If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
there is a HUGE difference between a smack and a beating!
I was asking Mok whether I understood him correctly. He implied that inflicting pain was partly responsible for politeness and respect.
A HUGE difference in the pain inflicted ?
Is pain the only difference you can see between a smack and a beating?
beatings last longer and have more smacks/hits/punches
so yes, a HUGE difference to the pain inflicted#
i`d also say a beating would harm a child mentally
I'd appeal to their developed sense of adult reasoning.
Not forgetting electrodes on my genitals seeker.
What I was wondering, too!
A smack is delivered with the intent to stop a kid misbehaving; a beating is a sustained violent attack whether done when hot-blooded or in cold blood. There is a world of difference.
I wouldn't personally classify giving a child a smack on the bottom as "violence" against it, but it is all very circumstantial of course.
My sister has smacked her children, but extremely rarely, never so that it would actually hurt, and as a shock tactic for something that was particularly naughty. Most of the time the threat "shall I get daddy?" does the trick for when they won't listen, because daddy is an authority figure. Their dad has never hit them ever, that was always my sister's place, because daddy is too big.
As I child I was smacked, personally I don't think I would have responded to anything else, I was very naughty. My brother and sisters were better behaved, so I think it's not always the parent but the personality of the child, I was badly behaved, I wouldn't respond to a verbal telling off all the time, so I got a smack, or a clip round the ear. Sometimes sending to the room works, sometimes it doesn't.
I don't have anything against smacking, but I think there's a massive difference between smacking for shock and attention, and abusing your child.
My point exactly. Seeker asked how i would try to change my friends' behaviour. That's how i answered.
I'm in complete agreement with you.
Yes, I do. Correct behaviour is the behavious which is neither detrimental nor harmful to society or the individual. Bad behaviour is behavious which is damaging to society or the person doing it. Seriously seeker, that was a fucking dumb thing to say. You can argue about perceptions until you're blue in the face but things that people have highlighted so far; Skive sticking objects into sockets and MoK Junior pulling on the cat's tail and picking up various breakables around the house doesn't exactly sound like good behaviour that is going to be of benefit to the individual or society as a whole.
Seriously, I can't believe you just made me explain that.
Why?
Because by smacking your child you are telling them -
1) It's OK to be violent
2) Smacking is what's done when you don't get your own way
As a means of last resort
As a means of last resort.
In a lot of cases, that's true for life.
You know, it would piss me off that some little bastards whos parents smack them at home then come to school and start smacking my kid because they think that's OK, when it's not!
Violence because someone isn't "obeying" is not on, I mean look at like this, if my girlfriend does something that is against the rules I have made for the house, then am I OK to smack her as a last resort if she doesn't follow the rules?
No, it's morally and legally wrong. So why should children be allowed to be assaulted?
Also, if an outright ban is the only way to stop the fuckers who really don't use smacking fairly (I'm not talking about beatings, but you know what I mean) then so be it.
Does this happen? It's been mentioned before, the kids of this generation (who have mainly been grown up not being smacked) are more violent than the kids of yesteryear. I and my mates certainly never went around smacking kids in school and we were all smacked. I don't think you can make that comparison.
Kids don't know the difference between right and wrong at that age, adults do. When an adult makes a mistake they know they are wrong and they deal with that their own way, kids need to be disciplined to show them the difference, sometimes a slap on the bottom or wrist is necessary. Only as a means of last resort though.
Assault is such a big word, punching and kicking someone is assault, slapping someone on the bum is not.
My point is that it is showing kids that violence is OK, when in reality it shouldn't be OK to inflict violence on anyone! That should at least be the aim.
Can you give me an example of a situation when a child should be smacked? You are saying that kids don't know the difference between right and wrong but on the same line, there is evidence to show that a lot of young children cannot even associate the smack with the act that has caused it.
If you smacked an adult across the legs/arms/bum/face then they would and could do you for assault, what would happen if you did it to a police officer?
Who says it's violent? You're saying violence and assault here like the child is going to suffer permament damage. Sending a kid to their room or not giving them their favourite toy is not psychological damage but I could easily assert that just like you're saying slapping someone is doing them damage in the long term which it's not.
When the kids immediate safety is in trouble and all other forms of discipline have been carried out. I mean if a kid keeps trying to put their head into the oven and you've tried other means them a smack may be necessary. And as it's been said before, kids respon differently to different types of discipline.
ETA:Kids can associate the discipline, if a kid gets a slap from his mother then he knows what he did was wrong. Maybe not the first few times but he will in future. How's a kid gonna know what he did was wrong if a mother sends him to his room?
And they'd get in trouble for wasting police time. As for police officers, they're in a position of authority. You're not supposed to even touch a police officer nevermind slap them. That's just common sense.
When I dropped my little sister (<1 year) to the ground I tasted fist the first time. Not necessary imho, since it was an accident, I could've killed her tho, if she fell on her head.
I think, the way I treat my dog may be similar to how I treat my kids. 80% of the time just a firm 'no' does the trick, if that doesn't, then I will tell her more firmly and move towards her etc. and if she's really naughty then a very mild smack on the bum gets her attention, and then I tell her she's being naughty. But to be fair, that's usually because she's well over excited and isn't really paying attention to anything, so it's more a way to get her attention. If she's done something wrong I will point my finger at her nose and say bad girl, but never smack her to punish her, because she's getting told off all the same.
Anyway, I have no reason to believe I'll be any different with kids...
I try to refrain from smacking children AS MUCH AS possible. overpowering a child with force is cowardly, but I think I could imagine certain moments/disbehaviours that that I'd give out a smack.
It's not the pain that does the trick, it's the shock, the "OMG... this was a very stupid thing of me to do." And not to traumatize your child/ren.
I think on the odd occasion you need to give them a short sharp shock. But if you smack them all the time then it doesn't do anything and they usually end up hitting their parents/other children when they can't have their way. Plus it makes them more frustrated so they carry on misbehaving and you just go round in circles.
I can see the merits of both sides though I side towards the former. I think we can all agree we have moved on from the times when 'a good belting' was common place. Judging by my grandparents' accounts, things were a lot rougher for kids a few generations ago.
What type of behaviour should constitute it?
This is where another part of the problem lies.
You are saying as a last resort, but a last resort for what?
Kids getting smacked for swearing for example? I know people who do that a lot - If my kid swore there would be no way he would get smacked for it, I would be fucking pissed off but resorting to violence? No way.
Did anyone see the program on TV this week about parents who were smacking their kids?
Already been explained. Read the thread.
Again, read the thread.
Sounding like a borken record now, read the thread please.
What are you on about? I already laid out the terms for when a child needs a smack, swearing does not put a child's life in danger so what are you on about?
No didn't see it but I feel it is irrelevant to the discussion in hand.
And I didn't say it was relevant but I can still talk about it thanks.
It's alright mate!
I don't smack him for a punishment for bad behaviour. In his eyes the pain of a smack on the bum lasts a few minutes but the pain of me taking his PS2 controller away hurts all week
Surely the best thing to do would be tell the child that you don't wish to hear that language and tell them why it's wrong?