I think we're specifically talking about spanking, though, no?Can we call it smacking? Spanking is... entirely different.
While smacking is a suggested synonym for spank, smacking to me implies an open hand slap on the face, which I have a different reaction to. Google's dictionary also uses the face in their examples.verb: spank; 3rd person present: spanks; past tense: spanked; past participle: spanked; gerund or present participle: spanking
- slap with one's open hand or a flat object, especially on the buttocks as a punishment.
"she was spanked for spilling ink on the carpet"
verb: smack; 3rd person present: smacks; past tense: smacked; past participle: smacked; gerund or present participle: smacking
- strike (someone or something), typically with the palm of the hand and as a punishment.
"Jessica smacked his face quite hard"
I think we're specifically talking about spanking, though, no?
While smacking is a suggested synonym for spank, smacking to me implies an open hand slap on the face, which I have a different reaction to. Google's dictionary also uses the face in their examples.
Part of the problem is spank is used so broadly. People can describe is as simply has slapping a hand to beating with a belt. I think any form of discipline works so long as the point is to focus the child on an important lesson and not about inflicting physical punishment. A think a truly caring parent should have all available tools at their disposal since all children are different in how they respond to stimuli.
I was spanked as a child when I tried to put car keys in a power socket and became afraid to do that. It was a safer choice to spank me than wait till I understood about how electricity works later.
Totally agree.I think a quick swat on the behind is fine to get a child's attention if it's egregiously misbehaving or putting itself in danger, but actual nonphysical punishment should come later and be used as a teaching tool. I think a lot of backwards people use spanking as a way to instill fear to get obedience, which is precisely the wrong way to go about things. Violence eventually starts to require further escalation if the child stops responding to it, which is just horrifying and doesn't teach anything other than fear/defiance/how to get away with things.
Unfortunately the issue is so black and white to most people you can’t use this very logical reasoning to say that yes, sometimes spanking can be acceptable.
Swat Your child on the tush or gently smack your dog on their booty and you’re an abuser who is lowering their child’s/dog’s IQ and making them a violent being. It’s just such a drastic and dramatic way of thinking.
To me, this is on par with the “give everyone participation trophies“ catastrophe of the last couple decades.
There's definitely a time and place for physical parenting, for sure.@AmberCutie Exactly.
My logic comes mostly from my experience training horses and other large, volatile animals, honestly. I have no issue physically reprimanding a horse if it's putting me or itself in danger, but that punishment has to happen within three seconds of the offense otherwise the horse just thinks you are wailing on it. One smack and then back to business as usual, or immediate de-escalation. If you need more than that you have a training issue and things need to be examined from the ground up.
Kids are obviously different but I think there's a degree of similarity there. Beating anything to achieve submission is uncalled for. But is there a time and place for physical reprimand, delivered in a timely manner and immediately followed with de-escalation? And then with an examination of what went wrong and why? I believe so.
I think most of the ladies on this forum are incredibly self aware and I truly admire their parenting, regardless of which side of the issue they land on. I just don't know that the rest of the population is quite as informed/rational.
But, on the other, I see the decline of humanity and I think that maybe it is the lack of discipline spanks that causes children to lose respect and have no fear of repercussions of their actions.
What is the point if there’s no pain, and it’s followed with an explanation? Why would you assume the spank, and not the explanation, are changing the behaviour? I genuinely don’t understand the point of the spank if it’s not painful and not sufficient on its own.I said initially, each child is different and sometimes a quick swat followed by an explanation may be warranted. Again, not to cause pain. Nor am I saying that every child deserves it.
What is the point if there’s no pain, and it’s followed with an explanation? Why would you assume the spank, and not the explanation, are changing the behaviour? I genuinely don’t understand the point of the spank if it’s not painful and not sufficient on its own.
Not trying to be snarky, I really truly don’t get the logic and I want to understand.
It was a general question prompted by the revival of the thread, no need to get defensive. I also didn’t imply you meant it every time, you clarified that before.I'm not saying that a spanking should be the default action every time, never implied it either. But, there are times where a child may continue to act out even after other means don't work. For example, you have a child who is acting out, and completely misbehaving. You try asking them nicely to not do it. they continue, even after a few times of your talking to them. You try putting them in a timeout, they pout scream throw toys or whatever and go right back to it. No matter what you do, short of spanking or physically restrain them from doing it, they continue.
There are times where a child may not respond to anything other than a quick swat (single, not prolonged) on the but or quick slap on the hand. Sometimes, the reason for this is that they might see it as a game until there is a "surprise" action for them to think otherwise. Again, I'm not saying this is how every child is. Nor am I saying that this is the default action one should take every time. Children will respond to different methods at different times. Sometimes, a simple "Please don't do that" works, other times a timeout or taking a toy away does it. Other times, it is the surprise of being spanked that will get them to realize thy need to stop doing something. If you're not a parent, sometimes it is difficult to understand.
I'm not alone in this thread in saying this. So, perhaps you, Luna or Audri should ask them for their opinion as well.
Once I was told to not play with the cigarette lighter in the car. While my mum was out the car, i pushed it in. I pulled it out about 15s later - it wasn't red. It was still "black". I didn't hold my hand near it to see if it was hot, I was about 4 years old. So I stuck my finger into it.
Cut to holding my finger in the frozen peas in the supermarket to treat a screaming child from burns. However, from then on, when I was told not to play with something as it was hot... I didn't fucking touch it.
Moral of the story - set fire to your kids; they learn faster. Or something.
Oooo, a bright glowy thing...
It was a general question prompted by the revival of the thread, no need to get defensive. I also didn’t imply you meant it every time, you clarified that before.
Anyway I see that element of the “surprise” swat is the point? Thanks for clarifying. Still a hard disagree, still think it’s a cop out, but I appreciate you sharing that because I’ve always just seen “it works” + “but it’s just a tiny itty bitty barely-registering tap” so couldn’t understand the point.