Like the columnist Miranda Devine, the author of this article does not expect to be taken seriously. There is no evidence that hitting people teaches pro-social behaviour. There is no evidence that working class families hit each other more than wealthy families. There is no evidence that working class families advocate violence to manage problem behaviour. Following this article, we have more evidence that right-wing columnists advocate hitting people.

Thank God for the author. A wonderful breath of sound common sense.

Congratulations to the writer who found the very small number of studies which support corporal punishment of children. A mountain of research published in peer-reviewed articles by dozens of public universities finds corporal punishment of children to be harmful. After all, would we be having this discussion if we were talking about hitting spouses? Employees? Neighbors, or even neighbors' dogs? No, we would condemn articles favoring such actions.

No, pro-spanking parents aren't Nazis. But, they need to know about credible research which shows hitting children to be harmful. This article does little other than to bring outlier research to print and confuse parents.

From what I've seen on the topic there is a small correlation between high levels of corporal punishment and anti-social behaviours. Straus's finding's don't seem to suggest much more.

Some evidence that low levels of corporal punishment for younger children may be slightly beneficial and plenty of spin by both those who love smacking and those strongly opposed to it.

Like a lot of things the arguments seem to be dramatically exagerated depending on which side you take.

For the strongly anti-smacking crowd I'll believe you are serious when you start advocating adult consequences for children. Until that point it looks like spin. Should a child hood tantrum which involves others being hit result in police using tasers on the child to subdue them then a series of court appearances and possibly a lengthy jail term?

For those passionate about smacking it may be time to look at why you love it so much. It's a discipline tool, not a cherished lifestyle.

R0bert

“There is no evidence that hitting people teaches pro-social behaviour.” -Langenstrass

Author: Yes, there is evidence that spanking works as Gunnoe demonstrated – read the piece again.

Also, read the part where the media censors and/ or hides studies. If “our” ABC is burying information then that’s not my problem. That’s their problem.

And finally, the aboriginals from one town I worked in who spanked their children were raising very sweet kids.

You’re free to raise talk-therapy children but there’s no place for parental imperialism in 2011.

I have children who come from a household where no one gets spanked or smacked.

It’s really a lot easier than people seem to think and doesn’t take extra time to achieve or any substitute like lecturing or alternative punishments like standing in corners or being screamed at or shamed in any way.

I support a parent’s right to parent and that might include adults making the choice to smack a child as a consequence. It’s just kind of sad when they don’t understand the alternatives.

I get countries are having problems where smacking was suddenly not an option overnight and how typically stupid to make a law without preparing people how to manage.

R0bert I reckon many parents see a law like no smacking as a threat and perhaps it is because if that one got through then what could be next. Or I hope that is what they are thinking and aren’t really so dependent on smacking that the thought of doing without it sends them into a panic.

As for smacking working or finding studies showing it does – it is never going to mean other ways of raising children do not work better and it is a dumb argument.

“Congratulations to the writer who found the very small number of studies which support corporal punishment of children” – DeeNee

Author: Actually there are more studies to come. But thank you. Yes, it is hard to find studies when the media censors and/or hides them. That’s one of the major points some elites overlook.

What’s more, I have more faith in history and crime statistics than far-leftwing Australian professors, pontificating from a place of privilege. These are the same people who have no problems with partially aborting a “useless eater” but rail against a little spank.

I’d suggest that they need to leave the pro-spanking ethnic/ working-class families I know, the hell alone. They also should keep their noses out of Aboriginal tribal life/customs. Just leave parents alone.

I'm with you Jewely.

None of my three kids has ever experienced physical punishment from their parents, and all have grown to be perfectly normal and well-adjusted citizens.

My rationale was simply that if I gave way to the urge to hit, then I would have lost all power that comes from being right. Kids tend to notice that sort of thing - it's instinctive - and their respect for you and the path you wish to set them upon, decreases accordingly.

Even more simply, it is an admission of defeat.

But I guess that's a personal view. If the statistics say that spanking improves the child, then I guess it is still a viable means of discipline for some.

But to me it is still a total cop-out.

For Jewely and Pericles a question - you state that your children have never had physical punishment and have grown up perfectly well adjusted citizens. While I congratulate you for your achievement I have to ask, Where there any problems in your family lives? It seems to me that when ever I see someone stating that they did this that they have had seemingly perfect home lives. Can this still work when there are fractured family structures, illness, mental health issues (both child and parent), working on or below the poverty line, etc.? I have never seen it work in these far more common real world situations. So my question is - Is talk therapy as it has been called an all things being equal or a all things period method of raising a child?

BPT

Your piece is a just crude polemic, and with an unoriginal story of conspiracy and contrived marginalisation. If Gunnoe’s study is a credible scientific one, then explain it. At least you are correct to say that parents are not "Nazis".

I was relating my own experience, Arthur N, not advocating government policy.

>>So my question is - Is talk therapy as it has been called an all things being equal or a all things period method of raising a child?<<

Nothing is ever so conveniently black and white. We are in danger of finding ourselves in a no-win chicken-and-egg discussion: does a difficult family life generates the need for corporal punishment, or does the prevalence of corporal punishment leads to a difficult family life? I think such generalizations should be avoided, if at all possible.

But your list concerns me a little.

>>Can this still work when there are fractured family structures, illness, mental health issues (both child and parent), working on or below the poverty line, etc.?<<

I find the question itself impossible to answer, since setting boundaries and imposing discipline tends to be a personal issue between the parties, requiring a level of mutual respect.

However, I would suggest that none of your examples in itself forms a justification for beating kids.

Hey Pericles, good on you. I felt hitting was wrong, useless and best left to those who could not find a better way. I like kids so why would I hurt them was the basic thought I started with way back then.

Arthur let me think… separation from father, solo mum and very poor for a few years, custody disputes, chronic illness in one child, biological father died, I remarried.

Really about average I guess. Situations surrounding me and mine didn’t alter how I interacted or let others interact with my children.

A sharp smack on the hand, a few slaps around legs/bum are in order when words fail. It's not child abuse, it's effective parenting and should rarely be needed. The reason being that the child quickly learns the parent means business when a directive is given and obeys. Likewise it is most effective on younger children. Being too immature to think beyond simple explanation or comprehend potential effects of dangerous actions they benefit from the immediate shock/pain factor.

Example: 2yr old breaks free in public carpark and dashes towards reversing vehicle. Parent yells "STOP" as they bolt after child, child keeps going. Parent catches child, gives him a couple good slaps on tail, says "You must stop when I say. Now hold my hand and don't run away again". That message "If I run from Mum when she says stop it's gonna hurt" will likely stay in that childs head longer than the 5 minute explanation about how the naughty old car could have squashed you .....

As children gain comprehension and life experience they understand cause and effect at a more sophisticated level so then it's appropriate to discuss and set more complicated less immediate penalties.

Like all correction the child needs to understand punishment is a consequence of the bad behaviour and that subsequent lapses will result in some form of unpleasantness. While some children are easier to rear and need far less discipline than others, consistency is king and punishment must fit the crime.

Both my and my partners parents were far more likely to mete out physical punishment than we were to our kids. However we agree when we did get a hiding (often half a dozen stripes with belt, wooden spoon, switch) it was deserved and never resented beyond any immediate indignity. That's because we were healthily nurtured by loving parents who knew it was in their charter to ensure we knew right from wrong and exercised good manners and respect. It wasn't their job to be our "friend" and it was our job to learn and obey.

Continued ...

Too much 'New Age' parenting is ineffectual BS and make fools of parents.

Scenario: Child runs to $2 ride at the shops. Parent says "Not today, it's time to take our shopping home" (Fair call!) Child refuses to come ... "Charlotte, no, we have to go home. C'mon" (OK) Then when child continues to defy and starts up whinge/tantrum, parent remonstrates another half dozen times. Finally, "That's it. I'm going" and begins walking away. Now Charlotte is screaming her head off to great discomfort of everyone within hearing but still clings to plastic pony. Parent returns, prises her off, heads for carpark dragging screaming brat trying to kick parent and anyone else in reach ...

My style: After 2nd request, parent goes to child, pries them off the ride repeating "We're going home NOW". Child starts screaming. Told firmly "Stop". Keeps going, gets good slap on bum and starts crying instead as parent leads her to carpark ...

PC brigade will say both cases parent stood firm and child failed to win, physical force was unnecessary, just brutality to a poor defenceless child.

I respond: Which approach a)Will least likely result in a repeat performance? b) Caused least amount of discomfort to everyone else in attendence?

It's second question a lot of parents should be considering. Too many new age discipline devotees seem to believe everyone should tolerate their little toads insufferable totally unacceptable antics. I know people with the hearing affliction, Tinnitus. All say kids screaming causes them severe ear pain. And what is it with parents who come into your business or private home, their kids start acting badly, sometimes dangerously, they go, "Oh don't do that Darling!", kid ignores them repeatedly and they just start ignoring it? Take charge and growl at the monster, or remove him/her from damaging your property or potential harm and they act all indignant?

Jewely and Pericles, hope your offspring could not be counted above because my occasionally smacked ones - NEVER.

I make a point of always complimenting parents of well-mannered, well-behaved kids. Unfortunately don't get to do it often enough.

Apparently now the naughty corner is to be banned in child care centres. It is getting a bit ridiculous and there is an assumption in some of these 'expert' advices that all methods will work equally well and apply to all children. If the naughty corner goes what hope is there in teaching children that not everything is about them and there are consequences for bad behaviour.

I last hit any of my children when my first child was 18 months old. I smacked her on her bottom and in that moment, was horrified at myself as I realised that I'd hit her out of anger. I'd grown up in a family where smacking your child was normal, even into our teenager years.
I decided that I wanted to bring up children without having to smack them, ever. As hitting others was totally unacceptable to me and that smacking came out of either my anger or my lack of knowledge of how to deal with the situation. My kids all turned out to be great people and well behaved. They knew that there were consequences to their actions. If they messed up, drew on the wall, etc they had to clean it up. They knew I meant what I said and where there was no negotiation. They also had a say in what we did as a family, and understood the impact of both their good and bad actions upon the family. I respected them as human beings and my job was to make them feel secure and teach them how to have a life that worked for them. Also, learning about others and the world featured large in our family. Violence against anyone doesn't work. It just shows a failing in our willingness to learn of more respectful ways to deal with things.

“Jewely and Pericles, hope your offspring could not be counted above because my occasionally smacked ones - NEVER.”

Nope and I wouldn’t hurt yours would you hurt one of mine?

“Like all correction the child needs to understand punishment is a consequence of the bad behaviour and that subsequent lapses will result in some form of unpleasantness. While some children are easier to rear and need far less discipline than others, consistency is king and punishment must fit the crime.”

Mine understood the consequences and they would not run off if I told them to stop as that was taught to them before a time where it could have lead to a life and death situation unfolding.

Mine also understood to be polite and listen to what they were being told, to say please and thank you and to ask before touching – all the simple stuff done and dusted.

But I didn’t just become a parent and then waited to see how it all went, I read a lot of stuff and made a plan - I’m a bit strange like that.

Is teaching a child really about all kinds of unpleasantness as consequences? C’mon you can teach without pain, if an uneducated young solo mum can work it out surely most people can.

No naughty corner huh Pelican? Gawd now they’ll have to start using their brains. I see nothing wrong with the naughty step, seat whatever – go chill out type place. The child care workers generally can’t control the other stuff like if a child is fed a truck load of sugar for breakfast and goes completely spastic on them.

Well the dramatic increase in bullying, violence and disrespect can be clearly linked to the depraved Spock dogma. Universities have about as much chance of exposing the man made global warming myth through funded studies as they do honestly looking at the results of the fools who want smacking banned. Failure to discipline your children in a worth while manner is child abuse. Making children out to be idols is also child abuse hence the tantrums we now see in Parliament. We now have young thugs who know the justice system is an absolute joke due to fools who have taken away any retribution for bad behaviours. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see young brats making fools of their mothers and fathers in shopping centres.

I think the anti smacking crowd discriminates against boys. Boys are physical creatures who constantly try to test the boundaries. And in the male world, the final arbiter is always physical strength. Boys in single parent homes reach about 12 or 13, realise there is nothing their mother can do to hurt them and run wild.

Girls are naturally more compliant and try to please. They wouldn't need to be smacked very often at all.

The standards in schools have been steadily dropping since corporal punishment was abolished on a feminised, girls don't need it, model. Boys are doing worse every year.

People who claim we shouldn't hit kids because we shouldn't hit adults are the most small minded of all. They don't understand the difference between rights and responsibilities. Children get the same rights as adults when they can accept the same responsibilities. That's why we call them children. They are not emotionally, physically or intellectually equal to an adult. Treating children as less than adult does not mean we are treating them as less than human. Some people have trouble understanding this disctinction.

Dane

You are a bit more dipolnatic than me. Your comment
'People who claim we shouldn't hit kids because we shouldn't hit adults are the most small minded of all. 'is not far off the mark.

Runner:I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see young brats making fools of their mothers and fathers in shopping centres.”

Just laugh they probably take them home and beat them later which should cheer you up.

You’re acting like a non-smacking household is normal Runner, it is not, most people still smack their kids. I don’t for a minute believe all the Swedes stopped instantly behind closed doors either. In fact I have never met an adult who was not smacked as a child. So any problems you are seeing in society come from households that do hurt their kids – not a surprise really.

I laugh at the 1-2-3 parents and the empty threat parents and I get the feeling their kids are laughing with me.

Runner:”Failure to discipline your children in a worth while manner is child abuse.”

Amen.

Dane what are you talking about? Girls are nicer and you want people to hit boys more? Oooo….you are so gonna get booted from the mens club now.

Has anyone something sensible to say that will convince myself or other non-smackers they are doing or did anything wrong raising kids without even implementing mild forms of physical pain?

"I think the anti smacking crowd discriminates against boys. Boys are physical creatures who constantly try to test the boundaries. And in the male world, the final arbiter is always physical strength."

Author here: Dane you raise an important debate issue. As a kid, I loved throwing lemons with my brother at moving cars, and in retrospect I now understand it was dangerous. After a good spanking across the backside, I stopped endangering the lives of others.

If “talk therapy” was used? I wouldn’t have stopped – because it was too much fun. Boys tend to respond more to physical discipline. Ironically, feminists feel it is their duty to selectively mother the children of other parents. I sense some real control issues here.

“Making children out to be idols is also child abuse hence the tantrums we now see in Parliament.” –Runner

Great point – and very quotable.

The anti-spanking are the Nazis. National Sozialisten.

Jewely - child rearing is "honey and stick". One generally catches more flies with honey than a stick but if honey isn't working, stick usually will.

In other words effective parents will explain, encourage, set examples and reward compliance and this "honey" usually works. When it doesn't some sort of "stick", the unpleasant consequence, comes out.

One without the other won't work. I stated that spanking or a smack should be an uncommon event if parenting is effective. Effective means the parent has established and exercises reasonable control, the child has learned basic manners, social skills and can be taken into public areas or onto private property with expectation that he/she will not unduly disturb the peace, privacy or property of others.

If you think you can achieve this effectiveness without the use of "pain", unpleasant consequence of some type, when behavioural codes are breached I suggest you are kidding yourself. If you are lucky enough to have an 'easy' child and been fair and firm from day dot, these occasions may well be rare. However ALL children at some time need discipline.

My experience is 'non-smacked' kids are often not only more unruly but more agressive towards peers. A cousin was very anti-smacking and his first child a pushing, hitting biting horror - until my Aunt told him to pull her grandson into line before she did! A few smacks when needed worked rapid positive change. His 5 subsequent kids got a few smacks too and all are well adjusted LIKEABLE young people. The most dramatic example I've seen but not an isolated case.

If others have managed well without the backup of a smack or threat of, that's great but I'd like the opinion of your childs teachers some friends and rellies to back the claims. Parents who believe their obnoxious offspring are perfectly angelic are not hard to find either.

BTW - when I say "pain" as an unpleasant consequence of bad behaviour I don't necessarily mean the physical type. It should be an undeniable parental option but I can't recall either of us hitting any of our children past about age 7. By then their level of reasoning and understanding made other forms of discipline - like extra chores, groundings, losing access to favourite pastimes or toys and so on, more meaningful and effective.

I recall my only daughter, the more challenging of our 3 children and about 10 at the time, asking for a spanking as punishment rather than being barred from a friends party. I was so taken aback by the request and her anguish about the grounding that we negotiated another penalty with understanding that if she broke the agreement both punishments would stand. No further problem - and that's the way it should work. Nuf said ....

People who smack their children should be beaten into submission, handcuffed and locked in a cage for a very long time -to teach them that violence is not a solution!

Its always a hot topic. The problem is that people's individual experiences and situations vary so widely that it is almost impossible to say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I guess I see even a distinction between smacking and spanking. Smacking designed to hurt ego not physically, and aimed at younger children - particularly more so those for whom rationale does not work.

Both my children have been smacked when relevant, usually not out of anger, normally when reasoning was not sufficient to get the message across (eg dont stick a fork in the powerpoint).

However, my eldest is only 6. I dont really see a role for smacking once she is past the age of say 8 - at this stage she should be sufficiently aware that danger is not an immediate threat (eg watch for cars and dont run off in car parks), and interested in enough other things that the threat of priveledges being cut off should do the same job. I am already noticing a difference eg "please pick up those toys", "no", "well if you dont and I have to pick them up, I'll give them away to someone else" = toys get picked up. Pocket money for helping out with things that she hasnt done before is now also making a difference.

Its also about picking a punishment that suits the individual child. I smacked my daughter more than my son, but thats because she was (and is) more stubborn. My son is 3 and only just starting the tanty phase. He actually is more afraid of being left behind, so that tends to be more effective in getting co-operation than being physical if he plays-up.

Tut, tut. The author has strayed into the wilderness of non-political-correctness.

A timely smack is the most effective way of correcting bad behaviour in a child.

Not smacking children is as irrational as sending women to fight in the front line.

I wonder if there is any correlation, statistically speaking, between those who advocate beating their children as a disciplinary measure, and those who advocate torture for suspected terrorists.

The question occurred to me when reading divine_msn's sneer...

>>Too much 'New Age' parenting is ineffectual BS and make fools of parents... PC brigade will say both cases parent stood firm and child failed to win, physical force was unnecessary, just brutality to a poor defenceless child<<

That nicely sticks a convenient label on the non-smackers, as "new age" and "PC". Which is of course the accusation levelled at those wimps who think that treating suspected terrorists with kid gloves (just locking them in solitary confinement for a few years) is a pathetic cop-out.

The arguments in favour of torture are as compelling as divine_msn's for beating children for misbehaving.

"Torture is a very quick way to gain information in comparison to regular examination, and so would ideally help address any imminent threat"

Hmmm. Sounds an awful lot like:

>>The reason being that the child quickly learns the parent means business when a directive is given and obeys<<

Violence. The time-saving, short cut to compliance. Tasty.

More thoughts from the advocates of torture:

"[with] the threat of torture, adversaries will be less likely to both, commit attacks and aid those doing so"

Echoes of:

>>"If I run from Mum when she says stop it's gonna hurt" will likely stay in that childs head<<

Pre-emptive pain. Another fine example of our society's determination to avoid the label "Politically Correct" at all costs.

Even when it is merely a handy taunt from people who prefer to act rather than think.

(Pro-torture quotes taken from http://www.debatewise.com/debates/807-torture-should-be-allowed-against-terror-suspects)

Don't fret. You're all wonderful parents.

No need to justify your decisions.

I do agree with smacking boys if the alternative is verbal or emotional abuse. Ah, the simple language of violence, getting it all over and done with, without the emotional scars.

Pericles,

You must accept though , that whatever you do its teaching the kids some form of aggression.

What's to say manipulating children via distraction is any better. It's still exercising an unfair advantage over a developing brain. Giving kids the message to manipulate people to get what they want.

Blackmail about use of toys, shaming, exclusion, their all just as unethical as violence.

Children respond wonderfully and incredibly quickly to a consistent gentle hand (that’s the one without the stick in it).

Discipline does not have to be unpleasant. The goal is to teach and I can do that without conflict. I’ve found it is about routine, being healthy as possible, boundaries that are set in stone, clear instructions at all times and understanding what is age appropriate. Mostly I have found it is about getting off your butt, being involved in play and what they are doing.

At a basic level we are teaching children how to move through this world without causing harm and learning all the strange rules our society has and what it expects of them. I think a lot of parents hit out of embarrassment, fear, anger – maybe some desperate need to speed up the whole process.

Problem seems to be us parents need the time to parent without panic.

It’s a surprise that hitting parents don’t say “oh you don’t hit, good on ya” instead of jumping to conclusions that children from non-smacking households must be out of control in some way. Then they go on to say how rarely they do it so a semi-hitting household (in their minds) apparently always has obedient children. Gosh really? : )

An unexpected tantrum at the supermarket might bother people having to hear it but it is hardly proof of bad parenting and those scowls from onlookers is more an indication of a snotty unsupportive society.

I also don’t want parent’s right to smack taken away because it worries me where that could lead but what a shame they don’t in turn support parent’s right not to smack. Our Houel being the exception here, as always.

As for other forms of punishment we probably need another thread.

Ray:”A timely smack is the most effective way of correcting bad behaviour in a child.”

Don’t your kids listen to you either then?

I think people next time you're in the supermarket, seeing a little terror go nuts, instead of thinking to yourselves the parents are inadequate, just thank your lucky stars it's not your kid.

It's not all the parents fault, some kids are just more challenging. I have two easy going girls, I'd hate to have to deal with some of the little terrors out there.

At least 50% of parenting is luck.

'Don't fret. You're all wonderful parents.'

Houllie you often write commonsense but this takes the cake. Are you including the parents of the 17 old girl sleeping with footballers, or the parents of the young men involved in the skype scandal or the parents that allow their 11 year olds to run around stealing as they get drunk nightly. Please give us a break. This is not one of your better ones.

It's not often you see a strawman in the very title of an opinion piece.

Anyway, I'd like to know if the police in Sweden actually reported a 500% increase in child abuse, or if there was rather a 500% increase in the number of child abuse reports made to the police.

If it's the latter, this could simply reflect a greater willingness among Swedes to report child abuse, combined with a lower threshold for what is classified as abuse.

If it's the former, then there should be huge increase in the number of Swedish children being admitted to the hospital for injuries. Has there been such a rise? If not, then I call bullsh** on this claim.

In any event, parents who spank should at least warn their kids that there are adults out there who may have bad reasons for wanting to spank them. For illustration, see www.spankingcanbesexualabuse.org

blwpyrtv writes

'In any event, parents who spank should at least warn their kids that there are adults out there who may have bad reasons for wanting to spank them.'

I would be more concerned about parents who dont smack their kids and give them candy all the time. You speak of strawman and then make an idiotic link.

"As for other forms of punishment we probably need another thread." it would be interesting to see if you got much interest. I tried one some time back with very little activity. The smacking thread's tend to get a lot of interest but few seem to want to talk about more day to day way's of dealing with discipline.

One of the issues which severly hinders this debate is that both sides tend to get characterised by the extreme's. Smackers by those who belt the daylight's out of kid's, non smackers by those who don't genuinely try to discipline their children.

R0bert

Yep, you're right, it's a judgment call, Houellebecq.

>>What's to say manipulating children via distraction is any better<<

Not that I consider distraction, bribery, blackmail, "shaming" or exclusion to be the only alternatives to physical punishment. Nevertheless, if it were proven that they were bad for the kid, would you support a campaign to make them illegal?

Of course you wouldn't.

Just because I have never beaten my kids doesn't mean that I would like the government to pass a law against it. There are - clearly, from the responses on this thread - people who find it impossible to discipline their children without resorting to beating them.

At least, I assume that they find it impossible. They don't just beat them because they feel like it. Do they?

On that basis, so long as they don't cross the line into actual bodily harm, which already has applicable laws, then I think the government has no need to interfere.

I still feel sorry for those parents, though. It can't be good feeling so powerless.

Hey R0bert I guess debates usually do the polarizing thing and most topics here are treated like a debate rather than a search for more knowledge or understanding. I quite like it generally but it can be kind of weird when subjects like parenting that can incorporate a nearly limitless number of different styles can be viewed in such a black and white manner.

We’ve had to smack or not to smack or to smack sometimes or how hard to smack or whether it should even be called a smack along with which behaviors should be considered smackable offences. And the most enjoyable are the people who want either non-smackers or smackers smacked. Bunch of fruitloops!

As for other effective means of teaching children, I’m always open to new methods. Recently one very little girl got sent away from the activity she was doing because her young playmate announced “she kicked me in the head!” the little girl objected loudly and quite convincingly that it was not fair and it had not happened and that I didn’t see (which was correct) and on it went. After waiting for her to quit yelling at me I asked what did happen and was told “I kicked him in the face!”

It is so difficult to parent and keep a straight face at times. And tricky when yelling is not okay indoors and certainly not yelling at me but it was being done because she thought I was being unfair and in her mind yes I had punished her for the wrong thing. Then the punishment stands because the rule is no hurting others even if the initial complaint was inaccurate. Now the other side is the one kicked did not want to play alone so he was punished whether he felt punished or not.

Blah! Anyone got a solution for next time? Should I have done that syllable/smack thing?

DoSMACKnotSMACKhurtSMACKothersSMACK. :P

An idiotic link, Runner? Tell it to this family.

Jefferson County, Colorado
Administration and Courts Facility
303-279-6511

For Immediate Release - Apr 4, 2008

Michael David DiPalma appeared today in Jefferson County Court and was sentenced to Intensive Supervision Sex Offender Probation for a period of ten years to life and two years in the county jail. The 33-year-old former day camp teacher pled guilty on January 25 to Sexual Assault of a Child, a class four felony.

Michael DiPalma, who now lives in Centennial, worked at a Lakewood recreation center teaching Elementary Engineering Using Lego and Elementary Robotics Using Lego in July 2006. One of the students, an 8-year-old boy, was singled out by DiPalma. The boy was given a sticky note and told to make a checkmark on it every time he didn’t follow DiPalma’s instructions. The boy was told he would receive a spanking for each check mark. On July 27, 2006, when the other children were on lunch break, DiPalma lured the boy to his car and put him into the back seat. DiPalma then drove to the parking lot of a nearby apartment complex then climbed into the back seat with the boy. He put the boy on his lap, pulled down his pants and spanked him 20 times on his bare buttocks. The spanking left marks and DiPalma told him not to tell or that he would go to the boy’s house and spank him harder. When the boy’s mother picked him up at the end of the day, he told her what had happened. The family reported the incident to the Lakewood Police Department.

DiPalma’s case went trial in September, 2006 but the jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

The jury heard evidence that in May 2006 DiPalma had worked for a company called “Computer Tots’, teaching an after-school class at Steck Elementary School in Denver. In that class he asked the second graders to vote on which of them should be spanked. He spanked at least two 7-year-olds before his employment at Steck Elementary was terminated . . .

Don't you want people to love you?
My spanking, that's the only thing I want so much...

Why is that better than being hugged?
Because you get closer to the person...
Closer to the person...

Just like a person having sex feels cared for...
We wanna be loved, so we have sex together...
And they feel loved about that...
And this is the way it makes me feel...loved...
I want it, I dream about it, I think about it, I want it...
Just like a girl wants sex with a boy, you know?
It's the way I'll always be probably...
My last one was born in the system...
See, they're stupid, very stupid, those people over there...
They're stupid...
These people are so below mentality, honest to God, really...
You know what I mean, he got the nerve to bug me...
This mentality, honest to G-d, really...

Everything seems so eight ball...
And I, I don't know if that's my imagination, but, umm...
Hey foxymophandlemama, that's me...
She prides herself on her cleaning habits...
It's a lovely stupid mop, it is...
There's something really screwey about no streaking...
Is it any old dumb mop? It streaks...
Come on mop, no streaking mop...
I don't mind mop the floor, my mop streaks, I don't like it...
It's not me, it's the mop...

In two weeks, before she could see herself not dressed...
The twenty-third of May...you know she disturbed no one today...
The manager told her to completely forget...
If you ever go to bed, I'll kill you...
Do I tell the whole world that I'm mentally ill?
Go to the papers...yeah, why not?

I want to show them that I can walk on my own without hands of theirs...
And, I can still fantasize, but I keep it to myself...

I think I deserve to be loved, don't you?
Very much so...
Do you ever think that you would actually, really kill yourself?
Well, if I have thought about it real, uhh, real deep...
Yeas, I believe I would...

Very droll, Houellebecq

In case anyone missed the joke, those song lyrics (Pearl Jam's Hey Foxymophandlemama) were in fact a pastiche of recordings of patients in a psychiatric ward.

They fit the discussion extremely well, though. And easily make just as much sense.

Pericles,

You obviously think smacking is a form a torture. Well, there are a lot of little terrors out there.

Sorry couldn't resist...

But on a more serious note. Next time you see a 5 year old strap on a suicide vest and blow him/herself up then let me know. Until then I might just continue thinking smacking an unruly child and terrorism have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Jewely - don't say it was your child who kicked another (unprovoked?) then shouted at you when removed from the activity (as a act of censure I presume) claiming she'd been falsely accused, she'd kicked him in the face, not the head?

Where did this child learn such aggressive behaviour towards her peers? Surely children who never experience the 'violence' of being smacked for bad behaviour should KNOW that it is wrong to hit, kick, bite or otherwise assault their playmates? Why is she shouting at you? Where did that come from? Doesn't sound very well mannered or respectful.

You said "a very little girl" so I'm going to assume that this is a child under the age of 3 who developmentally is not in the ball park when it comes to co-operative interaction with and empathy for others and whose actions will often be spontaneous. If she is older than 3 then this incident shouldn't have happened - unless he punched her in the nose first. If not, I would then have to wonder how effective your "gentle" methods?

You might not be on the edge of a smile if next time little miss puts the boot in, the victim retaliates with greater force. Or worse, some yobbo parent misinterprets your amusement and comes over and lays one on you. (Happened at a playgroup my Niece takes her little girl to. Ms 'Punch' is no longer welcome in that group - bad influence on the kiddies I was told ...)

Anyway I hope you instructed this very little girl that a) The face is part of the head b)Kicking one's playmates is completely out of order barring self defence and c)Shouting at your mother is rude and disrespectful. Then put her in the corner to think about it all for a while. BTW - did you ask her for an explanation? Why did you do that? Or would that be too confronting and non-gentle?

"Jewely - don't say it was your child who kicked another (unprovoked?) then shouted at you when removed from the activity (as a act of censure I presume) claiming she'd been falsely accused, she'd kicked him in the face, not the head?"

Nup she wasn't mine until recently , now that she is no longer in a household where she was hurt to be controlled I can fix it. :) And hey it wasn't a smacking household it was a beating one so not relevant here.

Yup just over 2 years old, very good verbal communicator don't you think? Shame about the physical communication. It happened because she wanted the red one and he got it first. I didn't do the seclusion thing completely except away from the activity. But I will go back and explain that the face is part of the head because I didn't think about that at the time. Cheers Divine.

If this is a foster child that has been taken out of an abusive household then all I can say is that for her sake, I hope you can keep her.
The way children are taken into care, then reunited with their tormenters and the process often repeated over and over again, until at age 18 DOCS (or whatever Child Protection calls itself in every different State) just cuts them loose, is criminal. If they actually survive .... But that's another thread.

If you are a foster carer I salute your courage and compassion and hope you make a world of difference to the children who come your way.

Yes - little Miss Feisty is obviously an intelligent mite. Steer her in the right direction and wish for luck.

Yes Blwrpytvvs,

It's easy to see why you could confuse disciplining a child with sexual assault.

Our familiy doctor, who always offers the children lollies, is clearly also priming them for sexual assault by a stranger.

Or, is it possible, you were hyperventilating whilst you were enthusiatically shoving your morality down our throats.

Governement has no place in a healthy happy family. The attempt to broaden the dfinition of abuse to include smacking is an ideological campaign orchestrated by the politically correct

Paul:”The attempt to broaden the definition of abuse to include smacking is an ideological campaign orchestrated by the politically correct.”

Could just be the people who profit from being able to accuse more parents’s of abuse.

This would be court employees and Out of Home Care service providers and the entire industry (counselors, access supervisors etc) that is supported and will benefit further from the broadening of the definitions.

I agree Divine, it's a whole other thread. Far as I know Liberals initially had a lot to do with supporting children's rights then lost interest. Wonder what plans they have now.

“The attempt to broaden the definition of abuse to include smacking is an ideological campaign orchestrated by the politically correct.”

You nailed it Paul. And as I wrote, expect the left to become more desperate. These claims of sexual abuse are not going to win them any support. It is just hysterical.

"It's easy to see why you could confuse disciplining a child with sexual assault." - PaulL

OK, tell us which one this is:

Cincinnati Enquirer, January 17, 2003

MASON - A judge on Thursday acquitted a middle-aged psychologist of an assault charge for pulling down a 14-year-old girl's pants and spanking her hard enough to cause bruises.

The prosecutor and children's advocates expressed surprise at the decision in a corporal punishment case that raised questions about how far a nonparent can go in disciplining another person's child.

Gary Freudenthal, 49, of Blue Ash, testified Thursday that he thought he had permission from previous conversations with the girl's grandmother - her legal guardian - to discipline the child, who was a friend of his daughter.

On Aug. 31, Mr. Freudenthal, a single father, said he was upset because the girl was picked up by police the night before on drug and curfew violations when she was supposed to be spending the night at his house after attending a football game with his daughter.

So, he went to the grandmother's Mason home about 9:30 a.m.walked into the girl's bedroom after asking the grandmother where she was, took the girl out of bed, placed her over his knee and spanked her.

When the girl laughed, Mr. Freudenthal said he pulled her bikini bottoms down and administered another spanking. A police officer testified that the spanking caused bruising on the girls' upper legs and buttocks.

"I spanked her hard enough so she could feel it ... so it would sting, so she wouldn't be able to sit down, so she would remember it," Mr. Freudenthal testified. "She was so out of control." . . .

BplyrstszZ

No You tell us? Do you think breaking into someoneones home and pulling down the pants of a teenage girl and procede to put your hand on her naked buttocks, the same thing as giving your OWN four year old a smack on the bum (pants up) when she's having a tantrum in a busy carpark?

Because if it is, there's something really wrong with you.

Your absurd conflation of the parental right to discipline their own child with the disturbing actions described above reveals your extremist position. Not only have you failed miserably in your point, that smacking and abuse are difficult to tell apart, you have in fact made my case, that they are OBVIOUSLY not.

Paul:”Not only have you failed miserably in your point, that smacking and abuse are difficult to tell apart, you have in fact made my case, that they are OBVIOUSLY not.”

True that, they’ve definitely let the side down.

If I was in a debate team I would probably start with this:
Do we define abuse by the feelings of the perpetrator or the victim? A child not knowing whether the adult got any kind of pleasure (sexual or otherwise) would still have been abused. If it is a case of definition in relation to how the person carrying out the abuse feels then a smacking parent is probably all clear and good to go as they usually have convinced themselves it is for the good of the child.

I should repeat: I don’t consider a smack on the bum by a parent abuse. I understand it hurts you more than it hurts them.

Jewely,

I agree that you don't smack a child because they've made you angry. Thats the wrong reason. You smack a child because they've crossed a clear and well defined line in terms of their behaviour, and other punishments would be innefective.

But I should say that smacking doesn't hurt me more than it hurts them. When I have to do it, I take no pleasure in it, but not do I anguish over the decision either. Although, when I was getting ino my early teens I remeber my mum hurting herself more than she hurt me when she tried to give me whack for some offensive comment or other.

Everyone knows whether their own parents abused them or not. For me, abuse is underserved and unexpected punishment. I always knew when I got a whack that I crossed the line. Those whose parents beat them because they were drunk or angry or depressed would be easily caught out today where we have no tolerance for behaviour.

On the other hand, expecting parents to stand idly by whilst an 8 year old son tells the mother to "get f@cked" is not apprporiate either.

Children need room to make mistakes. Its a part of growing up and making space for your own personality that drives children to push their boundaries. Corporal punishment is an effective way to make CRYSTAL clear where the line is drawn, and then quickly move on. The other alternatives all require some kind of emotional blackmail or long term deprivation to be effective.

In correcting our once lax attitude to child abuse, we have gone too far the other way. This is always the way when the debate is led by the ideologically pure. Leading from their theoretically develloped understanding.

I have no confidence whatsooever, that my childs generation will turn out to be better people, because they weren't smacked, In fact I fear the reverse may be true. I certainly know I will be lucky to ever be as selfless and giving as my parents were. Despite the fact that they smacked more than I do.

Spanking a 14 yr olds bare backside is extreme especially since the guy wasn't a parent. However story suggests this man believed he was acting on behalf of the guardian grandmother who obviously was unable to control the girls bad behaviour.

Bad enough for her to be picked up by police for drug offences? What risks was she posing to herself? And others? Her friend, this man's daughter?

I doubt the sexual connectations. He initially spanked her through her clothes and she laughed at him. That prompted the second bare bum hiding ....

I sense this guys frustration and admit to admiring his nerve even if his action was a bad decision. Sounds like he wiped the smirk off her face temporarily. Wonder if she got the wake up call? Doubt it ... the spanker ended up in Court even if acquitted ... And this guy a psychologist? Ran out of words?

BplyrstszZ and others who seem to believe adults have no right to restrain children - do you realise in Australia, if your 14 yr old CHILD is out at night with older youths, using alcohol and other drugs, putting themselves at extreme risk and you locate him/her and drag them into your car, then at home lock them in their room YOU are liable for assault and false imprisonment?

Another point: It's not paedophilia if the sexual interest is post-pubescent. Paedophiles desire children - high voiced, flat chested, hair free little kids. There are many sexually precocious under 16s out there engaging in illegal activity - under 16s aren't supposed to be consenting to sexual intercourse let alone seeking it. Does the law care? Only if junior shagger is having sex with an 'adult' (18+) partner.

Clearly parents have a minefield to tread if they have any trouble whatsoever in keeping their adolescents on track and very little help from any quarter. That is why I'm a strong advocate of fair firm discipline when children are small. It's a hell of a lot easier to try pull them into line when they're 5 rather than 15.

BTW PaulL - Page 9 Well written. 100% agreement

Paul:”...other punishments would be ineffective.”

This is probably true in parents who have no knowledge of other ways that are effective in teaching appropriate behavior. Do you really believe smacking is the only method?

Paul:” But I should say that smacking doesn't hurt me more than it hurts them.”

I know, I was just kidding with that remark.

Paul:”On the other hand, expecting parents to stand idly by whilst an 8 year old son tells the mother to "get f@cked" is not apprporiate either.”

By 8 they have well and truly been doing something wrong or it is a rather extreme emotional situation causing it. Or a bag of lollies paired up with their daily dose of Ritalin maybe.

Paul:”Corporal punishment is an effective way to make CRYSTAL clear where the line is drawn, and then quickly move on.”

Yes yes if they don’t understand other ways of being clear then moving on.

Paul:” The other alternatives all require some kind of emotional blackmail or long term deprivation to be effective.”

Come on I insist the average adult is smarter than this. Long term deprivation or blackmail are not the required substitutes for smacking, that is insane.

Paul:”In correcting our once lax attitude to child abuse, we have gone too far the other way.”

I agree.

Paul:” I have no confidence whatsooever, that my childs generation will turn out to be better people, because they weren't smacked,”

They are being smacked, plenty more like you out there Paul and I’d put bets on them being the vast majority. Like I keep saying, doesn’t bother me, don’t want it outlawed, doesn’t impress me either.

Divine:”I doubt the sexual connectations. He initially spanked her through her clothes and she laughed at him. That prompted the second bare bum hiding ....”

Yep I think he just lost it, happens. Old school dude doing the only thing he knew. He intended to harm as severally as possible using a very old technique and I’m sure momentarily he did achieve what he wished. I didn’t get any sexual connection either.

Jewely,

What exactly are these other techniques that are more effective. Particularly for little kids?

Its easy enough to criticise smacking in isolation. Once you put the mostly flaky alternatives into the equation it starts to look a whole lot more sensible.

It seems to me that little kids only have two real motivations for doing what you want them to, against their own prefered option. One, to gain approval or favour, and two, for fear of the repercussions.

Generally, the non-physical form of repercussions, either requires some form of emotional punishment (ie withdrawal of attention), or removal of some privlege (ie deprivation). Neither are likely to produce immediate results and there effectiveness is directly related to a childs ability to comprehend, and value, their future circumstances. Ie they are directly related to a childs age.

Confinement/containment (ie the naughty spot - which I am a fan of), is the only other physical punishment that yields results in small children, but it can be very traumatising to them as well, and there is an element of emotional punishment involved. And, it doesn't work at all when there's nowehere to confine them, like when your in the supermarket car park.

Regardles of the fact of whether the guy in BLKRWTVS has had a sexual motive, I'm not be arguing for anyone to be allowed to smack other peoples kids. So it renders BLKRWTVS point about that incident moot.

I'm talking about MY rights and responsibilities as a parent to my own child.

“What exactly are these other techniques that are more effective. Particularly for little kids?”

You serious?

Paul do you equate discipline only with punishment?

Clear achievable expectations; make sure they understand the expectation and the consequence. We’re shaping how they behave, respond and understand this world.

Not smacking does not mean finding a substitute to cause pain, emotional or otherwise.

Paul:”I'm talking about MY rights and responsibilities as a parent to my own child.”

I’m just talking about there being other ways to perform those rights and responsibilities.

Here this might help you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU1RDZlcYFM&feature=related

ROFL

Jewely

Thanks that man is brilliant

"Do you think breaking into someoneones home and pulling down the pants of a teenage girl and procede to put your hand on her naked buttocks, the same thing as giving your OWN four year old a smack on the bum (pants up) when she's having a tantrum in a busy carpark?" - PaulL

Yet the judge apparently found Freudenthal's "disturbing actions" to be as legitimate as the carpark scenario you describe. What do you think about that?

What's more, divine_msn "doubts the sexual connotation" and tries to justify Freudenthal's actions. Jewely agrees, chalking it up to "old school" ignorance of alternative methods (despite having an advanced degree in psychology).

DiPalma from the DA's report tried to similarly play the "discipline card" while on trial, portraying the victim as an ill-behaved brat. Though it didn't work in his case, it's worked remarkably well for others. One of spanking's drawbacks is that it blurs boundaries in a way that makes it easier for predators to operate.

We don't know from the DA's report whether the boy had been spanked at home. But we do know that DiPalma, his teacher, told him that he was behaving badly and therefore he was going to get a spanking. What is an 8-year-old supposed to think in that situation?

Depending how frequently or severely they are punished that way at home, many kids might figure they deserved the spanking or at least that DiPalma was entitled to do it as an adult in charge. (And in fact, teachers at some schools *are* allowed to spank students.) They might imagine their parents would approve and that maybe they'd be in even more trouble if their parents found out about it.

By contrast, children who've never been punished this way and aren't so conditioned to see spanking as a normal adult-child interaction will be appalled by the very idea of their teacher doing this to them. The "you've been naughty" ploy doesn't have the same currency.

“What's more, divine_msn "doubts the sexual connotation" and tries to justify Freudenthal's actions. Jewely agrees, chalking it up to "old school" ignorance of alternative methods (despite having an advanced degree in psychology).”

Oh he did? Well I change my mind then. I went back and read it again and yep I’d missed the “middle-aged psychologist” bit completely. I’m still not seeing the sexual connection in this situation though. Instead of being ignorant I've decided he's a bad tempered old toss pot.

"If I was in a debate team I would probably start with this:
Do we define abuse by the feelings of the perpetrator or the victim? A child not knowing whether the adult got any kind of pleasure (sexual or otherwise) would still have been abused. If it is a case of definition in relation to how the person carrying out the abuse feels then a smacking parent is probably all clear and good to go as they usually have convinced themselves it is for the good of the child." - Jewely

I don't think it's strictly either-or, but with most crime the experience of the putative victim tends to precede--without precluding--questions of intent. If a spanking is so severe as to be cruel, sincere good intentions on the part of the spanker could mitigate the offense, but it wouldn't excuse it. Consider also that if a man grabs a woman's breasts, you don't necessarily have to prove that he got sexual pleasure from doing so to convict him of a sexual offense.

Do you think it would be reasonable for the 14-year-old girl whose friend's dad pulled down her swimsuit and spanked her to feel that she was sexually violated?

I'd expect she'd feel very angry, humiliated, probably shocked that this man had completely lost his TEMPER and given her a painful hiding, but 'sexually violated'? NO I very much doubt it.

This is a 14 yr old who by the sounds of her out of control behaviour has probably had her knickers (willingly) pulled down a few times before and knows the difference ....

C'mon blwpyrtv - stop weaving your own nasty little fantasies into this story ......

It is a great pity that Boaz isn't around any longer.

>>Do you think it would be reasonable for the 14-year-old girl whose friend's dad pulled down her swimsuit and spanked her to feel that she was sexually violated?<<

I would have loved to have seen his response to that little gem, given that he is also a self-proclaimed spanker-of-teenage-girls.

But I confess to be a little surprised at divine_msn's reaction.

>>This is a 14 yr old who by the sounds of her out of control behaviour has probably had her knickers (willingly) pulled down a few times before and knows the difference<<

Way to be judgmental, divine_msn. Any rapist would love to have you on their jury, I'd bet. You'd be there in the jury room, "hey people, she was no stranger to having her knickers pulled down, draw your own conclusion"

Anyhow, I still see violence as an admission of personal defeat, that you'd been outwitted by a kid.

Still nothing to do with a) political correctness or b) the government though.

Pericles - he gave her an arse whopping. There was no mention of accusation of fondling, touching genitals, digital penetration etc.

If I was on the jury, I'd have to find him guilty of assault but not sexual assault.

As for your assumptions of my attitude towards rape victims - I've treated rape victims, female and male, so pull your head in.

However I will call a spade a spade: some women through stupid, risky behaviour which often involves substance fueled sexually explicit hijinks with males they have know 5 minutes then get into water out of their depth are partly to blame for their dilemma.

Yes - partly to blame. No - they did not deserve to be raped but their actions put them at grave risk.

When a drunk crashes his car and injures passengers, we don't say "Oh the bottleshop should not have sold him that bottle of rum" or "The car is to blame - he shouldn't have had such a powerful machine" we blame the driver. However if we are aware that the passengers got in that car knowing the driver was intoxicated we assume they are partly to blame for their dilemma.

I know personal responsibility is a frightfully unfashionable concept and avoided at all cost by so many, but that's how it is. Play with fire - get burnt

Divine_msn,

>>"I'd expect she'd feel very angry, humiliated, probably shocked that this man had completely lost his TEMPER and given her a painful hiding, but 'sexually violated'? NO I very much doubt it."<<

So if the girl in the Ohio case felt violated by Freudenthal's actions, you would consider those feelings unreasonable?

By the way, do you reckon he was incapable of giving her a sufficiently painful hiding with her swimsuit up? (We all know how thick those swimsuit fabrics tend to be.)

>>"This is a 14 yr old who by the sounds of her out of control behaviour has probably had her knickers (willingly) pulled down a few times before and knows the difference."<<

You said you've treated rape victims. Can you clarify in what capacity, or what sort of treatment?

Anyway, if someone did this to your daughter, I doubt your opinion would hinge on questions like "How angry was the guy at the time?" or "How out of control was her behavior?" (and specifically how sexually active she was).

>>"C'mon blwpyrtv - stop weaving your own nasty little fantasies into this story."<<

I wonder if the cops and prosecutors were weaving their fantasies into this case:

The News-Times (Danbury, CT), December 3, 1996

Family Friend Charged With Bare-bottom Spanking of Girl
By Dan Wheeler

LITCHFIELD, Conn. (AP) - A little league coach accused of repeatedly spanking a little girl after pulling down her pants has been charged with sexual assault.

Ronald Ellis, 30, of New Hartford, was in Bantam Superior Court on Monday. He was released on a written promise to appear in court.

Ellis has been charged with fourth-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor in the October incidents.

According to an arrest warrant, Ellis ordered a 9-year-old girl to pull down her pants so he could spank her along a remote area of the Farmington River Turnpike while they were riding bicycles and again at a New Hartford firehouse.

Ellis is a volunteer firefighter.

Police said he also choked the girl's 8-year-old brother after the boy refused to obey him. . .

"Pericles - he gave her an arse whopping. There was no mention of accusation of fondling, touching genitals, digital penetration etc." - divine_msn

The same is true in the DiPalma's case (as well as the case cited directly above), yet he's now a registered sex offender. Do you think he should only have been convicted of physical assault?

Divine:”… he gave her an arse whopping. There was no mention of accusation of fondling, touching genitals, digital penetration etc.
If I was on the jury, I'd have to find him guilty of assault but not sexual assault.”

Spanking is a common sexual act among adults. At 14 the girl may have felt sexually violated – do we let the victim decide if they felt assaulted or sexually assaulted?

Do smackers usually smack pants down and stop that at a certain age? Is there even an age limit for when they stop smacking at all? What age do they begin using smacking?

We don't let the victim decide if they FELT assaulted. Assaulted is a factual condition that must meet certain requirements if it is to be deemed an illegal act. Otherwise you might decide you'd been assaulted if you bumped into someone on the way out of the elevator. How you feel about whether you were assaulted is irrelevant to whether it is an illegal act. The test is whether the act was unlawful, and that is usually defined in terms of whether the act was indecent or sexual in nature, and whether or not there was consent.

Having said all that I tend to agree that there is a case to be made that this is a sexual assault.
1) He's not the girls father or guardian,
2) why would he need to pull down the pants of a girl wearing a bikini bottom?

I don't know why we are even discussing this incident, becase I haven't heard too many pro-smacking parents arguing for the right for anybody to smack their child. 14 years old is too old for smacking anyway. The only reason to smack a child is because they are incapable of being reasoned with, and you can't deter them any other way.

So JEWELY, BLWRPTV, according to your logic, smacking your own child leaves them vulnerable to assault by others who may use this act as cover for their predatory behaviour. Do you think we should stop bathing our children naked, because it leaves them vulnerable to perverts who might want to do the same. Should we not cuddle and kiss them, since that also leaves them vulnerable to people who might use such love for affection as cover to abuse them?

GET REAL.

So JEWELY, BLWRPTV, according to your logic, smacking your own child leaves them vulnerable to assault by others who may use this act as cover for their predatory behaviour. Do you think we should stop bathing our children naked, because it leaves them vulnerable to perverts who might want to do the same. Should we not cuddle and kiss them, since that also leaves them vulnerable to people who might use such love for affection as cover to abuse them?

Where did you put together that I was saying smacking leaves children vulnerable to assault by others Paul? Stop being a git.

“I haven't heard too many pro-smacking parents arguing for the right for anybody to smack their child. 14 years old”

That was what I was asking, when do you start and when do you finish using smacking?

Aplogies Jewely, It was BLWRPTV who was suggesting that smacking makes children more vulnerable to sexual assault.

It was your argument, that the decision on whether a crime has been committed should be based upon the feelings of the possible victim, which I was taking issue with.

I think its reasonable to smack from toddler to pre-teen. Obviously its based upon your assesment of what actually works best for that particular child.

I really take issue with the idea that smacking is more harmful to children in a long term sense. I know of families where children aren't smacked, but they wouldn't dare misbehave for abject fear of disaproval and isolation. I personally think this is far more harmful, than smacking. Smacking is done and finished with the moment its completed. You can move on straight away. This idea that my kids feel betrayed and angry because I've stooped to smacking them is nonsense. Smacking in my house is a well understood punishment for certain behviours. It is used sparingly, and often not for months at a time. At the same time I reinforce the fact that it is their behaviour which I do not approve of, not them. And I praise or reward good behaviour, wherever I see it.

I don't smack because I'm angry and I don't see it as a failure in any way. Those people who do are entitled to their opinion, what I really object to is the idea that their opinion holds more weight than mine when it comes to MY kids.

You still haven't answered the question on how best to deal with a 4 year old who runs off in the car park and won't stop when called? And please, spare me the explantion of why YOU would never have been in that situation in the first place. Everyone at some stage or other find themselves in a situation with a small child who needs some behaviour modification immediately. I know some people's kids 'well up' if you look at them the wrong way, but mine don't. Stern looks won't cut it.

blwpyrtv - in reply to your questions:

1. If the girl in the Ohio case felt violated by Freudenthal's actions, you would consider those feelings unreasonable?

'Violated' - how one would feel if someone invaded their home and beat them - Reasonable? Yes! 'Violated' as in having been sexually assaulted - No!

BTW - victim was pulled from bed, put over assailants knee and spanked through her clothes - presumably sleepshirt or similar and bikini underpants (not swimsuit). She laughed. He seemingly blew a fuse, pulled down her pants to inflict greater pain and administered a more vigorous beating. Spontaneous action in presence of witness, not calculated, concealed, manipulative ritualistic act as per your average pervert ...

2. You said you've treated rape victims. Can you clarify in what capacity, or what sort of treatment?

In a medical capacity, as sensitively and gently as possible, with examination, swabbing and other forensic requirements and treatment of physical injuries. I assure you there are degrees of "violation" and things unreportable in the media.

I've also treated brutalised children which is truly soul destroying - where 'trusted' adults have inflicted enormous suffering and often permanent injury. Even greater if that child returns under similar circumstances having been temporarily removed (fostered) then returned to the parent/s.

Do I know the difference between child abuse and reasonable responsible physical correction? I claim Yes.

So if the "Smacking is Child Abuse" Brigade wish to make a difference to REAL violence against children, lobby for permanent removal of children from truly abusive parents with adoption first option and long term fostering second. Meanwhile - good loving parents, give errant kids a smack or slap or 2 around the bum if they ignore your words and don't feel guilty about it. You're doing them and the rest of society a favour.

I don’t know if smacking is harmful in the long term sense, seems to be a lot of research but nothing concrete decided. It’s one of those weird things where you can’t go back in time with a kid and not smack to see what differences there would be in their future.

I don’t think I agree smacking is over quickly but kids do forgive their parents all sorts of stuff. I remember being smacked and still resent the hell out of it. And the smacks that happen later were the worst of all whereas I understood mum or dad losing it I didn’t understand them doing it in a cold and calculated way or at an appointed time.

Paul:“I don't smack because I'm angry and I don't see it as a failure in any way. Those people who do are entitled to their opinion, what I really object to is the idea that their opinion holds more weight than mine when it comes to MY kids.”

I think your opinion is valid and they are your children so I support your right to chose how to discipline them - and I don’t put smacking in the abuse basket.

Now your turn – say you support my right to parent the way I choose as long as it is effective and non-abusive. :)

Divine:”…wish to make a difference to REAL violence against children, lobby for permanent removal of children from truly abusive parents with adoption first option and long term fostering second.”

Nope. Maybe. Sometimes. Yes. Never.

We so need another thread. Where is Jeremy Sammut these days?

Jewely,

No question. I agree that parents are generally the best judge of what is best for their own child. I wouldn’t presume to dictate to you how you brought up your child. But of course this is exactly what the anti-smacking crowd want to do to me. Its absurd and extremely moralistic, from a bunch who couldn’t imagine they were acting exactly like the bible bashers they resent. Except these bunch do it in the name of social sciences. A more self righteous bunch of anal retentive, you couldn’t expect to meet. Except of course on Sunday morning at the local reactionary church

I struggle to understand how you could resent your parents for being smacked, unless you'd done absolutely nothing to deserve it. In my mind, if I knew I'd done something really bad, I knew what was likely to happen. My parents were not particularly harsh but they were very fair and very predictable. I've never felt that they didn't have the right to enforce discipline in their own house, and so I could not understand feeling that they had no right. It just doesn't make sense to me. Unless, perhaps, smacking was totally foreign in your house, or it was a step-parent.

I take exactly the opposite view to you. I don't agree that its easier to understand parents who smack because they've lost their temper. I think its far more reasonable to smack because children have crossed a line that requires it. I think children need boundaries so that they know which lines they can bend, and which they can't. When its only done because someone's lost their temper there is an inherent uncertainty involved, which leads the child to worry more about upsetting you, than doing the right thing. Which totally defeats the point. Unless the point is ‘don’t upset me’, which it obviously shouldn't be.

I didn’t know there was some anti-smacking group out there bullying smackers into their way of thinking – I will avoid them like the plague.

I resented being hit, I don’t look back and think it was fair or okay whether I deserved it or not. It’s forgiven is all. I’d worry about a kid who passively accepted a smacking. In fact if they do hasn’t it just ceased to be effective?

I don’t know how to explain it but as teens become adults I want them to do the right thing because it is the right thing and not because the alternative is being punished. I don’t want children being sneakier or lying about being naughty because if they do something wrong and the consequences are always painful. A lot of kids when you talk to them can’t believe what they’ve done – some impulse took over or brain malfunctioned and they regret it already. I don’t want naughty things forgiven instantly though but a smack doesn’t often lead to much understanding of what caused the behavior even if it can stop it in a heartbeat.

Sorry I’m not very clear eh. I need to go on some kind of writing course.

An angry, stressed, tired parent delivering a slap seems pretty everyday and forgivable. But say a tanty at a friends house means you put them in the car, drive them home, deliver a smack. Weird. A small child wouldn’t get it and an older child would be getting punished in the moment they have calmed down. I’ll have to ask Yabby but I think that causes a problem with emotional connections and memories later.

PaulL,

>>"According to your logic, smacking your own child leaves them vulnerable to assault by others who may use this act as cover for their predatory behaviour. Do you think we should stop bathing our children naked, because it leaves them vulnerable to perverts who might want to do the same. Should we not cuddle and kiss them, since that also leaves them vulnerable to people who might use such love for affection as cover to abuse them?"<<

No, because unlike spanking, bathing is clearly imperative to children's health. To *not* bathe a child incapable of bathing itself would be criminal neglect.

To deprive a child of physical affection such as cuddling or kisses would be inherently cruel. Depriving them of spanking, not so much.

Besides, spanking has much stronger associations with pornography than hugging or kissing, as well a dynamic of intimidation that can work in an abuser's favor. Notice how DiPalma threatened his victim with a harder spanking if he told anyone about the first.

This discussion reminds me of the aphorism "all generalizations are false. Including this one."

The entire smack/no-smack argument must, surely, remain a personal one.

Unless the smacking tips over into assault (and I still worry about the guy "pulling down a 14-year-old girl's pants and spanking her hard enough to cause bruises"), it is irrelevant to anyone except the parties concerned. The government has established guidelines for a court to determine whether an assault has taken place, surely that is as far as they need to go.

And as for one parent saying to another "you shouldn't smack", or the other retorting "you need to smack", the discussion is equally pointless. Neither has the requisite understanding of the relationship involved necessary to form such a blanket judgment, one way or another.

Mine is a personal view that, had I succumbed to the temptation of giving them a whack, I would have a) lost the argument and b) set a bad example.

But that's just my view, and no amount of "spare the rod" exhortation will change that.

Divine_msn,

>>"BTW - victim was pulled from bed, put over assailants knee and spanked through her clothes - presumably sleepshirt or similar and bikini underpants (not swimsuit)."<<

Well, maybe I misinterpreted "bikini bottoms" as part of a swimsuit. That to me seems more like standard usage in the U.S. But if you're correct that it was actually underpants, which for girls are typically even thinner than swimsuit fabric, then it was all the more gratuitous for Freudenthal to strip them away. Especially considering the bruising level of force he applied--unless, of course, he wanted to make it extra humiliating for her (maybe as payback for laughing at him).

Would you at least agree that having her buttocks exposed and touched by this man against her will while was likely very humiliating for her?

>>"Spontaneous action in presence of witness, not calculated, concealed, manipulative ritualistic act as per your average pervert."<<

OK, but that could also be said for this incident:

Rolling Stone, Sept. 20, 1990

Rock Band Assault at Concert

The bassist and drummer of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Michael "Flea" Balzary and Chad Smith, have each been fined $1000 plus prosecution costs and ordered to donate $5000 to the Volusia County Rape Crisis Center, in Daytona Beach, Florida. The two pleaded guilty to various charges stemming from an incident that took place during the band's performance at an MTV spring-break party in Daytona Beach on March 14th. During the show, which was videotaped by MTV, Flea threw a twenty-year-old female fan over his shoulder, and Smith tried to remove her bikini bottoms; after she was knocked to the ground, Flea knelt on her legs, yelling obscenites and spanking her. The two were also required to write letters of apology to the victim.

blwpyrtv - my comment from earlier post Page 11:

"I'd expect she'd feel very angry, humiliated, probably shocked that this man had completely lost his TEMPER and given her a painful hiding, but 'sexually violated'? NO I very much doubt it."

Unlike previous examples where children (pre-pubescents) were targeted by offenders in the typical orchestrated, manipulative ritualistic and secretive manner favoured by such pervies, this assault occurred in the presence of a witness, was impulsive and most likely driven by anger and frustration at this girls genuine bad behaviour. While his actions were illegal and highly inappropriate, it wasn't sexual assault. He pulled down the undies to inflict greater pain since his initial effort was met with laughter.

"I spanked her hard enough so she could feel it ... so it would sting, so she wouldn't be able to sit down, so she would remember it," Mr. Freudenthal testified. "She was so out of control." . . .

But back to the subject - which concerns PARENTS using reasonable corporal punishment to discipline their offspring.

A 14 yr old female is not a child in the physiological sense and past the age where a smack is an appropriate form of punishment. Ditto for the somewhat less advanced but adolescent male. Parents may occasionally FEEL they'd like to knock them down :-) But most of us don't ...

The assault of a young adult female at a rock concert is completely irrelevant to this discussion and I find it puzzling why you should refer to it.

Pericles,

I'm trying to imagine just exactly how you define 'winning' an argument with a four year old? Especially when they are TOTALLY oblivious to reason and have no real conception of the future.

To pretend that you can get a result every time is preposterous. Those who smack know that reason and talking only get you so far with little kids. In fact we even know smacking won't get a result every time.

Face facts, you lose the argument all the time, exactly like the rest of us, you're just too vain and moralistic to see it.

The whole, 'if you use violence you've already lost the argument' nonsense holds no weight with me. It may well have some application to the sphere of adult relationships, but it has NOTHING to tell us about relationships with our children, which are inherently dicatorial. Noone would claim that a 4 year old knows best when to go to bed or what to eat.

Children aren't adults and to try and treat them as such is an abrogation of the fundamental responsibilities as a parent. If you seriously want to continue to apply adult solutions to childrens problems, maybe the next time your kids hits someone, you could have them arrested.

The simple fact is that losing the argument with kids is far more common today than it used to be.

The whole of the progressive left seems intent on rolling out its 'rights' based agenda, which seeks to establish its authority over as many sphere's of human conduct as it possibly can. Yet they seem to have no interest in any associated 'responsibilities' Rights without responsibilities is the perfect recipe for the spoiled brat of today.

I think you may be taking the whole "argument" thing too literally, PaulL. Losing the argument was simply a metaphor for the failure to get the point across.

But thank you for helping illustrate my point.

>>Face facts, you lose the argument all the time, exactly like the rest of us, you're just too vain and moralistic to see it.<<

That's the OLO equivalent of the smack, isn't it. You dislike the idea that someone may actually be able to raise their kids without whacking them, so you lash out. Tell us, did you feel better after that little verbal tantrum?

>>Noone would claim that a 4 year old knows best when to go to bed or what to eat<<

Least of all me, PaulL.

But do you really have to beat them, in order for them to learn? Of course you don't. So try thinking about the times you were, in fact, able to get them to bed on time, or to eat their broccoli. How did you manage it on those occasions? You may find that the difference between those times and when you felt the need to give them a belt was you, not them. You may have been tired, or short-tempered, or distracted, or annoyed about something else entirely.

As I said before, it doesn't necessarily work for everyone. But it did work for me.

>>...it has NOTHING to tell us about relationships with our children, which are inherently dicatorial<<

No argument with that. But why do you assume that being "dictatorial" requires beatings? I told my kids to do stuff. They did what they were told. It wasn't some debating society, as you seem keen to portray it.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong, you know.

>>If you seriously want to continue to apply adult solutions to childrens problems, maybe the next time your kids hits someone, you could have them arrested.<<

That's just plain silly. Why do you assume I would want them arrested, given that I don't even advocate criminalizing corporal punishment?

Short, as I said before, of assault.

Divine_msn,

Let me rephrase the question slightly: Would you agree that having her buttocks forcibly exposed and touched by this man was likely very humiliating *in and of itself*? Maybe even degrading?

Paul:”I'm trying to imagine just exactly how you define 'winning' an argument with a four year old? Especially when they are TOTALLY oblivious to reason and have no real conception of the future.”

When the 4 year old goes “oh okay I understand” or “yeah I get it” and can explain back to you what point or instruction you were trying to make and the why of it.

They also have a very real understanding of the short term future.

They actually reason wonderfully if you ask them to work out a few “what if” scenarios. The way they reason is childlike but gives a real insight into how they see the world.

I get kids that tell me about being hit and I ask why they think that happened. They will say because they were naughty or did something wrong. Ask a 4 year old if I hit kids and they say “nah”, ask them why I don’t and they will say “because they are not naughty”. Gotta love the reasoning there.

Blwpyrtv if we all admit that yes the 14 year old was absolutely humiliated and felt completely degraded. What has it got to do with smacking youngins?

Divine_msn,

Let me rephrase the question slightly: Would you agree that having her buttocks forcibly exposed and touched by this man was likely very humiliating *in and of itself*? Maybe even degrading?

blwpyrtv - your apparent fascination with this wild nubile young miss and her bare buttocks being *touched* is beginning to alarm me. Are you a closet fetishist? If so I'm glad your tastes run to the post-pubescent female .... (I'd advise paying for the services of a professional if seeking "hands on" satisfaction though and stick to the over 18s)

This is a discussion about the validity of using reasonable corporal punishment to discipline young children. Nothing to do with people spanking other peoples children or young adults.

If you are trying to suggest that parental smacking or spanking has sexual overtones which leaves children open to predatory adults with spanky paedo inclinations, which is the only connection I am making from what are pretty irrelevant contributions to this debate, then you need some HELP.

I repeat: THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT PARENTS USING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AS A DISCIPLINARY TOOL. I am happy to respond to or defend any statements relating to the SUBJECT. All further digression will be ignored.

Dude, I'm not the one who was talking about how this girl "has probably had her knickers (willingly) pulled down a few times before." How's that for savory?

If you think I find these arguments and examples a turn-on, fine . . . it doesn't change the fact that you either lack the empathy to see how being forcibly stripped would make the punishment a lot more humiliating, if not degrading, for a 14-year-old or refuse to acknowledge it. (Though you are at least willing to call Freudenthal's actions physical assault, which can't be said for the judge.)

At the same time, you seem to be OK with DiPalma and Ellis being labeled sex offenders (despite the absence of fondling, penetration, etc.), due to their "orchestrated, manipulative ritualistic and secretive manner." That's not really clear in Ellis' case. We also don't know how bad his victim might have been behaving leading up to the spanking. Especially given that he choked her brother for being disobedient, why would you automatically chalk up the spankings to sexual motive, as opposed to a poorly controlled temper?

And the fact that DiPalma was covert in spanking his student only indicates that he knew he could get in trouble for doing it. It doesn't follow his motives were necessarily sexual. (Conversely, if he'd spanked him in the presence of witnesses, that would not have precluded sexual assault charges.) One could suppose that he simply has a mean streak and therefore created an opportunity to inflict pain on a defenseless child, who probably didn’t know that it was a crime for the teacher to spank him. An adult bully, basically, who chooses easy victims to pick on. And how implausible is it that DiPalma sincerely thought the boy was a brat who needed a good ass-whipping, like so many kids these days? (I don't know how else to account for the deadlocked jury.)

I pointed to the rock band incident to show that sexual assault in the form of spanking doesn't always fit the stereotype you were invoking (calculated, not spontaneous, secretive, etc.)

As for what these cases have to do with parental spanking, it's like I explained upthread (p. 11). Kids who are spanked at home are apt to be easier prey for non-parental authorities who may have an M.O. like DiPalma's.

So with all this in mind, here are three questions I would encourage spanking parents to ask themselves:

1) Would your child ever accept a spanking from an adult other than you or your spouse?

2) Have you told your child in no uncertain terms that it’s never OK for another adult besides Mom or Dad to spank him or her—no matter how badly he or she has misbehaved?

3) Have you warned your child that some adults may have bad reasons for wanting to spank him or her?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn5jlrxcpkI&NR=1

Must watch for non-smacking parents.

Umm... blw interesting questions cause you get those people that think they should smack their kids and teachers should be allowed to as well.

Don't know if the majority of smacking parents feel like that.

In reply to Jewely - my offspring, at least the eldest, attended State School at a time when corporal punishment was still an option for male students. Did he ever recieve it? No, but if his behaviour had warranted, it would not have fazed either of his parents. By the time the youngest son began, the cane had been banned. Kids range in age 27 - 32.

All went on to a private High School where corporal punishment was still an option but the worse penalty ever accrued was a single afternoon detention (daughter).

It's possible, by my way of thinking, that our children were fortunate to have 2 parents in a loving supportive home where values were lived as well as taught, with firm but fair discipline so outside the home their behaviour was also generally good.

However, I am 99.9% confident that our children, from an early age, knew their Mum or Dad might give them a smack or even Grandma if she was pushed but for others to do so would be inappropriate. Two 'survival skills' that our kids were taught very early were a) how to swim (we lived near watercourses) and b)self defense.
To explain the latter, their maternal grandmother at age 11 had been the victim of attempted abduction. Resisting vigorously she managed to escape. She insisted her kids and grandkids learn how best to repel an attacker. (We are waiting for her, now aged 82, to start on her great-grandies lol) Techniques are not for playground scuffles but in emergency, no holds are barred. I very much doubt our children, particularly the daughter who had a strong tendency towards tit-for-tat, would ever have 'accepted' being 'spanked' or otherwise physically chastised by an outsider.

So I don't get that theory either.

If a child was constantly BEATEN - as in abused, and knew nothing else (therefore that treatment is the childs 'normality') there might well be tendency to accept abuse from others outside the home circle but this is the extreme and once again outside the BOUNDS OF REASONABLE CORPORAL DISCIPLINE

Corporal Punishment disappeared while I was at school – before it did it was generally only the boys I remember it being used on. I remember my teacher (when I was about 8 years old) crying when the vice principal caned two of the boys out of our class. Bit of a shock for me back then seeing an adult cry over kids being hurt. Never occurred to me that anyone in the grown up world cared.

“If a child was constantly BEATEN - as in abused, and knew nothing else (therefore that treatment is the childs 'normality') there might well be tendency to accept abuse from others outside the home circle but this is the extreme and once again outside the BOUNDS OF REASONABLE CORPORAL DISCIPLINE.”

Yeah I wonder if the boundaries are clear when they are little kids if they come from a home that smacks if they understand who exactly is allowed to smack them. Given small children feel it is always their own fault when an adult hurts them. Usually with the abusive adults the child being good or bad doesn’t seem to matter. I think back then my vice principal caned two boys in complete opposition to what our teacher thought was appropriate but he was the boss.

And within a family we forget there are also the grandparents, aunts, uncles who are generally allowed to smack the children of smackers. I’ve had parents drop children off to be babysat and have told me to smack them if they are naughty which worried me a hell of a lot. Okay now I am starting to think out loud…. lost my point completely.

In our situation Grandma had smacking permission since she helped considerably with child care when both of us were working. If another close relative had been doing it, a similar arrangement would probably have been made. As for others - No

Grandma used it extremely sparingly as she said it wasn't her place to smack her grandkids.

Jeez, she didn't mind tanning our bums when we played up I reminded but she just smiled and said we needed it ... LOL

As stated earlier, I have no resentment whatsoever because I always knew I was being punished for wrongdoing. And being reasonably bright I didn't need too much explanation that the behaviour had been unacceptable - I generally KNEW.

I do remember once getting into trouble at school, having my head nearly ripped off over something I had no involvement in and being so indignant that my Dad went and saw the Principal. He ended up apologising.

If I had been guilty my Dad would have tanned my backside but he was ready to defend my innocence too. I had great trust in my parents, they were people of integrity and their parents before them. We have tried to live accordingly and believe our own kids have the same regard for us. In any case we have very good relationships with our adult offspring. And *SURPRISE* their child management attitudes are similar to how they were raised, including smacking.

I actually asked my eldest son yesterday did he think we did a fair job as parents? Did he feel he'd had a happy childhood? His initial response was, "Hell yeah!" In the ensuing conversation where mostly pleasant memories were evoked, he said that some of his friends thought he was pretty lucky in the parent stakes. Never told me that before, felt pretty good! "What brought this on?" he finally asked. Never mind I said :-) My last post on this thread. Happy Blessed Easter to all. For non-believers - enjoy the holiday.

“If a child was constantly BEATEN - as in abused, and knew nothing else (therefore that treatment is the childs 'normality') there might well be tendency to accept abuse from others outside the home circle but this is the extreme and once again outside the BOUNDS OF REASONABLE CORPORAL DISCIPLINE.” - divine_msn

This question is for everyone here: What would you say are the bounds of reasonable corporal discipline?

This one is primarily for divine_msn: Do you think the children who submitted to this guy likely had been abusively beaten at home?

(Montreal) The Gazette
10/31/00

Principal fooled everyone-- How Wadsworth hid his pedophilia

Amanda Green was being a naughty 7-year-old and knew it on that day 13 years ago when she played with the water and climbed on the toilets in the girls' bathroom at Greendale elementary school in Pierrefonds.

She and her girlfriend were caught by their teacher, and Amanda knew she was in for it when she was sent to the principal's office.

David Wadsworth, principal of the school, immediately said he would see the girls individually. When it was Amanda's turn, the Grade 2 student nervously entered Wadsworth's office.

What she had done was wrong, Wadsworth told her, and now he was going to let her pick one of two choices for a punishment: either he would tell her parents and teachers what she had done and take away certain privileges, such as recess and gym; or she could take off her pants and panties and let him spank her as he would his own child, and no one need ever know what had happened.

"Can't I leave my underwear on?" asked Amanda. No, she vividly remembers Wadsworth telling her, embarrassment is part of the punishment.

Amanda, a feisty child, knew she shouldn't have to remove her clothes. She didn't like either punishment, she told him, defiantly. Perhaps taken aback by someone willing to stand up to him, Wadsworth told her to leave his office and never again brought up the incident.

Amanda's friend chose the spanking.

Wadsworth has pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography - pictures and videos of children being spanked - as well as to sexual assault and gross indecency against eight former students at a Pincourt elementary school. Amanda Green, now a Concordia University student, finds herself haunted by how many other children might have chosen to be spanked on a bare bottom by a man everyone believed was a sweetheart principal and a terrific teacher. . .

I am a mother of six children all born naturally within an 18 year marriage. We have always smacked and our children are a pleasure with no tantrums. they range from 6 to 16.
But it needs to be said that smacking these days is not like smacking 100 years ago. Parents are more negligent and selfish. I think parents needs to be trained on how to train.. not how to discipline. Simple tools like holding the pram when you go shopping to interrupting properly, it is better to lower your voice than raise your voice, don't call your children names, how to feed them properly, how much sleep they need - when and how to put them to bed. All these things if neglected lead to a whining demanding child that annoys a selfish parent and makes them angry and they react with violence. I believe a child should not need to be smacked after roughly 7yrs if you have trained them right, there are so many other calm ways to bring about a consequence for their behavior that will enable them to learn and grow into well rounded adults.We should make it compulsory for all new parents nationwide to undergo a simple training course on how to feed your child, keep them safe and healthy, how to dress them and get them to sleep. There should be three or four different options so to cater for those who choose to do it an alternative way. And as the age of Two seems to bring more challenges lets make it compulsory to undergo training in different ways of discipline - including smacking.. we can all learn from each other - our aim? a better society for them to grow up in. Nothing wrong with discipline done with love - not to punish but to teach with verbal training included.