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?