Originally posted by AThousandYoungWere you spanked? You know, before it was outlawed on the left coast? If so, do you think it was effective or ineffective or abuse?
That's an arbritrary line and I am happy to accept any legal definitions of such. It's not something I often think about as California does not allow spanking students and I have no kids of my own.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI was spanked once or twice. Not often. I don't think it's illegal here. Is it? Besides in schools I mean.
Were you spanked? You know, before it was outlawed on the left coast? If so, do you think it was effective or ineffective or abuse?
I don't remember if it was effective. I wouldn't say it was abuse though.
in the uk it's now okay to hit your child, as long as it doesnt cause bruising... so we can cause stab wounds, and break their little bones.. that's okay... but no bruising please.....
either it's not okay or it is, just wish the government would say either say...
just for the record, i think it is okay to spank your child... sorry.... but this is not child abuse, you often see parents spank their child for running out into the road.... are they saying then that this parent is abusing the child for teaching them to be safe..?
i have never seen child abuse, never witnessed child abuse, would never want to, but from what i've heard, it's a million years away from a light spank round the legs
Originally posted by eatmybishopOut of curiosity, how does spanking a child who runs out onto the road teach them not to do it?
in the uk it's now okay to hit your child, as long as it doesnt cause bruising... so we can cause stab wounds, and break their little bones.. that's okay... but no bruising please.....
either it's not okay or it is, just wish the government would say either say...
just for the record, i think it is okay to spank your child... sorry.... but this is ...[text shortened]... t to, but from what i've heard, it's a million years away from a light spank round the legs
I'm against the notion of spanking children. Having said that though, I have smacked my own kids at times. It's a method of last resort for me I guess - one when I've given up on anything else and my mind isn't working properly. I say that because it achieves nothing other than to terrify your kids.
This is not how I want my kids to learn about the world - through terror - and it's certainly not how I want them to remember me when I'm gone - as the dad who beat them.
Originally posted by eatmybishopThere are some here who will fail to see the sarcasm in your first paragraph.
in the uk it's now okay to hit your child, as long as it doesnt cause bruising... so we can cause stab wounds, and break their little bones.. that's okay... but no bruising please.....
either it's not okay or it is, just wish the government would say either say...
just for the record, i think it is okay to spank your child... sorry.... but this is ...[text shortened]... t to, but from what i've heard, it's a million years away from a light spank round the legs
Smacking on the legs or hand, is, in my view, an appropriate action when the child's focus needs urgent redirection, but only after repeated warnings and other efforts (such as simply taking the child away from the situation, like jumping in the car and taking them to the park).
If you smack a child and don't feel guilt, then may bad things happen to you...preferably before you have another opportunity.
The Government's stance on this issue is irrelevant.
Nuclear arms are to nations what a smack is to children.....any other view would be simple hypocrisy.
Originally posted by ZadadkaNice post.
There are some here who will fail to see the sarcasm in your first paragraph.
Smacking on the legs or hand, is, in my view, an appropriate action when the child's focus [b]needs urgent redirection, but only after repeated warnings and other efforts (such as simply taking the child away from the situation, like jumping in the car and taking them to the ...[text shortened]... arms are to nations what a smack is to children.....any other view would be simple hypocrisy.[/b]
I agree entirely.
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionI was smacked several times as a kid - I knew exactly why I was smacked and I've never thought of either of my parents in terms of 'beating me'.
Out of curiosity, how does spanking a child who runs out onto the road teach them not to do it?
I'm against the notion of spanking children. Having said that though, I have smacked my own kids at times. It's a method of last resort for me I guess - one when I've given up on anything else and my mind isn't working properly. I say that because it achieves ...[text shortened]... t's certainly not how I want them to remember me when I'm gone - as the dad who beat them.
Should I have kids then screw the law (in NZ an attention seeking idiot politician pushed through anti-smacking legislation - despite heavy opposition), if my kid does something that warrants it, they'll get a clout on the ass - to be sure, only after several warnings ... setting the boundaries, so to speak.
If you think that would make me a child abuser, I suggest you lock yourself in a dark room with a Danielle Steele novel and spank yourself senseless.
Originally posted by treetalkOkay, firstly, I didn't use the term child abuse.
I was smacked several times as a kid - I knew exactly why I was smacked and I've never thought of either of my parents in terms of 'beating me'.
Should I have kids then screw the law (in NZ an attention seeking idiot politician pushed through anti-smacking legislation - despite heavy opposition), if my kid does something that warrants it, they'll get a c ...[text shortened]... you lock yourself in a dark room with a Danielle Steele novel and spank yourself senseless.
Secondly, I'm entirely against government from legislating in this area - I think it's entirely a matter for society and in particular, parents to determine what is right and wrong for their kids.
I would rather see better education about alternatives to smacking and encouragement of parents to use such alternatives than to have sanctions operating.
The reality of the power position of a parent and child is pretty simple though. You, parent - big, powerful. Them, child - small, weak. I'm trying not to teach my kids that it's okay for big, powerful people to hit small, weak ones.
It doesn't take a smack to set boundaries.
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionThe idea is that a child is not capable of the same reasoning skills that we have. In other words, they are unable to reason that running out into the street is a "bad" thing to do. However, they realize that not doing what they are told is a bad thing to do because it results in a bad reaction from the parent which is spanking. Wanting to avoid a spanking and a painful outcome is something children can usually understand.
[b]Out of curiosity, how does spanking a child who runs out onto the road teach them not to do it?
Having said that, my own view is that it is one way to discipline a child but not the only way. I think it really depends on the child as well as the respoding appropriatly to the type of bad behavoir present. For example, I have seen some children not respond to spaking and, in fact, only become more aggressive towards the parents. Conversly, on some children it seems to be the only thing that works. I think it is a process of trial and error really as to what works best for which child.
To be honest I think all chrildren need discipline. In fact, not discipling children is a form of child abuse in and of itself. Also, any form of discipline if taken to an extreme is a form of abuse. Even time out can be abusive at times like if a parent locks them in a closet for prolonged periods of time. Therefore, I would not demonize the spanking of children, rather, I would only caution parents that it can become abusive. I would say that a rule of thumb is if you are angry do not spank your child.