Hooray for Perseus :) !! well said cobber.. "little twerp"..I luv it.

Rhys.. exactly..

1/ Warning

I'll add "time limit"

My approach was "1.....2.....3" They KNEW what would come if they didn't stop doing the 'evil' they were perpetrating or start doing the good they were not doing and up till around 4 should be very adequate for them to not need any further such discipline, which can then take on the noble nature of 'psychological abuse and torture' :) Placing them in 'the hole' for a time. (goto your room and think about what you did)
Or.. denial of cherished activities. It doesn't matter how you cut the cake,- discipline of a 'negative' nature is either physical violence or psychological violence.(to the cynical)

I found it a pattern, that the more you were willing to 'reason and negotiate' the longer and more protracted the issue became and it was firmly believed by the kids that they actually could get away with it, by dragging it on till you gave up.

Assuming positive re-inforcement alone will produce little and then big angels is more an exercise in denial and utopian optimism than reality.
Spock.. yes, his final words are far more important than his lifetime of woffle.

Sadly, the most viciforous people in the anti smacking brigade are probably those who managed to succeed in a non smacking (but psychological abuse) regime with their kids while 1000s of others found it just didn't work. But then.. they will probably be treated like the person who did not receive healing from the Faith healer "Oh.. you just didn't have enough faith, or.. there was some sin in your heart"

OR..they might be a pack of sad, childless losers who suddenly found a cause celebre' for their otherwise meaningless and powerless lives !

CONCLUSON. Discipline, whether corporal or psychological, should be based on and administered in love, and have clearly defined boundaries/warnings prior to it coming down on the kid. The wisdom to know which to use and when is the challenge.

You raise a very interesting point, Boaz David. I wonder what proportion of the anti-smacking brigade don't actually have kids of their own? This whole campaign has the unmistakebale stench of day trippers seeking cheap thrills at someone else's expense.

The issue is not one of whether the same behavioural outcome can be achieved by negotiation or not. Smacking is all about children comprehending that their actions can induce a response in others. And when they discover that it is possible to act so badly that the person who loves them more than anyone else in the world feels the need to smack them they rarely need to explore that behaviour again.

And on the scale of the misdeads done to kids these days, smacking is a 9th order issue. Far more severe and enduring damage is done by vindictive mothers who indulge their own vendettas after divorce by demonising and ultimately excluding all fatherly input. Do they seriously think they are doing their kids a favour by denying them any opportunity to see both sides of the story?

Do they seriously think they can abuse the legal system to humiliate the father of her children and not cause serious long-term harm, especially to young boys?

But you can be certain the sisterhood won't be in a hurry to do proper comparative studies on that one.

Perseus is right on stating ; "But you can be certain the sisterhood won't be in a hurry to do proper comparative studies on that one."

The unbalanced studies and absence of comparative studies reflect the many men who are now sad disgruntled litigants and ex clients of the Kangaroo Court . It is a sad indictment that society does not endorse the paternal side of the family, as it would help boys with self esteem levels.
The sisterhood ideologically driven law wants to use the anti smacking saga to further erode parental rights, because it is a policy platform of domestic/academic science that can implement its unfair mandate through a messianic social work agency . This is a frightening prospect to the majority of parents .

I'm currently writing my major university journalism assginment on this topic. I have found it of great interest and debate. The question of whether or not to smack children has been around for years, but is it a parental or governmental right to regulate?

Many believe this type of parental control could lead to further restrictions. Do you think this could be the start of a new ‘trend’ in governments?

And will a tax-payer funded campaign or NZ bill really benefit children, or could it end up leaving them run wild?

I've been thinking about a collective approach to smacking some adults. Any one wanna do a paper on that little gem. Smack a few adults and maybe we wouldn't need to smack a few of the kids. Once a year. The Annual Smacking Day. Where your free to just walk up and give someone a good clip back of the head and then explain to them why they were chosen. :-)

Annual smacking day - I could see a number of people taking great pleasure in that one!! I can think of a number of people that would benefit from slightly reddened buttocks...

BD, I dont believe in a 1,2,3 approach. Your kids should stop/start doing whatever as soon as they are asked. What happens when there is an outright dangerous situation, without the time to count to 3.

Smacking is ideally to be used at a time when children are difficult to reason with. Eg a toddler. It should then be phased out as the child gets older and can respond to other forms of discipline.

Of course, too much smacking is counter-productive. Anyone who has a "spirited" child can tell you that. Watching a childs response will give a good indication of whether or not smacking is effective. I worked out when my child wasnt responding when she started to smack the thing she wasnt supposed to be doing when asked to stop it. Eg smacking the tv screen when told not to touch it. So smacking is now confined to pretty dire situations, like when I get bitten (this toddlers favourite trick when being lifted up to do something she doesnt want to do is biting the soft part of your shoulder).