Do you ever think it is acceptable to smack a child?

[planetfedup]

Only asking (and no this isn't a thread about a thread, just a general observation) but there is another thread here and a woman hit her dog and is being berated on here. However, in the past I have seen people admitting to hitting their kids without half as much vitriol being spewed out. By the way, I don't believe in smacking in any way.

They do it because they derive pleasure from it.

It is a release of anger. That feels good, that’s why we do it.

If in the fit of temper you throw something across the room and it breaks, it feels good. This may last only a split second. Moments later it may be replaced with regret. But still for a nanosecond it was there.

But what makes a ‘smack’? If you gave another adult an open-handed hit to the body, you’re right, it wouldn’t be smacking. So why does that change when it’s done to a child?

...can you guess the answer? No? It doesn’t change. It’s still hitting. Dress it up however you like.

This talk of "parents enjoying smacking their child" - that is abuse, a parent should never enjoy hurting their child and if they do they are an abusive parent.

Exactly! It is abuse. How is it that you’re both able to identify hitting as abuse and insist that it’s not? How do you cope with that cognitive dissonance? Every parent who hits enjoys doing it, even if only for a brief moment. They wouldn’t do it otherwise.

I'm not justifying it at all. But my point was that hitting, as in a punch, has always been illegal and considered to be physical abuse.

Exactly! It is abuse. How is it that you’re both able to identify hitting as abuse and insist that it’s not?

I don't think you read all my post as the whole point was I was differentiating between smacking and hitting.

Every parent who hits enjoys doing it, even if only for a brief moment. They wouldn’t do it otherwise.

If this is what you truly believe then no wonder you're so against smacking - because that just isn't true.

I genuinely believe that it's perfectly possible to raise DC without ever needing to smack them.

There have been so many threads on here regarding smacking recently and when I've read them I've never once read a post and thought "yep, that one deserved it". It's not about priding myself on anything, but just not believing that someone younger, smaller and more vulnerable than me needs to be hit or hurt in their most distressed moments.

I don't think you read all my post as the whole point was I was differentiating between smacking and hitting.

Calling it a smack not hitting doesn't make it any more tolerable; surely you're hitting a child when you smack them? If DH smacked me because I'd done something wrong, nobody would be saying "it was just a smack" but because the person being hit is younger, smaller and less able to protect themselves some people convince themselves it's different.

sojo I am afraid it is.

It is a release of anger
I think that's my point.
You can pull your child back from an unsafe situation, in anger. You can hurt them and relieve your anger (but only temporarily).

surely you're hitting a child when you smack them?

No I don't think so - hitting is a more emotive word and in my mind indicates more of a punch or using your fist rather than just the palm of your hand.

If DH smacked me because I'd done something wrong, nobody would be saying "it was just a smack" but because the person being hit is younger, smaller and less able to protect themselves some people convince themselves it's different.

But the fact is you'd never hit a child like you'd hit a fellow adult of the same size. That's why I'm using words like slap or tap because that's what it is - it's a momentary unpleasant feeling to make them aware that what they're doing is wrong when they can't understand this with words. It's the tiniest thing but something that'll make them take notice when they need to be aware that something is wrong.

Losing control to assert/regain control. That's what smacking is really. Self defeating and hypocritical.

Losing control to assert/regain control. That's what smacking is really. Self defeating and hypocritical.

Losing control to assert/regain control. That's what smacking is really. Self defeating and hypocritical.

Aaaargh! Post supposedly failed to send first 2 times....

@Sojo88 But you didn’t differentiate between hitting and smacking. You just said that they’re different because you wouldn’t smack an adult.

Re the other point: again, parents hit because it gives them a rush, as do other forms of physical release, like throwing something or breaking something. If that weren’t the case, they simply wouldn’t do it. You never see a sobbing parent forcing themselves to hit - it’s either done in a moment of rage or it’s calculated. If it didn’t bring enjoyment, a parent who considered it good discipline would have to force themselves to do it, whereas the opposite is usually true: abusive parents have to really control themselves so as NOT to hurt the child.

@Sojo88

surely you're hitting a child when you smack them?

No I don't think so - hitting is a more emotive word and in my mind indicates more of a punch or using your fist rather than just the palm of your hand.

If DH smacked me because I'd done something wrong, nobody would be saying "it was just a smack" but because the person being hit is younger, smaller and less able to protect themselves some people convince themselves it's different.

But the fact is you'd never hit a child like you'd hit a fellow adult of the same size. That's why I'm using words like slap or tap because that's what it is - it's a momentary unpleasant feeling to make them aware that what they're doing is wrong when they can't understand this with words. It's the tiniest thing but something that'll make them take notice when they need to be aware that something is wrong.

Here are the definitions of hitting and smacking:

Hitting: bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully.

Smacking: strike (someone or something), typically with the palm of the hand and as a punishment.

Smacking is the word most people use to describe disciplining a child but a smack is a hit. Sorry to break that to you.

I don't agree with smacking, but this should not become 'you can never touch me'.

hitting is a more emotive word

No shit, Sherlock. That’s exactly why you don’t use it. To minimise.

@mornington2020

I don't agree with smacking, but this should not become 'you can never touch me'.

Who said it should?

Absolutely not.

And yes of course smacking is hitting. Those that do it just try to reframe it in their mind to make them feel better. If a DC is old enough to understand hitting them means they have done something wrong they are old enough to understand words telling them they have done something wrong. There is never any excuse for hitting a child. It only teaches DC that if someone does something you don't like you hit them. The few DC I know who have been hit have always been more aggressive than those who haven't.

No I don't think so - hitting is a more emotive word and in my mind indicates more of a punch or using your fist rather than just the palm of your hand

Wouldn’t lashing out at a small child or burly man, with a closed fist be known as a “punch”?

Lashing out at a small child with an open palm would be a slap. Slaps can leave red marks. They sting! Do you enjoy slapping your dc? If the “light tap” doesn’t work first time does that action become more forceful until the child “learns to behave” because he fears his mothers hands?

Wouldn’t it be more effective if you found more humane ways to discipline a small child, rather than physically abusing them?

I don't think you read all my post as the whole point was I was differentiating between smacking and hitting.

And the whole point is that they are the same thing. If you have to split hairs like a mad barber over semantics to make your point, it's not a valid one. Either way, the child is getting struck and caused pain and fear by someone much bigger than they are, and in a position of care. We could outlaw the word "hit" and all the points would still stand. I actually think "smack" sounds worse.

It absolutely is true that smackers get something out of it. Not necessarily sadistic pleasure, though goodness knows there are enough of those people. But at the very least, the satisfaction of venting their anger and frustration. It's shit parenting.

No shit, Sherlock.

Yeah that phrase isn't very original anymore on this thread.

That’s exactly why you don’t use it. To minimise.

No that's why certain other people are using it - to make it sound worse.

*Hitting: bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully.

Smacking: strike (someone or something), typically with the palm of the hand and as a punishment.*

Those are different though - it even says that smacking is typically used as punishment, it doesn't say that about hitting.

Morally you can argue that smacking is the same as hitting. But in this country there is still a legal difference. As I said before, smacking is with the palm rather than a fist. I've always considered a hit to mean 'punch', that is to say, with a fist.

Legally, it's always been about whether the action leaves a bruise. That's really because bruises provide clues that a child is being physically abused. That's probably how it will work in practice, even if the law is changed to outlaw smacking if it doesn't leave a bruise.