Having been blessed with a gorgeous granddaughter who is now 1, I've been reflecting on our rather passionate discussion in OLO about 'smacking' :) as a means of discipline.

But much more than that, I've been observing her, and how the 'alternative' approach offered by some 'trendy' thinkers, such as "distract them from the bad behavior and give them something positive to do"

-Congratulate them when they do good. Ignore them when they do bad.
-Re-inforce the good behavior, and distract them from the bad.

THE WORD ...."NO"

Lets say a child does the wrong thing. The most common I note is 'lashing out' at things which don't go their way. If you don't want the particular cuddly toy.. you whack it.. push it away...and make a kind of 'no way' sound.

So far all is pretty managable.

But a point comes, when this lashing out, physical message "I don't want" can impact on others. The puppy...the kitten.. the twin brother etc...

So.. should we add to the word "NO" the following:

No...thats BAD....
No.. that 'hurts' the kitty.
No.. thats 'bad' BECAUSE it hurts the kitty.

Ok.. lets avoid the word "NO"..and approach it like this. '

"Dear, kitty likes to be stroked and patted, not hit on the head with your bottle"

Again.. this 'might' work, but if the child has taken a liking to the sense of 'power' she derives from making the kitty cower..hmmmm.. it raises the question of evaluating the violent behavior and expressing it in 'moral' terms.

QUESTION.. do you agree or disagree with the proposition that we can assign moral judgements to behavior?

Yes..thats 'GOOD'.... (as opposed to 'enjoyable, productive')
No.. thats 'BAD' (as opposed to simply 'hurtful, unproductive')

Do words like 'unproductive' or 'hurtful' twang at our conscience?

How is 'conscience' developed in the area of moral right and wrong?

Should we speak more of 'child compliance' than 'right and wrong' ?

Does 'compliance' connect to 'conscience'?

Any useful info from academic studies would be welcome.

'Positive Reinforcement' training works well for dogs, why not kids?. Kids don't come out speaking english. So 'NO' makes zero sense to them until they understand what the consequences are for 'ignoring' 'no'. Instead of concentrating on the consequences of the negative, why not reward the positive?.

As for smacking. Ya know this thread is gonna go that way again, but there is always a line that illegally persons can cross that becomes abuse. A 'smack' works for some and not for others. Try all other options then smacking last.

I quite agree.. 100% with all that STG.

but positive reinforcment alone... hmm I don't think that's the answer. (I feel it does depend on age largely. A 1 yr old doesn't understand morality,only consequences)

Lets take the issue of when one child Johnny spits on another, -Jimmy.
(They are both 3 yrs old)

Do we......

1/ Distract the offending child, give him something more worthy to do. (which they do until ur gone and then back to annoying Jimmy)

2/ Scold the child verbally, and ask them how they would feel if someone spat on them.

Johnny...NO!...don't spit on Jimmy, thats (fill in the blank)
-evil/bad/wrong
-unpleasant for Jimmy.
-If you do that Jimmy might spit back on you, or whack you with the nearest blunt object.
-If you do that 'people' will look down on you.
-All of the above.

3/ Scold plus Let Jimmy spit on Johnny so he knows how it feels?

It seems to me that unless Johnny knows and is taught that spitting on Jimmy is actually 'wrong' for reasons other than it annoys Jimmy, his conscience won't be set up correctly for knowing 'wrong and right' behavior... He will indeed develop a 'survival, self interest' type conscience, (if I spit on others, they might spit on me) but not a 'moral' compass of inherrent right and wrong. (spitting on others is morally wrong)

Of course, in all this I have my usual agenda :) but don't accuse me of 'bait and switch' Pericles... you already know where I go with this kind of thing :)

David, I've not yet managed to track down the underlying research papers yet :(

Murray Straus recently presented the findings of research which shows a causal relationship between being smacked as kids and the likleyhood of sexual violence and risky sexual violence as adults. He has also commented on subject of the effectiveness of other methods of discipline in a number of the articles I've seen. His view is "other research shows spanking is not more effective than other discipline methods"

You can start with
http://health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=387982
"Widely considered the foremost researcher in his field, Straus presented his research findings at the American Psychological Association's Summit on Violence and Abuse in Relationships. "

and
"Furthermore, because other research shows spanking is not more effective than other discipline methods, there is no need to expose children to the harmful effects of spanking. We can help prevent mental health problems and relationship violence by a national health policy recommending never spanking," he says.

As someone who grew up with smacking and has smacked as a parent I consider these findings serious enough to change my views on the topic. It's an unnecessary risk to my childs well being.

R0bert

Boazy, you are for some reason connecting smacking a child with saying "no" and providing an explanation. Many parents do not do the former, for good reason. I imagine most do the latter.

They're not the same thing.

Or are you saying that parents need to choose between saying no to a child and distracting them? Is there some reason why you think parents can't do both. For example, tell a child not to spit on others, ask them to apologise, then move on to another activity?

I'm confused about the distinction you're trying to make.

Disciplinary fashions change, and not always for the better - especially not for boys.

Today, when my son is being a boy, I do not do as my father did - that is thought to be beyond the pale - instead I do this: "Just wait till your mother gets home." And when she gets home, then he gets it.

Not a whack on the bum, but a full-frontal verbal assault that looks to me - and, I fear, to him - like a form of mental cruelty that far exceeds the physical cruelty I once rather willingly endured.

I have noticed that girls tend to accept such verbal assaults as I did a whack on the bum; but I fear that for boys, things have become far worse.

A boy is not suited to enduring mental cruelty. He is not suited to anything much mental at all. He is a physical creature who can scrape all the skin off his knee and 10 seconds later be prepared to do it again. What he cannot do is shrug off the kind of viciously accurate character assessment Mum ladles out as "caring" and "non-coercive" discipline.

It is not just that he can't retaliate with the acid-tongue facility of a girl (though he can't - he tends to stand there speechless, sheer terror in his eyes); it is that he cannot think his way past the verbal thrusts.

They wound him, and leave him wounded.

The pain is not physical and transient, and not something that can be borne with dignified courage. It is psychological and permanent. He knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mum can see straight through him, and even if he cannot see what she does, he knows that what she sees must be there.

Ergo, he is not just a "bad boy", he is some kind of monster whose insides are twisted, vile and deformed.

cont...

I have tried to explain this to my wife but, as to be expected, I am always out-argued. I am accused of physical sadism and of a perverse delight in hitting, but really all I am is a big boy.

I cannot produce, deliver or deal with the verbal facility of women on the warpath. I feel assaulted, crushed, twisted, vile and deformed. I wish someone would punch me instead, so that I might bear up, get over things, and go on having fun.

Author unknown.

From my digital scrap book of blog posts that ring true for me. This one very close to home.

Usual Suspect.

What an awful and heartbreaking situation you stumbled across.

While it's incredibly sad, and I hope the bloke managed to get help, the story you tell has nothing to do with punishment styles. It is about abuse.

Parents are not presented with just two options: either a smack, or such violent verbal abuse that their child comes to feel like a "kind of monster whose insides are twisted, vile and deformed". Disallowing one does not permit the other. Good parents discuss and agree on a consistent parenting style. They do not bully each other, or their children.

What you have described is domestic violence. The distinction is important.

VANILLA.. glad you actually tweaked to what I was on about before going down that 'smacking' road too far...

Robert.. please re-read the gist of my posts. It has very LITTLE to do with smacking..in fact I'm not 'on' about that at all.

There was a newspaper article some time back in which it was claimed (not sure how accurate) that pre-school teachers/helpers were not allowed to say 'NO' to children. The idea being that they would develop low self esteem if you did..or..that it is the verbal equivalent of a 'smack' perhaps.. I don't recall.

What I'm digging at here, is the 'objective' of discipline rather than the method of applying it.
This is not a 'smacking vs talking' topic..

They may well be some of us who believe in a 'deterministic/behaviorist' model of humans. In which case the idea of inculcating the idea of 'moral wrong' into a childs mind would not be admissible. They would take the view "helfpul/beneficial/Non helpful non beneficial" in describing behavior.

I'm exploring the idea of the VALUE or reason, we attach to the word 'no' when dealing with children.

No..'its wrong'....
No.. he's bigger than you...
No..'it might endanger you (Johnny) under the present circumstances' (because just by Jimmy's hand is a baseball bat kind of thing)

Do we teach children 'absolute' right and wrong.. or.. 'situational ethics'

Now..Vanilla came up with a good trigger "do both" (say no, then explain then distract kind of thing)

Remember THREE yr olds for context here people.

Fair enough, but what do we 'explain'... (see above)

The Christian view is simple. 'Do for others as you would have them do for you'...but when they ask us 'why daddy'? we say "Because God has said so" (along with the practical reasons of self preservation etc)

Vanilla,

You're right, and I understand the distinction. I just thought I would throw verbal abuse into the mix, as it is never considered in the same breath as physical abuse.

'Disallowing one does not permit the other'.
I think it can be argued that parents who lose control of their children, who once might have used a smack for a 'quick reboot' of their child, have had this avenue taken away from them to some extent. It's not unreasonable to suggest that without this option, it is easy to imagine a parent losing control and letting a child have it verbally.

I do think looking back from my own experiences as a child (as I said it's very close to home, and I still remember the effect it had on me when first reading it), and observing the way little girls and boys react in conflict with parents, it's the little boys who suffer more from this new attitude to spanking.

Abuse, either verbal or physical is not necessary.

I am wondering if Boaz has had a 'road to Damascus' type transformation since the birth of his granddaughter, I hope so.

Vanilla,

this is not the first time Boaz has brought up the topic of discipline as a discussion topic. Perhaps the following link will help:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=50#750

What's the problem with non-smacking forms of discipline? The removal of toys, television, favoured foods etc as a method of punishment, combined with positive reinforcement for good behaviour?

Hi, BD,
Your cute grand daughter seems to be at that age where she’s just starting to discover that she is her own person and not an extension of the carer and that is quite a discovery for a little one to find out that she has this power to refuse or reject things.
She has no proper verbal skills yet to express what she wants or doesn’t want so she can only use actions and body language.
We have a son and a daughter and have never resorted to smacking or vebally abusing them.

There are far more positive ways than smacking or verbal abuse to teach children (both boys and girls, Unusual Support!) what is acceptable/unacceptable.

I’ve used NO but only when there is a real reason to say no.
Some parents say NO all the time and then it loses its effect.
E.g., the kids ask for an ice-cream an hour before dinner. “Sure… you can have one after dinner”.
Can I have a pony? Sure, after you have saved up enough money to buy one.
Can I climb upon that wall? Sure, the 1st aid kit is in the car if you need it.

Both my children, now teenagers, turned out very responsible and have never reacted to any situation with violence. They have never even hit or pushed each other at any age.

Both my children were awarded the Citizen of the Year Award upon leaving Primary School and people used to comment on how well behaved they were when they visited their friends.
I now look like a big fat bragger- but I’m telling you only because I want to ensure you that your granddaughter won’t necessarily end up in trouble (or jail or in the gutter) when you don’t smack her.

SUSPECT... what a bode of thanx we owe you for that incredible post:)

I had not actually considered the difference between boys and girls in that way...but I believe you made a great point!

Vanilla then comes in with a very pertinent statement

<<the story you tell has nothing to do with punishment styles. It is about abuse.>>

Of course this leads directly to another aspect of 'smacking' (not that I want to divert the thread down that alley), i.e.. that it can be 'disciplinary' and loving.. or..it can be brutal and abusive ..exactly like the verbal 'thrashing' that U.S. demonstrated.

We are still not quite tweaking to my intended subject for debate though.

VALUES.... "NO" I'm still hoping that someone will come up with the appropriate 'moral value' to attach/connect to the word "no".

All I can do here is refer you all back to my last couple of posts, where I try to outline this issue.

No.. because...?

Fractelle..no.. no road to Damascus on the smacking bit, I absolutely believe in it being correctly applied in love, with reason.. but if I've changed at all, it would be more because of U.S.' post about boys and girls.

If a child inflicts pain on another child,

...and they have already been verbally warned a couple of times, denied TV...or sent to the 'hole' to no avail, then I see no reason not to inflict at least some kind of 'pain' on them as a disciplinary measure... with the stern rebuke "Do you like that?.. well?.. is it nice? THAT is what you are doing to Jimmy, but much worse, now stop it..or you will get more from me, but harsher next time...you have been warned"

Much more preferable to Jimmy grabbing a half brick after the nth assault and letting fly at Johnny's head.

I'm with Celivia on this one. Cannot see the need either for smacking or the "No" thing?

I used to laugh at my mother who, as I mentioned before, had an affinity with animals and indeed bred dogs. She used to say that training a dog and training a child were both the same thing.

After all, a small child does not understand the intrinsic meaning of the word "No". Its a code. You could just as well shout "Table" or "Goat" at them each time you didn't want them to do something.

Children, animals and those who speak another language react to the tone of your voice rather than the words said. Thus, if a child is about to shove a knife in a toaster it doesn't really matter if you yell No or their name or Bloody 'ell. Its the panic and urgency they will react to.

A child/animal who is treated with love, reacted to with gentleness and shown understanding reflects those qualities. Remember children (and dogs) initially WANT to please. To this day,if either of my boys discusses a proposed course of action with me it is my disappointment that they will react to if it is a bad choice.

And "Do unto others?..." Its always been pretty self-explanatory to my kids, there has never been a need to bring anyone other beings into it.

Like Celivia, I'm proud of my strong, gentle boys. One of whom received a Young Australian of the Year award in his area without recourse on my part to smacking or shouting.

David what's the plan? Get the non-thiests to accept that terms like good and bad are relevant and then get all distressed because we don't need a god picked our of a selection of thousands(millions) of possible candidates to back that up with some kind of "absolute" basis.

You may need that piece of gymnastics in your life, mamy of us don't.

I'm happy to use those terms without an imagined god to give them authority. I accept that at the end it's a viewpoint but so is your choice to follow a particular god idea. Neither is actually absolute and both depend on choices that we make.

I doubt very much that you are just after a straight discussion of the merits of positive only parenting vs a combination of reward and consequences. This looks far to much like one of your contrived discussions where you try and use your own world view to claim a logical victory for what is really some quite distorted thinking.

R0bert

Of course we need to be realistic about this. If you've got a two-year-old who repeatedly runs into the street, your only alternative may be to use punishment. Administer a pat on the bottom low and hard until they learn to stop this dangerous behaviour. You have to impose your more mature judgement on the youngster until their judgement becomes mature enough to handle the situation. But in the main we can teach our children most of the things we want them to learn without having to resort to punishment.

Why avoid punishment? Because the only real effect of punishment is to suppress a response temporarily. No permanent weakening of the punished behaviour has taken place. When the suppression effect wears off, as it is bound to do in time, the behaviour will recur.

There are additional reasons for using punishment as little as possible when teaching a child. Whenever we punish the learner we are teaching them to hate us and fear us. We don't want to teach children hate or fear unless it it absolutely necessary for self-protection.

Whenever a teacher for example punishes a learner, he becomes an "aversive stimulus," just like an electric shock. The learner will want to avoid contact from then on with both the teacher and whatever they are being taught.

Instead of punishment, when you want to get a child to stop doing something undesirable, use "extinction techniques." Take a four-year old who has discovered the electrical effect that the use of four-letter words can have on his parents. They come home with these four-letter words for the first time. Do they get reinforcement for them?
You bet they do!

In fact, their mother usually acts as though she's been given the special job of reinforcing these four-letter words so that her four-year old will continue to sue them. How can she get them to stop?
Merely stop reinforcing the child. Ignore the four-letter words and play it cool. Sooner or later, when the child sees that they don't irritate mum any more, they will stop using them.

That's all for now.

Erm... late in the discussion I know, but - I recall from first year psychology lectures a few decades ago that the first word children in our society generally learn is "No", after "Mama" and "Dada".

I don't suppose that's changed all that much, although maybe it has?

What if, instead of "No", "Mama" or "Dada", it's now something more like "Macca"?

Spare the burger and spoil the child.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Romany,
You can be very proud of your son, that’s quite an achievement!

US,
“A boy is not suited to enduring mental cruelty.”
Are you saying that girls are? Whack the boys and verbally abuse the girls? Nice!

I reiterate that neither boys nor girls should have to be disciplined through either verbal assaults or physical punishments.
I have always tried to see the best in my own and other’s children and any improper behaviour I just put down to the fact that they’re still learning. I doubt that people will make less mistakes or better choices in life when they have been verbally assaulted or whacked as children. Inflicting pain, or making a kid feel bad about themselves for any reason does not speed up the learning process.

I wish that there were free parenting courses available for all pregnant women and their partners and for people with young children who need support BEFORE the child has turned into a ‘problem’.

If I had to address one thing that I find creates annoying or difficult behaviour in children, it would be the parents’ inconsistency.
E.g. a parent says NO several times but the child goes ahead and does it anyway.
The parent turns a blind eye and lets the child get away with the behaviour.
Or, the child asks again and again (Bart Simpson method) until the parent can’t stand it any longer and gives in. The child gets away with it, again.
I have seen this happening so many times.

I have never been a strict parent, but once I said no I meant NO.

There is nothing wrong with telling a child that there will be consequences if they do (or don't do) something.
“If you don’t clear away your toys then I will do it myself, instead of taking you to…” (name something they like e.g. a friend’s house, or the beach).

BD I really hope that you have changed your mind about smacking after reading Robert’s link?
What do your granddaughter’s parents think about smacking, do they agree with you?

Celivia,

“A boy is not suited to enduring mental cruelty.”
'Are you saying that girls are?'
No. BTW: I didn't write the story, I think I explained that in the posting. I don't think the author was saying that either.

'Whack the boys and verbally abuse the girls? Nice!'
I didn't say that either. Though I think boys are more equipped to understand the language of violence and girls the language of mental torment. Just look in the playground. Neither should be encouraged though.

I do think parents seem to be very judgemental of each other. I don't think all children are the same and as easy to handle, and I don't think 100% of how manageable the child is can be attributed to the parenting. It's easy to sit on one's high horse and say 'I don't need to smack', or boast about how good a parent one is. Even if you think a child is unmanageable due to previous parenting mistakes, that's irrelevant to the differences in difficulty of controlling different children in the here and now.

All I'm saying is, as a male, and copping a lot of verbal abuse and some smacking and shaking as a child, it's the verbal abuse that was more frightening at the time, and has had the lasting scars. But of course I would rather boys and girls experience neither.

Interesting point Foxy.. "Why avoid punishment"? indeed. It's a fact of life, and we definitely punish anti social activity in a variety of ways, including jail.

So.. Celivia and Romany seem to have been blessed with 'perfect' children :) I wasn't.. and I've seen many who were not.

You see.. there is the issue of "The strong willed child"

Here's how it works Celivia :)

(Child): Mum..can I have an icecream? (1 hour b4 dinner)
(Mum): Sure..you can have one after dinner.

NOW.. *huge grin*..who.. among us has not found that it doesn't end there?
(Child) but I WANT ONE ....nowwwwwwwWWWWW.....

Celivia can take us into the twilight zone of how to cope with that :) but I'll be a bit adventurous myself.

APPROACH 1. "we reason".. "dear... if you have one now, you wont eat your dinner"
RESPONSE (Child) "I don't care.. I realllly want one NOWWWWWWW!"
RESPONSE TO RESPONSE (mum) "If you keep this up, I'll send you to your room until dinner" (= "no")
(child).. BUT I WANNNNNT ONE NOWWWWWWW!
(Mum) "ok.. you were warned.. into your room right now"!

(Child) "I don't WANT to goto my room.. no no nooooooo".. screams yells, stamps foot"

Now..I'm guessing that some are speculating that the Mum lost the plot much earlier than this particular moment in time, which of course produced this result.

But back to my intended topic :) aah..thought you could escape eh.. or making this a 'to smack or not to smack' topic..no..its not about that.

I'm exploring the philosphical foundation...the 'morality' to which we appeal in regard to child compliance or raising.

Robert..
I was up front in my first 2 posts about where I'm going with this.

I think our foremost thought in 'child compliance' is our cultural norms. But what is the moral 'framework' for that?
We do need one, or the kids will one day say "You can't force me to do that, I don't believe in Santa anymore, and your rules are just made up...like him"

CELIVIA.... sorry missed responding to your question (which is in fact a distraction from the topic actually about me changing my mind on smacking)

Firstly, the number of times I smacked was very very few. I used the '1, 2, 3 method...and I told them if u don't stop (or start) that by the time I count 3, then you KNOW what will come. It mostly worked. Even when it didn't I never 'thrashed' the kids.. just a bit of a whack on the bum. But I always reasoned that they smacked themselves.. because they clearly knew 'after 3 comes.... ouch'.

We did use the 'into the hole for a while' approach..and the 'no tv approach. But they seemed to suffer a heck of a lot MORE by being socially marginalized in the family, than by a quick whack.

The tone of voice from a big 'daddy' is usually enough. The repeated or half hearted nagging from a mum is something kids tweak to VERY quickly, and they play as much as they can with it.

FIRMNESS..
PREDICTABILITY..
CONSISTENCY..
CREATIVITY..
are probably the best child rearing tools. (all contained within the envelope of love)

Regarding my daughter.. she initially said "I'm not going to smack my kids" :) but now that she has a daughter... she understands how difficult it can be at times when they act up. (even at 1) Theory and practice are quite a long way apart in some things. But ask that same question in 12 months and I might have a better idea of how it's going.

so..enuf said on that, lets try to stick 2 the topic please.

"We do need one, or the kids will one day say "You can't force me to do that, I don't believe in Santa anymore, and your rules are just made up...like him"

David, you seem to be unwilling to accept that when you follow it through you have made a choice about the source of your moral authority. You may say I've found god therefore I have an absolute basis for my rules but in doing so you ignore the layer before belief in your god where you decided (deliberately or not) that you would choose belief in that god over all others.

Your firm foundation rests on yet another foundation built of the same stuff as the rest of our foundations. It may make it easier to fool the kids but in the end it's still about what we choose.

It's is not and cannot be absolute because at some point it comes down to a choice to go a certain way.

R0bert

I was at a cello recital recently, sitting in the balcony.

A couple of upwardly mobiles, toddler and baby sat behind me.

Baby whinge, whinge....WHINGE!! After much frowning and moi moving my seat, bub is taken out of auditorium by dada.

Mumsy allows toddler to play up and down the balcony steps, smiling indulgently at the little brat when she stumbles about the balcony, disrupting the concert. Not a sign of a NO!...

So I picked the kid up and threw her off the balcony.

Then I woke up.

Sympathy Ginx.

I don't know how many times I've seen parents give lollies to a misbehaving kid to shut them up in public. Or a can of soft drink

Robert,

Can I clarify whether you intend to track down the studies? If so when you do can you let me know the important information lacking in the story:

What percentage of men physically force sex and what percentage of women do so? Also what is meant by “increase in probability” in this context? If a 10% increase means eg. an increase from 1% of the population of non spanked to 1.1% of the population of spanked then the actual percentages would be particularly relevant.

What proportion of people engage in unsafe sex and what proportion of people engage in risky sex and are there any other known factors which correlate to both physical discipline and unsafe sex and might confound the finding? Eg. Are people lacking corporal punishment less likely to have multiple sexual partners? A personality type evident in early childhood that doesn’t attract corporal punishment as a child also being a personality type that doesn’t display interest in violence and sex as an adult? Is there any basis for the researcher’s belief about discipline and relationship with parents. Is it something based on other research or just an inflamatory guess by the researcher with no other basis then the likelihood of unsafe sex?

What does “smacked a lot” mean in relation to sadomasochistic sex? Do people who subscribe to corporal punishment on average attain the “smacked a lot” frequency or is their smacking more likely to fall in a lower category? A comparison is made of “smacked a lot” with not smacked at all. Did they do a comparison with smacked a moderate amount? If so were they more or less likely to engage in sadomasochistic sex?

The news item does not make me feel particularly familiar with the study, its results, and the implications. I look forward to you filling me in if applicable. All I got from the news story is that spanking hasn't been shown to lead to impotence as the title of the news story seems to imply.

mjpb, I'd been trying to locate the material. Your question prompted a renewed search and I've found it (easily to my shame for not finding it earlier).

The paper is at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP91-ID91-PR91-%20Draft%20I%20with%20Gamez%20comments%20accepted.pdf

Linked off Murray Straus's online research papers on corporal punishment
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP-Empirical.htm

The parent page at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/cp.htm has links to reviews, critiques etc.

I've not read the entire thing yet but in a skim I just came across the following which could contradict my earlier claim of an established causal link - I'm thinking about that. The first part is similar to David's point about some kids being different natures to other kids.

"A second limitation is that the cross-sectional design does not permit establishing the causal direction. This is particularly important in the case of corporal punishment because that is something parents typically do to correct misbehavior. Thus, corporal punishment, rather than being a cause of later antisocial, may be a consequence early child behavior problem behavior, which carries over into adulthood.
However, there are at least seven longitudinal studies which show that although misbehavior does cause corporal punishment and does result in cessation of the misbehavior at the time, in the longer run use of corporal punishment boomerangs in the sense of increasing the probability of subsequent antisocial behavior (Straus, 2001; Straus & Medeiros, 2008). "

R0bert

US, “I didn't write the story”
Sorry, I must’ve missed the “Author unknown” part of your first post and realise that I must’ve rushed reading it. My excuses for misunderstanding.
However, I don’t like the idea of placing boys and girls in different boxes as in, “boys are more equipped to understand the language of violence and girls the language of mental torment.”
I tend to look at children as individuals, they are all so different, and the fact that you personally found it easier to cope with shaking or a whack than verbal violence doesn’t mean that all boys do. My parents never smacked us, but my mother used to shout and I am sure that I found that just as upsetting as my two brothers did. As a child I was consciously aware that shouting made me feel horrible and nervous and I didn’t understand why she shouted.

I am a bit upset that you, and perhaps others, think that parents, who say that they have successfully raised responsible children without “needing” to smack them, are on a high horse or are boasting.
I made clear that boasting was not my intention. I merely claimed that there is no need to smack and gave you my own example to illustrate that to BD, as did Romany.
I do not look down on parents who have trouble parenting. That’s why I said that it’s a shame that there is no free parenting course so that parents with good intentions can learn better parenting skills.

BD
” FIRMNESS..
PREDICTABILITY..
CONSISTENCY..
CREATIVITY..
are probably the best child rearing tools. (all contained within the envelope of love)”
I agree!

I will continue this post below as I want to reply to what you said, but from then on I’ll try to stick to the original topic.

BD,
“Here's how it works Celivia”
Firstly, no child is perfect; if they were, no parenting would be necessary.
Secondly, I already know how it works. I am an experienced parent and before I came to Australia, I used to teach at a school in a disadvantaged area with a high rate of children with behavioural problems, many (70%) of whom were new immigrants and refugees and did not speak the language.
I have also ‘unofficially’ fostered some children with behavioural problems from parents who couldn’t cope, just to give them a break for a few weeks or a few months.
So please believe me, I know how it works.


Celivia can take us into the twilight zone of how to cope with that :) Simply tell the child that s/he has two choices:
1. “Keep arguing about ice-cream but if you ask one more time, there will be no ice-cream before OR after dinner. “ Assuming that you already told her/him the reason for your ‘no snacking before dinner’ rule.
Then, stick to this; if you stick to your word there may be some drama this time and perhaps next time, but s/he will soon give up and just accept the rule. If you are consistent, they will simply learn that no matter how much drama they create, you will never give in. I’d rather go as far saying that I’ll throw the ice-creams in the bin if s/he continues- and then there won’t be ice-creams for the rest of the week- than to give in to a screaming kid. I never had to actually do this, but I would have!
2. Go and play or help mummy set the table, fold the serviettes. If you do that, you can have an ice-cream after dinner.

I stand by what I said- no matter how misbehaved a child is (assuming there is no medical problem), there is no need at all to scream at them or whack them. You need (your list again: ” FIRMNESS..
PREDICTABILITY..CONSISTENCY..CREATIVITY.. and I’ll add patience and empathy to that!

Robert,

Thanks for the further info.

"The first part is similar to David's point about some kids being different natures to other kids." When I alluded to that I didn't realize David had typed it.

"...corporal punishment, rather than being a cause of later antisocial, may be a consequence early child behavior problem behavior, which carries over into adulthood."

That is an important consideration for this type of research particularly since research has shown that misbehaviour causes the punishment (which isn't too surprising but there are other possibilities)

"However there are at least seven longitudinal studies which show that although misbehavior does cause corporal punishment and does result in cessation of the misbehavior at the time, in the longer run use of corporal punishment boomerangs in the sense of increasing the probability of subsequent antisocial behavior (Straus, 2001; Straus & Medeiros, 2008)."

That of course begs the questions of what caused the misbehaviour initially and if similar people in a culture that eschewed corporal punishment would also exhibit later antisocial behaviour less the cessation at the time.

FIRMNESS..PREDICTABILITY..CONSISTENCY..CREATIVITY.. with love or patience and empathy seems like a good list.

Something that annoys me is when people virtually train a child to misbehave in a particular way and then come down hard on them when they do so. For example some parents find some behaviour cute the first time but then punish when the child repeats the encouraged behaviour.

I've been thinking about the "spanking" issue.

I want to make it clear that I feel there is a "right" kind of spanking and a "wrong" kind. By the wrong kind I mean a cruel and sadistic beating. This fills a child with hatred, and a deep desire for revenge. This is the kind that is administered with a strap or stick or some other type of parental "weapon." Or it could also mean a humiliating slap in the face.

The right kind of spanking needs no special paraphernalia. Just the hand of the parent administered a few times on the child's bottom.
The right kind of spanking is a positive thing. It clears the air, and is vastly to be preferred to moralistic and guilt-inducing parental lectures.

You've heard the old saying, "Never strike a child in anger."
I feel that is psychologically very poor advice, and I suggest the opposite: "Never strike a child except in anger."

A child can understand very well when you strike them in anger. They know you're mad at them and they understand why. What a child can't understand is when they disobey their mother at 10am and she tells them, "All right, your father will deal with you when he gets home!"
Then when Dad arrives home he is expected to administer a spanking which will "really teach the child a lesson." That's the kind of
cold-blooded spanking a child can't either understand or forgive.

What I advocate is - spank your child only when you are furious at them and feel like letting them have it right then. Too many mums seem to be afraid to spank their children. They talk and nag a great deal as a substitute; they try to negotiate with a child. This is a huge mistake because it reduces their authority as parents.

If we were 100 percent perfect parents, we would all be so mature we would never need to spank our kids - life doesn't work that way.

Good stuff Foxy!

Quite an interesting thread... many great thoughts.

ROBERT.... seeing as you stuck closest to the topic I'll engage with your post specifically here.(having wandered around a bit myself in the last couple)

I do agree that it comes back to a choice... and don't feel the need to argue that with you.

Yes, we choose a moral framework.. our Creator and His law, but most of all, the relationship. Creator/Created.
At the age of 3, that's not something we can easily communicate, but as the children age, it becomes easier. We surround them with a moral framework, not a straight jacket. Within that framework, they know they have a choice. We can't 'inject' a dose of faith into their veins.. we have to live it and love them into the kingdom.

They realize also, that not everyone shares that framework or faith.
But I'm encouraged by those who have gone astray then returned with the testimony "I never stopped believing deep down, but I just wanted my own way, now.. I'm back"

The prodigal had a fine time.... lots of 'friends'..until the cash ran out....then he had to eat with the pigs... some of us need to be reduced to that point b4 we take the hint.
The 'flesh' can be a lot of fun when it is well financed, but when the money runs out.. you have less than nothing...no friends and no dignity

BD,

Celivia has already expressed my views on your response to both her post and mine.

I used to think you were just annoying because you didn't think before you wrote, but now I'm not so sure. You can behave like a really nasty piece of work at times: if it is because of your haste to rush into print with no consideration of the feelings of others then that doesn't paint a very pretty picture. But if, as I am beginning to think, you post the things you do deliberately, using the "I'm harmless - I'm a Christian" mask then that is worse. In either case its time you took responsibility for your words.

Shouting "Christian, Christian" as a preface to all the slighting, contemptuous, sly and downright unpleasant things you say denigrates all the honest Christians on these threads. Personally, I couldn't give a rats whatever your denomination is. To pharaphrase Forest Gump "Nasty is as nasty does".

For goodness sake take some responsibility for what you say, man. I have yet to hear you ever apologise to anyone who was not a BD clone. I don't remember having heard you concede - without qualification - that anyone with whom you disagree could be right. I have no recollection of you ever expressing contrition for the times you have hurt others feelings. And the only response I can remember when you have been found exaggerating or twisting the truth to the point of telling porkies is self-justification. Nor have I ever seen a simple declarative "I'm sorry" from you.

Your fellows beings, with all their faults, strengths, sorrows and dreams sit behind the computers which post the words you read. What gives you the right to spread your wicked judgmentalism around these threads like acid rain?

Dear Romany

you've got me quite concerned here.

I'm scratching my poor old noggin in wonder about 'which' bit in all my posts thus far to this thread, constitutes 'wicked judgementalism'?

Can you help me out here?

As far as I know I've been courteous..and if other posters can alert me to this 'wicked judgementalism'(in this thread).. then please do so.

That was quite an attack you know...
-"your a nasty piece of work"
-"I used to think you were just annoying, because you didn't think b4 you typed, but now.. I think it's deliberate"..

err..'what' is 'deliberate'? Do you mean by any chance that I write from a Christian perspective?

I hope not, because even though I write from a different viewpoint, to give me a list of horrible names and brand me like that is .. well.. maybe you could re-think that a tad?

...and here I was thinking that you have made a positive and helpful contribution to the discussion...now I'm wondering.

May I respectfully refer you to my very first 2 posts, and draw your attention to the actual point of the thread? thanks

O, such an air of injured innocence, Boaz!

>>I'm scratching my poor old noggin in wonder about 'which' bit in all my posts thus far to this thread, constitutes 'wicked judgementalism'?<<

I'm afraid the answer is, pretty much all of them. The tragedy is that you cannot, and will not, see it.

I can fully understand Romany's frustration with your constant stream of disingenuous put-downs, designed to put you in a holier-than-thou spot from which you can pour your faux-pity the rest of the world.

It doesn't worry me quite as much, though, as I long since came to the conclusion that it is vanity, rather than malice, that drives your condescension.

As we all know, the only reason you start these threads is to enable you to preach your, rather curious, form of evangelism.

In this case, it was simply to let us know that even disciplining a three year-old is actually all about god, enabling you to deliver your usual sermon.

>>"Do we teach children 'absolute' right and wrong.. or.. 'situational ethics'... Remember THREE yr olds for context here people... The Christian view is simple... our foremost thought in 'child compliance' is our cultural norms. But what is the moral 'framework' for that?"<<

I've stayed away from this, only to save repeating my observations from the previous discussion on the same topic, even with such obvious provocations as:

>>The tone of voice from a big 'daddy' is usually enough. The repeated or half hearted nagging from a mum is something kids tweak to VERY quickly, and they play as much as they can with it<<

Is that not an extraordinary statement, Boaz? And you wonder why the Romanys of this world happily despise you?

But I was heartened to see that beating your daughter had some effect:

>>Regarding my daughter.. she initially said "I'm not going to smack my kids"<<

Good for her.

So she did learn that beating children is degrading and dehumanizing after all.

I just hope she doesn't give in to the Dark Side, and turn into another Boaz.

BD,

First: a grammar lesson. Inverted commas are used to denote EITHER irony or a direct quote. (Not to give emphases to a word.)

You post that I said: "your a nasty piece of work". I did no such thing.

Apart from the fact that I know the difference between the words your and you're, what I said was that you can BEHAVE LIKE a nasty piece of work at times. Or did you presume it was only Christians who could see the difference between the sin and the sinner? As a parent wouldn't you think I had got that distinction down pat by now, too?

And yes, as was pointed out above, I took exception to your statement that "Daddy" provides the firm voice. While Mummy is only a nagging presence who is easily seen through for the ineffectual person she is?

You can't claim that you were unaware that any mothers read this. Furthermore I have made no bones about the fact that circumstances worked to find me bringing up my kids alone. If it is only Daddy who provides the firm voice, then ergo that remark imputes that I was an ineffectual parent. THAT is judgemental.

And, your "blessed with perfect children" remark was not meant to be taken at face value, was it? the imputation was that Celivia and I were doting mammas with no ideas of the tough realities of child-rearing.

Judgementalism being "wicked"? Its not honourable in the first place. But practiced by one who takes the moral high ground in all arguments because he thinks he represents god,(I refer back to your 'God is on my side' remark) then yes it is.

Jesus, according to your beliefs, took responsibility upon himself for the sins of humanity by dying on the cross. If you continue to claim you are his spokesperson then I repeat, take some responsibility.

Foxy gets an A once again. There is not much i can add to that. So I wont bother.

I wonder if it's ever occurred to Boazy to wonder why so many reasonable and intelligent people find his posts to this forum so objectionable that they regularly say so in their comments here.

Despite his interminable preaching, there hasn't been one OLO user yet who's been willing to say that they have been converted, or even brought closer to his God as a result of his sanctimonious prattling on OLO.

Interestingly, I detect a hint that he no longer regards beating children as desirable, which is certainly an improvement on his earlier rants on the subject. So I guess dumb threads like this might actually have some positive value (beyond Boazy's narcissism) after all.

BD, you asked,
“do you agree or disagree with the proposition that we can assign moral judgments to behavior?
…No.. thats 'BAD' (as opposed to simply 'hurtful, unproductive')…”

Well, I believe that morals rely a lot on empathy.
Parents need to help children learn to understand (rationally and emotionally) that others have feelings and how they might feel.
In short, if children can get the Golden Rule they have a good chance of displaying social behaviour, e.g. they will notice that others need help and offer their help.

To help a child understand how others might feel, I think it’s important to talk about that rather than stating that something is good or bad.
Assigning moral judgments to their behaviour won’t teach a child empathy.
”No, that hurts the cat” IMO is teaching a child more than “No, that is bad”.
I would also immediately show how the cat does like to be treated i.e. let her pet the cat softly or play with him to say sorry for hurting him.

And for the proponents of smacking:
how can one possibly teach empathy by beating a defenseless child?
You’re only teaching that it is justified to use violence in some cases.

We all desire a more peaceful world but how can the world become more peaceful if there are still parents out there who teach their children that violence is sometimes justified?

Just saying “NO” is meaningless to a 3 year old. Equally meaningless is spanking.

Up until the age of seven a child is capable of learning at a prodigious rate, a level that they will never experience again in their lives. Hence the Jesuit motto "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man."

What they learn during this period will stay for life. People claim that they teach that hitting is OK under specific circumstances – well that is completely subjective, open to a variety of interpretations. So a parent can never be sure that their child will adopt exactly the same criteria as the parent.

Far better to instil awareness of consequences for actions; empathy for others may well be a natural human trait and needs to be encouraged, but it is one that is easily over-shadowed by anger or greed. A child, who is made to feel powerless in the home, may well become a bully at school to compensate for their feeling of impotence. Bullies are insecure, they learnt to be insecure somewhere.

Every parent experiences anger at some point with their children. It is how that anger is used that makes the difference. No-one is 100% perfect and a smack on the behind is fast, but indicates a lack of patience and control on the part of the parent. We all feel anger for a reason, properly managed it gives us energy to cope with difficult situations. At worst, uncontrolled anger reinforces to children that it is permissible to lose control to the point that violence is the only means to an end.

The same applies to yelling – verbal abuse is no substitute and results in the same consequences as physical abuse.

Boaz has mentioned the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Hypocritical that he never applies this rule to himself when either responding to others on this forum nor with his own children.

Violence begets more violence. Those are the consequences.

"Interestingly, I detect a hint that he (BD) no longer regards beating children as desirable, which is certainly an improvement on his earlier rants on the subject. So I guess dumb threads like this might actually have some positive value (beyond Boazy's narcissism) after all." (CJ Morgan)

Yes, I wondered too if this thread might be an indication that a heart does beat beneath the cruel words cranked out from his keyboard. The newly acquired responsibility of helping shape a young life can do that to even the most hardened.

Perhaps BD could start another thread and ask what we think might be the effects of religious indoctrination on a young and developing mind. To me, the way his religious zealotry will mess with this young girl's thinking is far more an issue of debate than the harm that might be done by receiving an occasional smack on the bottom.

If BD's grand-daughter is subjected to the same relentless barage of hate-filled godspeak that we all have to cop here, one can only wonder how she will cope.

Poor old Boazy. You're copping a real bashing. And here I am to join in.

I don't have kids. So I don't know nothing. My gut feeling is that smacking a child is what happens when a parent gets short-tempered and loses control. The attempt to tie it to morality or any justification of the for-their-own-good variety seems to be to be merely a way for a parent to pretend to themselves after the event that they didn't do something they are rather ashamed of.

I don't have kids, but I have been a kid. My mother smacked me once that I remember. I remember it not because I learnt anything, but because I was afraid of her for the first time. It was one of the rare times in my entire nearly-40-years that I can think of her being anything other than angelic and serene. It was possibly the first time I saw rage.

All perfectly understandable — a hardworking mother facing the irritations of toddlehood. I'm not complaining — I had a wonderful childhood, thanks to her. But I don't imagine she would explain the smack as anything other than her momentarily losing her temper.

Because of my lack of experience, I really don't want to be judgmental. I'm sure those who choose to smack have reasons they find compelling. They are, I understand, setting up a disciplinary framework. But I think the idea that smacking is somehow "moral" or contributes to a moral framework is just dumb. If you need to smack to teach your kids morals, then you are not an effective communicator of morals. Surely?

Vanilla, speaking from my own experience not all parents who smack do it in temper. My recollections of being smacked as a child don't include parental anger nor did I ever smack in anger whilst I still believed it was an aceptable form of discipline. I now believe that the evidence about the harm of smacking is sebstantial enough that I don't think it's worth the risk. There are benefits - short duration, no sense of being cut off from family etc, effective even with very severe tantrums where other forms of discipline sometimes can't provide (other than serious restraint).

Others have had different experiences and some parents clearly do hit in anger.

R0bert

Sure R0bert, I'm sure you're right. I guess my point is more that, even if smacking isn't it anger, its intent is disciplinary rather than moral, as Boazy seems t be suggesting.

Robert,

You may have other reasons that you think corporal punishment is risky that you consider too personal to share but in here you cited a study as the reason for changing your mind. How firm are you in considering this study sufficient for you to ignore the experience of 20 million parents over more than 5 thousand years with the occasional exception?

The study itself points out:

1. No causal direction was established.

That is obviously very significant. The study refers to Strauss’ findings in related longitudinal studies (reported in two books) apparently to make the educated guess that there is the possibility of a causal direction but that doesn’t change the fact that no causal direction was established in this study.

It is not just a limitation of the design that can be dismissed lightly. It would be if the author just concluded that more research was needed eg. a longitudinal study on these particular issues. However the author of the paper makes broad comments about linking corporal punishment to various things (when only excessive punishment was correlated) and recommends stopping parents from engaging in any corporal punishment. Unlike the media I don’t relate to studies where the author makes firm recommendations based on mere speculation rather than the actual study results.

2. The results are based on “a lot of corporal punishment’.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that in normal family life where families hit children in appropriate circumstances that there is not “a lot of corporal punishment’?

Contrary to the media portrayal the relevance of the correlation in normal circumstances is thus questionable. As the author’s conclusions and suggestions would mainly apply to normal situations if accepted I naturally wonder why the author would get together all those subjects and investigate all types of things but not look at normal situations. Without wanting to sound too cynical I'll do no more than note that I’d love to get my hands on the results of any pilot study he did.

CONT

3. Even with the minor differences in percentages the subjects are at the age where bad behaviours peak. This could inflate the differences compared with overall populations.

The author counters this with the argument that many of the subjects would come from a privileged socio economic background. However only a small proportion of the subject population are offenders so they all or mainly theoretically could come from a compromised socio economic background thus meaning the effects are inflated.

In spite of actually measuring socioeconomic background and thus having the opportunity to use data analysis to affirm his argument the author says nothing more. You have to wonder why a comparison was not conducted or if it was but the author for some reason overlooked to mention it. Either way it is less than ideal.

With the above issues in mind (particularly 4) the magnitude of the effect needs to be considered.

On the coercion issue the differences were based on prevalences of between 15.9% down to 1.1% depending on the type of coercion and gender.

The increases correlated with excessive hitting are in that context. For example the ten percent isn’t a ten percent increase from eg. 50% of non excessively hit bringing it up to 55% for excessively hit but is rather based on the types of percentages above. All indications are that if normal discipline does have an effect it would be even less.

Some people take the view that parent-child interactions particularly discipline are difficult to study due being incredibly complex and subtle and reducing things to the simplest common denominators to enable research means the overall tone is lost. In any case I think the author could have done better.

I previously opined that FIRMNESS..PREDICTABILITY..CONSISTENCY..CREATIVITY.. with love or patience and empathy seems like a good list. I'd like to add that people need to be aware of the benefits of encouraging positive behaviours. It can be a very powerful tool. Sadly too often only negative behaviours get attention.

mjpb, I'm taking the view that there is enough evidence around for me to take note both that smacking has risks and that it's not more effective than other forms of discipline. The sexual violence links are worthy of consideration, other research has found fallout in other areas.

If there was clear evidence that smacking was more effective than other forms of discipline then I'd take a different view.

As for thousands of years of history, those thousands of years have been marked by violence (not necessarily caused by smacking). Just because stuff was done a certain way in the past does not mean that we have to continue to do it the same way.

You said "FIRMNESS..PREDICTABILITY..CONSISTENCY..CREATIVITY.. with love or patience and empathy seems like a good list. I'd like to add that people need to be aware of the benefits of encouraging positive behaviours. It can be a very powerful tool. Sadly too often only negative behaviours get attention." is a much safer and healthier way to deal with child discipline.

Personally I think that sums the real issue up.

R0bert

What an excellent post, RObert I couldn't agree more.

I'm sure that your son feels listened to, loved and accepted and I hope he will grow up to become a balanced and fair person, like yourself.

Robert,

The list wasn't intended to exclude smacking. From memory most of it came from Boazy while advocating smacking.

"Just because stuff was done a certain way in the past does not mean that we have to continue to do it the same way."

Literally that is definitely correct, but the corollary so often overlooked is: Just because stuff was done a certain way in the past does not mean that it was not done that way for a reason.

There have been too many examples of where people have arrogantly tossed out traditions and practices on the assumption that countless minds in the past could not have possibly been clever enough to understand the situation. At some stage we need to start learning from our mistakes and not assume we always no better than our predecessors in a variety of cultures. I think our culture tends to overlook the countless brilliant minds in the past and in other cultures.

I am rather partial to the 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread' saying. Would you entertain the possibility that sometimes it is best to fully understand something before you make a radical change?

"that countless minds in the past could not have possibly been clever enough to understand the situation"

mjpb, thats a strawman argument. I've not said anything about the cleverness of people in the past.

Its not about cleverness, it's about the information available to them. Significant research has been put into the topic which had not been done previously.

Do you smoke? If not why not?

People in the past used to consider it safe, even some quite brilliant people. Would you consider using a paint with significant levels of lead in your home? Asbestos in your wall claddings?

If you needed resuscitation would you prefer to have someone use the latest recommended method derived from the most up to date research or use the 1767 Dutch method http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/117-1193/868/

"In 1767, the Dutch Humane Society published guidelines for resuscitation of victims of drowning, stating: ‘keep the victim warm, give mouth-to-mouth ventilation, and perform insufflation of smoke of burning tobacco into the rectum’.1"

Fools rush in but they also delay well past the point where they should have acted.

The evidence is sufficent to convince me that smacking has unnecessary risks and that smacking has no proven benefits that cannot be achieved by other means.

R0bert

""that countless minds in the past could not have possibly been clever enough to understand the situation"

mjpb, thats a strawman argument. I've not said anything about the cleverness of people in the past."

That accusation was directed toward the people responsible for the examples that I thought should concern you. Examples that you obviously were to make the opposite point to your preemptive counter examples. Your examples were to show genuine progress in line with your view that it has been made on this issue. My examples were to show that sometimes progress is assumed when it hasn't really happened or it has happened but gets detrimentally overgeneralised.

Speaking of your examples...is the Dutch Humane Society advice so bad even if it sounds bizarre. Isn't nicotine a stimulant so in the unlikely event the unusual administration had an effect it shouldn't be bad (its not like that would create an addiction) and wouldn't keeping a drowning victim warm and performing mouth to mouth resuscitation be particularly desirable?

"The evidence is sufficent to convince me that smacking has unnecessary risks and that smacking has no proven benefits that cannot be achieved by other means."

So contrary to your earlier comment forming or maintaining your decision is based on other information that you consider viable evidence? In other words I read that damn excuse for a study for no reason. I ought to start quoting scriptures for revenge...

We could get into some debate about the value of psychology studies on the topic, the merits of individual studies, a discussion of the value of experience, and perhaps a pissing contest with examples. I'm open to avoiding it. Your call.

The bottom line is your bottom line without me conceding any agreement with your perception. Mine is the opposite. Mainly the difference in perception probably hinges on what we consider reliable.

mjpb' "Mainly the difference in perception probably hinges on what we consider reliable." - agreed.

"In other words I read that damn excuse for a study for no reason. I ought to start quoting scriptures for revenge..." - you have lost me on that. The research showed a strong correlation between smacking and sexual violence and sexual coersion in later life but acknowledged that there was a possibility that it was not causal.

My reading of the paper left with me with the view that Straus considers smacking to be causal but acknowledged the possibility that there may be other explainations. Other material I've seen has pointed to significant research showing strong correlations between smacking and other negative behavioural outcomes. Maybe just a lot of coincidences and maybe it's just coincidence that smokers get lung cancer at far higher rates than non smokers.

I'll leave smacking and smoking as things I don't need to do though thanks.

"I ought to start quoting scriptures for revenge..." - I can do that too but your fundy friends don't seem to like it much. Did you see how they seemed to loose interest in how women dress after I provided some scriptures showing what Jesus said they should do. I've noticed a trend for fundies to be a lot more interested in scriptures that leave the pain with someone else than themselves - thumping kids, attacking gays etc are all important but following a clear instruction from Jesus about what they need to do is not.

R0bert

Robert,

"In other words I read that damn excuse for a study for no reason. I ought to start quoting scriptures for revenge..." - you have lost me on that."

You quoted Strauss' research and typed: "As someone who grew up with smacking and has smacked as a parent I consider these findings serious enough to change my views on the topic." I misinterpreted that to mean that you would believe smacking was okay but for Strauss' paper. I read through the darn thing and found problems. That was a waste of time because your current position also relies on other material.

"The research showed a strong correlation between smacking and sexual violence and sexual coersion in later life but acknowledged that there was a possibility that it was not causal."

I don't recall how strong or weak the significant correlation was so I'll take your word for the moment. Yes that acknowledgement is deep in the paper but in more visible sections the paper uses such facts with almost as much licence as a used car salesman talking up a car.

"Maybe just a lot of coincidences and maybe it's just coincidence that smokers get lung cancer at far higher rates than non smokers."

I'm trying to avoid preaching to the unconvertible. Unless you change your mind about debating then you might consider doing the same. You have reasons for your opinion and I have reasons for mine. You see some things as related and I see them as clearly distinguishable. Please empathise with my difficulty in exercising restraint in a now one sided debate on the general topic irrespective of whether or not I consider the debate pointless and wasting our time.

"Did you see how they seemed to loose interest in how women dress after I provided some scriptures showing what Jesus said they should do."

A lot of non-Christians in here feel rather strongly (understatement)about Christians quoting scriptures to 'make a point'. No I missed that but it sure has me curious. What did Jesus say and why do my friends dislike it?