Being the egotist I am (and the fact I'm the only poster who has said they do this) I presume all of this talk of waiting until we get home for a smack refers to my example of using smacking as a deterrent.
What on earth have you all based these assumptions of mental notes, and waiting for fifteen minutes, and dragging my children through whole days out waiting for a smack on exactly??
I said very clearly that at the time I made the threat we were walking down the road we live on, the time between me making the threat and getting to our dungeon of torture home was one minute. But that would only even be relevant if I had smacked her.
If you had taken the time to read my post properly you may also have noted that once we got home we baked a cake. Do you imagine we baked that cake, had our lunch and at some point in the afternoon I turned around smacked her hand and said 'see, told you not to be silly on the road'?
Is it conceivable that even a disturbed indivual like me has made the link that any kind of disciple is generally pointless with small children after the event?
I've already said that my intended purpose when smacking is to deter not punish. Once the behaviour that I'm trying to deter has ceased why on earth would I then turn around and smack them?
To be perfectly honest having been prompted to really, really think about it by this thread, because I don't generally spend hours navel gazing about giving my kids the very occasional smack on the hand, I don't think I have actually ever smacked them once we got home for doing something outside that I've threatened them for. Probably because whatever factor induced the threat is removed by the time we get home and usually when we are more than a minute away they've had time to calm down, have a chat and admit that what they were doing was wrong. Or they may have stomped home calling me a meany head with a face like thunder and calm down later, but that is their right. As long as they've disengaged with trying to run accross roads or stand up in the swings I no longer feel their behaviour warrants a smack.
It is still an effective deterrent because I do smack at home as the factor I am smacking over, for example the bookshelf they are trying to climb, isn't going to be removed.
Why do you struggle so much with the concept that people are able to calmly parent their children Spero? Have you a bit of a temper? The 'calm' part of smacking or shouting is achieved by the person doing either, remaining, well, calm.
I have managed my own versions of time out and the naughty step and removal of privileges for my eldest since she started school and have been phasing out smacking ever since, like I said I haven't smacked her for over a year at a guess and doubt that I will smack her agin in the future (not rule it out).
My youngest, as would my eldest at that age, find the naughty step or time out far more distressing than a smack on the hand believe it or not. My three year old is very, very attached to me and we do pretty much everything together. We co-sleep and I am a stay at home mum. Your own daughter was in nursery at seven months old so I know you may not be able to appreciate this concept, but for my daughters being forcibly told that they may not remain in my presence at that age, given they are used to being in my presence pretty much twenty four seven would hurt them, emotionally, a lot more than a smack.
The force at which I smack my children hurts them, as I said. That does not mean it has to be as hard as I think you imagine. Have you noticed that, amongst many things that make children so very different to adults, they take very keenly against any level of physical discomfort? I mean the 'mummmeeeeeeee, this button is too tight' or 'owwww, owwww, owww, I can't walk, I can't walk' screamed because a teeny, tiny pebble has found its way in their shoes. Stuff that you or I as adults would probably just about register. Now, you may disagree. Or more likely you may use this line of thought to argue well that's why you shouldn't hit them, and I get that, really I do. I don't agree for many reasons, one of which would be that pain figures in anybody in the worlds life, including children on probably a daily basis. If pain were some totally avoidable thing altogether and someone could guarantee that my kids would never ever feel it were I not smack them then fair play, I probably wouldn't. But the point I'm making is that the force probably isn't that strong but I think that your thoughts that it has to be for it to work are nonsense.