To ask should smacking children be banned.

[HadABadDay2014]

Just seen this on the welsh news.

I am not perfect and once I have smacked ds felt awful and never did it again.

Now I know if this was a patient at work or a member of the public I would had been arrested and highly likely ended up with a criminal record and lost my job.

So the question is should snaking children be banned.

Ib t's not sugar coating to call it a tap when it is no more than that. It doesn't cause pain but it has shock value which is the deterrent. When light chastisement is being called beating and physical violence a tap is more descriptive. nd for people saying leaving a small child crying or feeling rejected and excluded...they don't know it's only few minutes.....to me that's unacceptable. And if you are lucky enough to have a family circumstance where you can constantly supervise and laid back children Good for you. But when a todder is smashing a toy into your TV and simply goes back to doing it despite a lecture. Take toyvaway. Obvious but then he starts punching it. Children are different so what do you do then. They push boundaries all the time. They are programmed to do that. Iwould not tap or smack for the TV but I would for hitting his disabled sister. It's a very pretty argument to say tapping a child on the leg for hitting teaches them to hit mor. But it also teaches them that what they are doing causes pain to another being. Both valid arguments. Only use the ultimate sanction when ds hits his disabled sister. Tvs and phones don't matter

So what when your firm look and 'no' is not heeded and they carry on with whatever they are doing?

But why "tap"? A tap is what you do to someone's shoulder to get their attention. It's just a touch, to let them know you're there. It certainly doesn't "cause pain". So your chastisement isn't a tap. It's something more.

Causing pain to a toddler for something they don't even know is wrong (like smacking a toy into the TV) is horrible and pointless. Take the toy away, move them into another room. It might take a few times before they get the message, but if you are consistent and calm, it won't be more than that.

Smacking as an "ultimate sanction" is ridiculous. You say you only use it "when DS hits his disabled sister". It obviously doesn't work, then, since he's continuing to do it! What's your next course of action? How about (a) teaching him not to hit. And if he's too young to understand, then you do (b) prevent him from hitting by supervising him.

So- here's an example.You are in the car and your 3 yo keeps undoing their seatbelt.You have told them why it is necessary to wear a seatbelt but they still keep doing it?

I do work with children actually, but obviously wouldn't smack them!!

'How about (a) teaching him not to hit

Goodness, well done! I bet she never thought of that!

"So what when your firm look and 'no' is not heeded and they carry on with whatever they are doing?"

Ditto to you - what when your smack isn't heeded and they carry on? It will be exactly the same.

I seem to be answering a lot of questions, so let's reverse that.
What harm do you think an open handed slap on a childs bum is actually going to do? At teh very very worst a second or 2 sting.Stubbing their toe or skinning their knee hurts 10x more.

Well, you obviously don't want to admit that if the smack doesn't work, you have to do it harder or more often!

Think about how you would feel if you received an "open handed slap on the bum" from your boss at work, for breaking a rule. Apart from any pain, which you call a "sting", it is humiliating, and it is invasive.

a tap doesnt cause pain because its not intended to! It causes shock which is what is intended. How is that so difficult to comprehend? I tapped DS (2) through his thick winter trousers and a nappy so I know that didn't hurt, it did stop him in his tracks and he looked shocked. It was for hitting his disabled sister with a toy. And, yes, he knew exactly what he was doing as he lined the bloody thing up to her face! needless to say the toy is on a high shelf.

Young children get a head of steam on and just don't know when to stop except of course the perfect children who just need a gentle word and they behave perfectly a little tap designed to shock will snap them out of it in my experience. Funnily enough I would never tap or smack over the age of 4 because the child can be reasoned with and understand consequences better. as ive said half a dozen taps throughout a childhood is not exactly child abuse.

FYI It does work. He has been hitting her and even kicking her and we have tried naughty step, telling off, taking toys away and the only thing that worked was the tap! hes not hurt her since and when he gets carried away I talk very sternly to him and he knows exactly where I'm coming from. Do you suggest that DD should learn to be hit so that her brother doesn't have to?

How can a tap have a shock value if it doesn't cause any pain? How does a non-painful tap cause a child to be so shocked that they immediately stop what they're doing?

Again, isolating/rejecting/excluding a child is not the only option which I have said before. It's not smacking/timeouts or nothing.

"And if you are lucky enough to have a family circumstance where you can constantly supervise and laid back children Good for you."

Again, the suggestion that people who don't smack are only able to avoid smacking because they are "lucky" and have laid back children. This is just not true. My DS is active, curious, persistent, strong willed and can be challenging - he isn't a mild meek little thing who just sits and plays. However, he knows where the boundaries are because they have been consistently enforced since he could move. He used to like to hit the TV when he was little, but doesn't do so at all now, because everytime he did it I would remove him, tell him that isn't what we do and distract him. It took countless repetitions but now he wouldn't dream of it.

As for the issue about not being able to constantly supervise young children - as a parent, supervising them is the job above everything else. Different children obviously need different amounts of supervision and different home situations will make that easier or harder. If a child has shown they are likely to repeatedly hit their younger/disabled sibling, then I wouldn't leave them alone together where that could happen. One of them would need to come with me wherever I was so that I could keep an eye on them.

I disagree with you that hitting them teaches them that it causes pain to others. Especially with younger children, precisely because they have not yet developed a full sense of empathy. All hitting them teaches them is that you hitting them hurts! And potentially to be afraid of you to some degree depending on how often, how hard and how intimidating you are when you hit. It doesn't teach them to care about the fact that hitting others hurts, even if they are able to understand that it would hurt others on an intellectual level. Plus, how does this opinion square with your assertion that a tap doesn't hurt anyway?

You said one very true statement, RJae:

"They push boundaries all the time. They are programmed to do that."

On this I completely agree. The role of a parent is to consistently and kindly (without physical chastisement) enforce boundaries whilst children are learning what is acceptable and what is not.

If you were say shopping in your supermarket, looking at the shelves trying to find whatever, and somebody tapped you on the shoulder, you would immediately turn round.The tap didn't hurt you but it 'startled' you out of what you were doing and commanded your attention.

I must be very dim indeed because I fail to see how a tap (the kind you might use to an adult to get their attention) on the bottom, through thick trousers and a nappy would be sufficient to not just gain the attention of a 2 year old but also be sufficient to shock them into not doing it again. You are fortunate to have a very compliant and easily managed child Rjae.

Out of interest, how do you tap a child on the bottom like that? Is it with one finger like you would do to attract the attention of an adult? Or with two fingers, or an open hand?

Of course a tap can have shock value. Ridiculous to say otherwise. No one wants to cause pain to any child let alone their own.

I wish I had time to supervise constantly. But I have to cook and clean and tend to the needs of DD. And organise childcare. And go to work. And sort out homework. And have an exercising plan for DD. And attend 6 appointments a month for her on average. And try to function on 5-6 hours sleep a night.

A tap is sufficient to work. My 2 year old may not empathise in an adult way but he understands that something is not nice and if I say this to him when he hits he will understand that if he does something nasty then something nasty will happen to him. Empathy will come but in the meantime DD will not learn that its OK for anyone to hit her. Or do you suggest I put DSs needs above DDs?

Irene - but that's not a smack.

THat is not the "tap" that the hitters mean though Irene- and well you know it.

You say you "smack tinies"- are you now telling us you tap them on the shoulder to gain their attention?

Its with my very small hand and its the suddenness of the movement! actually DS is very compliant generally and it is just jealousy where DD is concerned. Despite lots of attention when DD is at school . I am not ignoring DD after school just so DS gets my full attention. He must learn to share. Or is that un PC too?

Try smacking your thigh as they do in pantomimes! That will give you the idea of my 'tap'

How does a tap have shock value? I'm sorry but I really don't get it. If someone taps me on the shoulder, they may get my attention, but they wouldnt shock or surprise me.

I am not in the fortunate position of having a cook, a cleaner, a nanny, or enough money not to work, and I am sure many other people who don't smack are in similar positions. As I said before, people's individual circumstances will make parenting easier or harder, so it is not a reasonable argument to say that only people with easy lives and compliant children don't smack.

Fundamentally, Rjae/Irene and others with similar attitude, don't feel that smacking a child is morally wrong and also think that it is the only effective way of parenting a child.

Rjae/Irene etc - can you explain why it is morally acceptable to smack a child, and why it is the only effective method of parenting a child?

"What harm do you think an open handed slap on a wife's bum is actually going to do? At teh very very worst a second or 2 sting.Stubbing their toe or skinning their knee hurts 10x more."

'THat is not the "tap" that the hitters mean though Irene'

I know that, but I am trying illustrate, in response to someone's question, how a smack can bring a child up short, even if it doesn't hurt.

In my case though I admit Iwould aim smack a bit harder than that-enough to be mildly unpleasant, (to clarifty cause a bit of a sting for a few seconds- not 'painful' though.A panto thigh slap is a good analogy.

irene- do you slap other family members?

Oh sorry I forgot- you only hit the small and vulnerable.

Coming up quietly behind someone and shouting boo can have a shock value and that's a no touch technique of shocking someone.

Is it morally acceptable to give a small child a tap which shocks them out of naughty behaviour, I would say yes because it is preferable to standing them on the naughty spot sobbing for 3 or 4 minutes. Its over and done with and associated with the undesirable action.

is it morally acceptable to let a child continue with undesirable behaviour at the expense of another child or children when removal, stern talking and distraction don't work and a quick tap does?

Is it morally responsible to allow one child to learn that its OK for people including other children to hit her so that you can maintain your no smack policy?

Is it morally acceptable to allow your child to grow up with no boundaries and learn they can take what they want and behave how they want to the detriment of society?

You make a huge mistake in thinking that 'smacking' is a sustained and painful explosion of rage against a small defenceless child in all cases. I totally agree 'hitting' anyone is wrong, but a quick tap is not in that league and its just one thing that, if used very very sparingly and works for your situation, is something that can be used to teach child boundaries.

the majority of parents don't smack their children very often and then only in the way I have described for shock value. Neither do they allow them to run wild. Parenting isn't black and white and there are already laws against physical abuse of children without adding more. This is just the nanny state saying parents cant manage their own children in a caring but firm way.

1. Np
2. No, but you need to improve your parenting techniques.
3. No
4. No

"is it morally acceptable to give a small child a tap which shocks them out of naughty behaviour, I would say yes because it is preferable to standing them on the naughty spot sobbing for 3 or 4 minutes. "

You have a very blinkered and punitive approach to parenting don't you.

If these are the only two options you see then I feel sorry for your kids.

"the majority of men don't smack their wives very often and then only in the way I have described for shock value"- that would be fine then.