kid in the car" and then looks shocked at her daughter.

Its ridiculas that we impose strictures on our childnren that we dont impose on ourselves, if there was less "do as i say not as i do" then kids might actually grow up more the way we expect rather than picking up our OWN bad habits

It's the level of disrespect a child shows his mother in calling her bitch.

 

[Roman]

Bells

Why the butt? My grandfather nello stile di vecchi paesi would smack you on the bottom of the feet. It makes good sense as children feet lack callus, the feet are more sensitive then the butt (especially the toes), its not kinky, and it leaves a real aching pain for some time.

Humiliation, more than pain. Demonstrating to the little one that you are his superior.

 

[Asguard]

respect is earned not expected. To many parents dont EARN the respect of there children and then complain they dont get any.

 

[Roman]

respect is earned not expected. To many parents dont EARN the respect of there children and then complain they dont get any.

Uhhh, no.