Parenting for Neo

[DEFCON]

Neo

I've been reading your posts below on the corporal punishment vs.... issue.

A few years back a young (16?) american male on visit to Singapore decided that he needed to seek personal gratification by damaging the property of others. He was caught and in turn recieved the cane. During a TV interview he said "I'll never do that again"! Shortly after his return to the US he was back in the news again after being caught in circumstances similar to those he recieved the cane for in Singapore.

From the parents perspective as it may relate to the discipline of young children...no pain...no gain.

IMHO there comes a time when it's necessary to paddle MOST little ones. This hopefully happens before it's too late and they grow into large selfserving monsters absent of respect for others.

[Guest neo]

Not sure I follow you, DEFCON. It seems like your example points to the futility of physically hurting people as a corrective measure, and then expecting it to turn out good citizens. That's certainly part of my point.

Am I misreading your post?

"IMHO there comes a time when it's necessary to paddle MOST little ones."

From the examples I've provided, it should be apparent that there is ALWAYS an alternative to striking your child; and that it is within the parent's ability to find that alternative. The parent is the mature, grown-up individual; are you suggesting to me that he or she can't outwit a five-year old? Yes, it takes thought, it takes practice, it takes work, self-honesty and forebearance. But are those not attributes that every parent should be willing to bring to the job?

Striking your child is your admission that you've run out of thoughtful, resourceful options for dealing with the situation. That doesn't mean you're a bad parent. It just means that it's YOU (the parent I mean, not you personally) that should put some effort into figuring out a new way to deal what the child has come up with.

Best,

neo

[DEFCON]

Neo

The kid pulled his BS in Singapore and paid dearly. He later said something to the effect of "I won't do that again". After returning to the child? protecting do-gooderism of the US the now young adult knew he could almost freely engage in his destructive behaviour because of the lack of personal consequence.

IMO conventionally accepted censuring or the locking up of kids like this will generally not serve the public good. On the other hand, caning the little bast... protected the Singaporians from any more of his BS.

I sure hope that normal people don't look forward to beating their kids but, a little tap on the ass when they're very young will go a long way towards the development of a positive attitude.

[Guest neo]

I'm unable to see logically how physical punishment creates a good attitude.

A good attitude flows from a child's willingness to be held accountable. That willingness is engendered by the child facing consequences of his behavior that are logical and commensurate. It's when the consequences of a child's behavior are continually unpredicable, illogical and out of proportion that the child abandons any willingness to be responsible for her actions.

What act could your young child do where a spanking is a LOGICAL consequence of what they did? You break something, you fix it. You hurt someone, you apologize and make amends. These are logical consequences. By contrast, being struck for misbehavior is someone else's EMOTIONAL reaction to what you did. There's nothing logical about it at all.

Children are keen observers of the world around them. They have to be, because their security depends on it. They can see full well that their parents and other adults don't get spanked. So a smart kid will simply take his lickin' and bide his time until he's an adult. Then he can do as he wishes, without any fear of physical punishment.

Best,

neo

[Don Hudson]

Neo;

I support your views wholeheartedly and we have three young adults whom we believe are living proof that accountability, dialogue and consistency beat the paddle any day. It takes a lot more work mind you.

The only time quick physical action is warranted is when the child is in immediate danger (road-crossing etc) but as you say, children are acute observers of behaviour and know very well when an adult is shaken (upset) if the danger was close and very real. They get the message. And if loving attention is offered children, they won't have the need to "act out" and therefore take advantage of that exceptional ability to read and manipulate adults.

Again...it works. And while our kids aren't perfect, (dunno what that is. Besides, only those without kids have children who are perfect), they're responsible, engaging and self-directed. Logical consequences, applied with integrity and not the desire to manipulate, work because the "discipline" is applied by circumstance, just like it is everywhere (and everywhen) else.

Really enjoyed the exchange between you and Dagger on wine. I like his idea on a yearly tour.

KR

Don

[UpperDeck]

Without expounding at length, I suggest that many of the problems we see today are a direct result of the philosophies espoused by those who believe that any corporal punishment represents a failure of effective parenting. Let us also quickly distinguish between abhorrent physical abuse represented by unmeasured physical contact and the judicious application of appropriate force when necessary to ensure a discilplinary edict is "imprinted". Have we so quickly forgotten the "strap" administered by the principal? Those were the days when the very threat to send the recalcitrant pupil to "the office" was usually sufficient to quell the possibility of continued disturbances.

Defcon....with reference to the Singapore incident; the juvenile in question was determined to be guilty of public mischief and was sentenced to "caning". His punishment was reduced by reason of the incredible volume of American propaganda denouncing the "archaic" punishment. The young adult returned to the US and shortly thereafter, was apprehended and charged with another criminal offence; to wit; assault. The victim? ---his father.

There is no particular lesson to be learned from that incident save and except ----one sees very little defacement of public property in Singapore; the consequence of apprehension and punishment apparently is an effective deterrent. Semble ---very little theft in the Middle East countries.

[Guest neo]

Hi Don,

Children are a blessing, nothing less. So congratulations on treating your kids that way, and seeing the reward for all your hard work.

Re: that wine thread, there's more chatter below, so enjoy.

Salut!

neo

[Don Hudson]

Upperdeck;

Your right...about expounding at length that is!, because its a huge topic.

I couldn't accept a Skinner notion of modifying behaviour because operant conditioning, (pain avoidance) is only "successful" within a social/philosophical system which values compliance. The difference is subtle because overt behaviour in most cases is the same. But some (our) children "behave" not because they're afraid of consequence (pain...even the suggested kind through long experience of childhood "conditioning") but because they respect first themselves and second, the society in which they live and must, most times, cooperate with.

However, they are not afraid of resistance, dissent, non-compliance and alternative thinking, something which someone whose early behaviour was "modified" by spanking etc may be more reticent about expressing, (and may not, in adulthood, know why).

Now if you're instead referring to the occasional swat across the backside, I have no comment either way because children are, as I'm sure you know, amazingly resilient and brush off such parental "reminders" easily. But if such violence is part of the child-raising years, that's what's learnt for later life. After all, there isn't any magic pre-birth programming which socializes young children. That's done by teaching. Children who are routinely "disciplined" physically learn that that is how one "controls" others.

But the manner in which you embraced the dialogue about Singapore's "solutions" to "aberrant" human behaviour, the question regarding the strap in school and the offering of Middle East "justice" as an positive, effective social control all lead me to think otherwise regarding the approach you may advocate.

So I would argue that the behaviour which you describe of the young man in Singapore in which it is implied that because the authorities in that country didn't paddle the young man he continued his violence back at home, was likely to continue regardless of his treatment either in Singapore or in the US. (The young man's first mistake was not respecting the law and social conventions of his host country, different though they were from his own.)

Spanking or other violent means of conveying a point certainly do quell or otherwise "control" behaviour and ensures compliance, but at what cost? There is certainly more to the human spirit than "good" behaviour including dissidence. To me, the most powerful source of good behaviour lies in an independant spirit who is intimately familiar with self-respect and respect for others and driven towards a modicum of "acceptability" through internal values and not through external fears of being hit.

That's not an ideal. It can be done, but, despite the faddish alterations in this society regarding parenthood and what constitutes a "family" and how old-fashioned the following notion may seem, it takes two parents and a lot of hard work, lots of care and attention to the minutae of early childhood and a whole lot of patience to raise caring and independant children.

This is a society which in general encourages but rarely facilitates such values, (though lip-service abounds), and so, like other human endeavours in this culture, quick (instant) solutions are sought and when they "work", adopted, supported by institutional social anecdotes.

Fascinating discussion, as all stories are about raising a family. And we haven't even touched on the notion of "rights"!

Cheers,

Don

[Don Hudson]

Upperdeck;

Your right...about expounding at length that is!, because its a huge topic.

I couldn't accept a Skinner notion of modifying behaviour because operant conditioning, (pain avoidance) is only "successful" within a social/philosophical system which values compliance. The difference is subtle because overt behaviour in most cases is the same. But some (our) children "behave" not because they're afraid of consequence (pain...even the suggested kind through long experience of childhood "conditioning") but because they respect first themselves and second, the society in which they live and must, most times, cooperate with.

However, they are not afraid of resistance, dissent, non-compliance and alternative thinking, something which someone whose early behaviour was "modified" by spanking etc may be more reticent about expressing, (and may not, in adulthood, know why).

Now if you're instead referring to the occasional swat across the backside, I have no comment either way because children are, as I'm sure you know, amazingly resilient and brush off such parental "reminders" easily. But if such violence is part of the child-raising years, that's what's learnt for later life. After all, there isn't any magic pre-birth programming which socializes young children. That's done by teaching. Children who are routinely "disciplined" physically learn that that is how one "controls" others.

But the manner in which you embraced the dialogue about Singapore's "solutions" to "aberrant" human behaviour, the question regarding the strap in school, the use of the word, "imprinted" and the offering of Middle East "justice" as a positive, effective social control all lead me to think otherwise regarding the approach you may advocate.

So I would argue that the behaviour which you describe of the young man in Singapore in which it is implied that because the authorities in that country didn't paddle the young man he continued his violence back at home, was likely to continue regardless of his treatment either in Singapore or in the US. (The young man's first mistake was not respecting the law and social conventions of his host country, different though they were from his own.)

Spanking or other violent means of conveying a point certainly do quell or otherwise "control" behaviour and ensures compliance, but at what cost? There is certainly more to the human spirit than "good" behaviour including dissidence. To me, the most powerful source of good behaviour lies in an independant spirit who is intimately familiar with self-respect and respect for others and driven towards a modicum of "acceptability" through internal values and not through external fears of being hit.

That's not an ideal. It can be done, but, despite the faddish alterations in this society regarding parenthood and what constitutes a "family" and how old-fashioned the following notion may seem, it takes two parents and a lot of hard work, lots of care and attention to the minutae of early childhood and a whole lot of patience to raise caring and independant children.

This is a society which in general encourages but rarely facilitates such values, (though lip-service abounds), and so, like other human endeavours in this culture, quick (instant) solutions are sought and when they "work", adopted, supported by institutional social anecdotes.

I would alternatively, "suggest that many of the problems we see today are a direct result of the philosophies espoused by those who believe that," corporal punishment is any solution at all.

Fascinating discussion, as all stories are about raising a family. And we haven't even touched on the notion of "rights"!

Cheers,

Don

[Don Hudson]

Upperdeck;

You're right...about expounding at length that is!, because its a huge topic.

I couldn't accept a Skinner notion of modifying behaviour because operant conditioning, (pain avoidance ) is only "successful" within a social/philosophical system which values compliance. The difference is subtle because overt behaviour in most cases is the same. But some (our) children "behave" not because they're afraid of consequence (pain...even the suggested kind through long experience of childhood "conditioning" ) but because they respect first themselves and second, the society in which they live and must, most times, cooperate with.

However, they are not afraid of resistance, dissent, non-compliance and alternative thinking, something which someone whose early behaviour was "modified" by spanking etc may be more reticent about expressing, (and may not, in adulthood, know why).

Now if you're instead referring to the occasional swat across the backside, I have no comment either way because children are, as I'm sure you know, amazingly resilient and brush off such parental "reminders" easily. But if such violence is part of the child-raising years, that's what's learnt for later life. After all, there isn't any magic pre-birth programming which socializes young children. That's done by teaching. Children who are routinely "disciplined" physically learn that that is how one "controls" others.

However, the manner in which you embraced Singapore's "solutions" to "aberrant" human behaviour, the question regarding the strap in school, the use of the word, "imprinted" and the offering of Middle East "justice" as a positive, effective social control all lead me to believe you advocate this approach over the one under discussion. If I have come to an incorrect conclusion, I know you'll help me.

In the meantime, I would argue that the behaviour which you describe of the young man in Singapore in which it is implied that because the authorities in that country didn't paddle the young man he continued his violence back at home, was likely to continue regardless of his treatment either in Singapore or in the US. (The young man's first mistake was not respecting the law and social conventions of his host country, different though they were from his own. )

Spanking or other violent means of conveying a point certainly do quell or otherwise "control" behaviour and ensures compliance, but at what cost? There is certainly more to the human spirit than "good" behaviour including dissidence. To me, the most powerful source of good behaviour lies in an independant spirit who is intimately familiar with self-respect and respect for others and driven towards a modicum of "acceptability" through internal values and not through external fears of being hit.

That's not an ideal. It can be done, but, despite the faddish alterations in this society regarding parenthood and what constitutes a "family" and how old-fashioned the following notion may seem, it takes two parents and a lot of hard work, lots of care and attention to the minutae of early childhood and a whole lot of patience to raise caring and independant children.

This is a society which in general encourages but rarely facilitates such values, (though lip-service abounds), and so, like other human endeavours in this culture, quick (instant) solutions are sought and when they "work", adopted, supported by institutional social anecdotes.

I would alternatively, "suggest that many of the problems we see today are a direct result of the philosophies espoused by those who believe that," corporal punishment is any solution at all.

Fascinating discussion, as all stories are about raising a family. And we haven't even touched on the notion of "rights"!

Cheers,

Don

[DEFCON]

Neo

To be clear, I believe there’s a huge gap between abusive behaviour and healthy parental and societal discipline.

When we were of school age we were spanked, strapped and held accountable for our actions in many other ways. We didn’t fear the trench coat mafia types. Passing through a metal detector and being subject to search by a uniformed guard was not required prior to entering our school. We didn’t have and would never have been allowed to watch an Arnold whack a couple thousand people per movie. Violent snuff video games were unheard of and when you failed a grade, that was it, you failed. When the cops got on your case you listened and when mom told you that you were going to be in big trouble when dad got home, you quickly shape shifted and became the model child. The vast majority of us grew up to become responsible adults and we don’t hate our parents and teachers for giving us the odd directional push.

People such as yourself are willing to place the time and energy necessary into raising their kids. With a little luck they’ll never have to resort to corporal punishment. The personality of the child certainly plays a role however, a successful end result (responsible young adult) is largely due to the relentless efforts of the parents. On the other hand, too many parents take the easy way out and later release their uneducated, undisciplined and potentially criminal spawn upon society.

IMO, the parent should have the right (within limitations) to raise his child as he sees fit. I’d like to see a society that protects children but yet, makes the parent completely responsible for the resultant societal behaviour of that child. In other words, I’m sick and tired of paying for the mistakes of others that have resulted due to their pursuit of a self-serving lifestyle. “Responsibility” for ones actions or lack thereof should be integral with an individuals “rights and freedoms”.

[UpperDeck]

Your post is worthy of a more detailed response than I will provide. You are correct in your assumption that we are not on the same side of the fence on this issue though I am not certain that the fence is all that high. I am presuming that you are of the opinion that there are certain inate characteristics that are either enhanced or inhibited by external post-natal factors. I believe that the obligation of a care-giver is to enable the internalization of external desirable values determined by reference to social norms. The sociopath is one who understands those values but has failed to internalize same. I believe that this is not a "natural" or inherent process and that a child's response to the stimulii must be reinforced either negatively or positively with the reward or punishment measured appropriately. I consider corporal punishment to be a last but occasionally necessary resort but again, I emphasize that the nature and extent of force is "measured"; the greater "pain" should be suffered by the discipliner.

My reference to Singapore and to the Middle East was not "subject-specific" having regard to the fact that by the time your child attains the age of 12 (or even less), you have either succeeded or failed in the process of inculcating socially acceptable values.

[Wolfhunter]

Perhaps a middle of the road approach fits into real life better than hard and fast rules on parenting. You spank some kids, sometimes, for some things. It’s that simple and that complicated. Who gets spanked and when requires thought, judgment, a clear objective, and an understanding of the individual child. Its intent is (or should be) instructive. Because my boys know from experience that I will spank them, I never have to. After the age of about 8, (and that depends on the individual) I think the opponents of spanking are generally correct in their observations and reasoning. If you have done a reasonable job up to that point, spanking becomes counterproductive both in terms of efficacy and, I hate to say it, “bonding”. At that age and beyond there are better ways. If you still maintain that you should never spank under any circumstances (God bless you), but I could introduce you to the children of like-minded individuals that may convince you otherwise.

In a related post, mention was made of training animals and I believe the analogy to be sound. Generally, the amount and degree of correction required with herding dogs is less than that required with working breeds such as the Rottweiler. Some dogs live to please others could care less, some react violently to basic obedience training…especially if that training begins late in the development of the “problem dog”. Littermates can have radically different personalities. Rottweilers imported from Germany/East Germany tend to be at bit more aggressive than their North American cousins. Correcting a dog that bites out of fear requires a different technique than that used to correct his brother “the aggressive biter”. And on and on etc. etc. My point… In short it depends, one size does not fit all. The majority of well-intentioned owners with problem dogs actually trained (albeit inadvertently) their own dog to bite by not understanding/recognizing the signs, the breed characteristics/tendencies, or basic pack physcology of dogs in general. I maintain that raising children is not that much different. Invariably the debate becomes polarized around “never spank” or “severe beatings”. The middle ground is infinitely variable and ultimately the abode of reasonableness.

[Mitch Cronin]

Bloody well said sir... Right on.

[Don Hudson]

Upperdeck;

Re ". . . though I am not certain that the fence is all that high."

I agree, and also find your agreement in your comments.

Off to go flying...

kind regards,

Don

[Guest neo]

"The middle ground is infinitely variable and ultimately the abode of reasonableness."

Nothing wrong with that belief, Wolfhunter. But where does the middle ground lie?

Your belief is that striking your child only 'sometimes' or for 'some things' means that you reside in that middle ground. I don't agree.

The extremes in this case are those who apply no discipline at all, and those who only apply abusive punishment. The middle ground is those who believe in firm discipline, without physical striking their children.

If you believe in striking your children to discipline them, you've swung out of the middle towards one extreme. Likewise, if you ignore your parental responsibility and don't apply non-violent discipline when it's required.

But all of that is just labels. Practically speaking, there is no parenting scenario that you can come up with where I can't provide a no-hit alternative that is superior to striking your child. And conversely, in that same scenario, show you how striking you child has given an undesirable message.

Striking your children is your admission that you cannot think of a rational way to deal with the issue. You might very well get the immediate response you're looking for, but that's not the indication that you've gone about it the BEST way.

If you think that you can LOGICALLY justify striking a child, kindly provide your argument for doing so. So far, all you provided is an analogy to training dogs. You don't train dogs like you train elephants, horses or other species. Every species has its own psychology. But having said that, I have three dogs and I don't strike them either. Yet they'll do everything I need them to do. Where did I go wrong?

Best,

neo

[UpperDeck]

An arrogant post in that it not only suggests but states that your assertion is not opinion; it is fact. You are NOT correct but only because there is no absolute answer. We all might wish that the answers were so easily determined but they are not.Were it otherwise, believe me that the debate would long ago have been resolved by people far more intelligent than you or I. You are entitled to an opinion but when you imply an expertise that qualifies you for more you deserve to be ushered to your cockpit by people who would not presume to tell you how to operate that 320.

Visit CPRI...then come back and tell us how its done!

[Wolfhunter]

You have obviously given this some thought and in your present situation (personality of your children and your dogs) it works well. Dogs and people are indeed different but the social structure of both species and their relationship throughout the ages suggests they are more closely linked to each other than either is to horses or elephants. I don’t see spanking as being the end all or be all that you may think. It is simply another weapon in the arsenal, or tool in the toolbox if you prefer. As with all tools, it is no better or worse than the man that wields it. Spanking a child in anger or getting caught up in the moment, demonstrates the same lack of imagination you ascribe to those of my ilk.

Turning to an aviation analogy, the PFA vs PMA thing is just as lively as the spank vs don’t spank debate. In truth though, they both work and both have value. IMO, wise and happy is the man who can use each in its place. To eliminate one or the other is to limit options.

You mentioned extremes… it is for extreme situations that a full toolbox is of the greatest value. Witness the spectacle of a young mother attempting to “reason” with a willful four-year-old bent on entering the same pasture as a prize Limousine bull. He almost made it! This mother was not working with a full toolbox IMO.

[Guest neo]

Hi Wolfhunter,

Yes, not striking my step-child (or my dogs) works well for me. That the necessary results have been achieved without hitting is just one side of the coin, though.

Refraining from physically hitting those I am responsible for fits in MY psychology as well. That's because I cannot reconcile using unjust, irrational means that possibly create long-term problems, simply to bring about a short-term result.

Striking your child to modify its behavior is unjust, because children are the ONLY members of our society that aren't protected from physical retribution. If a neighbouring adult carelessly damages your property, are you permitted to go and strike him? Is that part of your "aresenal" for dealing with the matter? On the contrary, society sanctions you if you act in that way. So how is it that a fully responsible, grown adult- supposedly in command of his behavior- is protected from being hit? But your young child, physically vulnerable, emotionally and mentally incapable of fully understanding responsibility and cause and effect, is subject to your physical retribution?

What kind of a message does our society give children when adults are protected from physical assault, but the most vulnerable members of our society are not?

You can point out the injustice of it even further. If it wasn't your adult neighbour that came over and carelessly damaged your property but his young child that did it, would you strike the child? What would happen to you if you did? Society would come to the protection of that child and likely punish YOU, assuming his parents didn't get to you first.

So again I ask you, how is it that you cannot strike the child who lives next door, but your own child, an integral member of your loving family, is considered fair game?

Besides being unjust, hitting your children is an irrational act. It's not simply that when you do it you're acting emotionally... frustration, anger, fear, or the like... but the retribution you've used is not a logical consequence of the child's act.

The irrationality of it is no better illustrated than by thoughtfully examining a proponent of spanking's favorite argument: "My child was in danger and wouldn't listen, so I spanked him." Would that they just listen to themselves for a moment! What they're saying is, "My child was at risk of being hurt, so _I_ hurt him instead."

I told you that there was no child-rearing scenario that you could come up with that I couldn't show you was better handled with a no-hit alternative. So let me generally speak to the above situation and to the example you gave. When a child is in mortal danger and won't listen to your warning, you a) remove the danger, or restrain the child. Even the youngest children will sense your fear and concern and respond to it without needing to be hit.

Hurting a child as an answer to protecting them from hurt is an illogical, non-congruent message that will engender confusion and disrespect.

One very strong emotional objection people have when the argument is made against hitting children, is that almost all of us have done it at some point and we HATE to think that we are culpable for a negative act against our own children. But let's get real, here: it is IMPOSSIBLE to do even moderately complex tasks perfectly. And raising kids is as complex a task as any of us will face. The point isn't that we aren't loving, caring parents because we've struck our kids... but that we're loving, caring parents because we recognize that it isn't the best way to go and we are willing to correct OUR OWN behavior and try to avoid undesirable acts in the future.

And if you think about it, isn't that EXACTLY the kind of responsibility and accountability that we wish to teach our children: to correct your own behavior and avoid undesirable acts in the future?

Best,

neo

[Guest neo]

test

[DEFCON]

Neo

What happens when your kid gets punched in the nose by another kid? Do you take the matter up with the CAS, the school, his parents, or do you teach the kid to stand up for himself?

Just interested in your opinion.

Cheers

Defcon

[Guest neo]

That's a tough one, DEFCON. Here's how we've addressed it with our child. BTW, he's an adopted child from an asian country, and a very visible minority in our small town school.

We said we'd like him to address a situation where he's being bullied by involving a responsible adult in the situation. I assured him that nothing was more important to us than his personal safety, and that we his parents would leave no stone unturned in ensuring it, assuming the school authorities didn't address the problem immediately.

But there was another component to it as well. We enrolled him in a martial art program. We've been at pains to instruct him that the skills he learns are not so that he can put himself in risky situations, or be aggresive to others, but to protect himself if he needs to. I told him, if you're fearful of your safety then seek out a responsible adult, if you can. But if that's not possible, protect yourself, and we'll back you up 110% for what you had to do.

How have you dealt with the situation in your own family?

neo

[DEFCON]

Neo

I agree with your approach. Martial arts studies for all should begin with the proviso "talk, walk and only then, fight like hell!

The only potential difference in our approach to dealing with this sort of situation is that I'd be giving the youngster some pointers on how to stand up for himself before I'd jump in myself. Right or wrong I believe that children need to develop a sense of self. IMO that process is hindered by the parent that intervene's on behalf of the child every time there's a percieved injustice.

Defcon

[Wolfhunter]

Defcon has already made one of my points for me and I find your response perfectly reasonable. While I see the logic of your general position, I think you carry that position beyond the point where I would be willing to concede. Your neighbour is personally accountable for the conduct of his children and, for that matter, his dog as well. He bears the legal, financial and moral responsibility to correct third party damage resulting from the actions of both his charges; that is how it should be. He also bares the duty of preventing a reoccurrence by whatever reasonable and legal means he determines appropriate including spanking the child in question. You spanking his dog is just as inappropriate as you (or me for that matter) spanking his kid. A defense of “ I didn’t hit him that hard and he deserved it anyway” is unlikely to stand up to close legal scrutiny.

In my post above I conceded that beyond the age of (about) 8 that I generally agree with your position largely for the reasons you have articulated. Prior to that It can be helpful, instructive and in my view “safer” to use spanking or the CREDIBLE threat of it as a deterrent to manifestly unsafe behavior. Over the course of a 10-day visit, removing “Wild Thing” from the pasture would have prevented him from mingling with the ladies, the level of restraint required was impractical and the hotel bill, in my opinion, was an admission of defeat in the art and science of child rearing.

I suspect you are right in suggesting most parents opposed in principal to spanking have “lost it” on more than one occasion and resorted to corporal punishment only to regret having done so later. In fact, over the course of those 8 years, they have quite possibly spanked their kids as much or more than I have; the difference being, my approach is deliberate, premeditated and achieved the goal I set for it. Far from being mad at the time I found many of the situations truly amusing. The fact that we still laugh about them years later disproves the theory of lasting damage IMO.

I suspect we are unlikely to resolve the issue much further and for that reason I shall retire from the debate and yield the field to someone more articulate than myself. Can we at least agree that the UN should stay out of it? The last word goes to you sir. Cheers.

[Guest neo]

Thanks for posting your views on the subject, Wolfhunter. I hope others found the debate as worthwhile as I did.

I'm happy for the UN to monitor children's welfare worldwide, because there are many places where children are horribly exploited and abused.

As for the UN's suggestion that spanking children should be made _illegal_, I'll just quote what I wrote in my very first post on the subject:

"Should it be made a criminal or civil crime to physically punish your children? I believe not. It would be far more cost-effective and socially desirable to teach people to parent without physical punishment. There are already ample legal provisions in place to protect children from real abuse."

Best wishes,

neo