Talk:Spanking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spanking article.
Article policies
This is not a forum for general discussion of spanking.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Contents


[edit] Pro-Arguments

The "pro-" arguments look like they have been copied and pasted from an external source. It reads like a position paper. 71.228.211.57 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] displaced comments

I was redirected here from Gunner's Daughter, and don't know why. Can't seem to find an explanation on the page..? --64.238.187.244 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This is the third time that the comparison to spousal abuse, probably the single most powerful argument of anti-spanking advocates, was removed. Is it factual? Yes. Do anti-spanking advocates use that argument? Yes.

So what's the freaking deal?

The sentence claims "spousal correction" was found abusive in the 20th century. But it links to rule of thumb which doesn't support that claim. In fact, both of the articles that rule of thumb links to contradict it: On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating The question of when wife beating became illegal isn't the main point here anyway. I've changed the sentence, and I think it ought to be acceptable to both sides now.

I suppose. Infanticide has been a capital punishment since the 4th century CE, but it was never enforced until the 18th. What the law says counts for jack. Some form of spousal abuse (physical violence aimed at a spouse) was considered proper until the middle 20th century.

-

This is a poor analogy unless the individuals making this analogy are prepared to carry the analogy to its natural conclusions. What I mean is this: If we accept that chastising your wife is 'wrong', then we must ask ourselves before declaring all chastisement wrong, why is it wrong to chastise your wife?

The reason we no longer are permitted to chastise our wives has nothing to do with the efficacy of chastisement. If you believe that to be the reason then I invite you to explain to women that the only reason they're not getting hit is that it does no good. No, the reason a woman isn't struck any longer is because women are recognized in the western world as the equals of men and therefore entitled to the protections of law granted to men.

Children are not granted those protections, and I will say it again, I challenge any of you to suggest that you are interested in putting children on equal footing with adults. Make what arguments you like about the brutality or unfairness of the practice, but unless you are suggesting that children should be permitted all the rights and burdens of adulthood the comparison to spousal abuse will not stand. -- Steven Hallis

Sorry, I forgot: Wikipedia neither embraces nor opposes either absolutism or relativism. You are right to that extent :-) If behaviorists think morality can't be taught by precept, they are mistaken -- and all the atheist totalitarian governments who censor the Bible have been wasting their time, too. What adults do and say are both important. As for violence and child-beating, we are seriously departing from the "foul language" discussion. Let's work together on a "violence and children" article. --Ed Poor

If you're referring to Cold War communist governments, the Iron Curtain fell long ago. Remmy

[edit] Erotic spanking drawing

Martin added this image to the article: Image:Spank1.jpg

The problem: This is obviously an erotic spanking image. It is not a realistic depiction of spanking in the context of corporal punishment, which is not an enjoyable or amusing experience at all. The image could therefore be viewed as making fun of very serious physical abuse of children, and as such, does not belong in this article as we already have a separate erotic spanking article.

If you want to see what real physical abuse of children looks like, I suggest you take a look at this page.--Eloquence* 10:52, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

The images on violence.de do not appear to be illustrations of spanking, or the effects of spanking, so they don't seem particularly helpful in the process of writing this article, which is supposedly what talk: pages are for.
I've changed the article to explicitly state that it is solely about corporal punishment, and edited appropriately. Martin 18:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Two of the images on violence.de show victims of spanking and flogging. Most spankings are obviously not as severe as to result in police photos. However, spanking with an instrument in particular can result in severe injuries and does so in many thousands of cases every year. That is not only relevant to this article, but this discussion in particular -- my point is that spanking is not simply harmless amusing fun for adults, but also a horrific experience (to different degree) for millions of children, especially in the United States, and improperly mixing the two is both misleading and likely to cause offense.--Eloquence* 20:48, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
The images on the Hustler link are horrific and undieniably abusive, extreme, etc. Nevertheless, those pictures do not represent ALL results of spanking. I sure in heck never got beat like that! Nor did my brother or others whom I know. There is a big difference between a swat or two that hardly leaves a mark or even an over the lap spanking that just reddens you some and the frightful images on the link, which are unacceptable. There are huge disparities between a brief or mild spanking and outright drawing blood from someone.--172.129.54.163 22:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro-spanking viewpoints are very POV. Just because one person may have had it done to him or her, doesn't make it "right", legally, morally, spiritually, or ethically. There is also a great difference between poking someone in the eye, and gouging eyes out in a fight. Both things go on, and for the sake of the law in most (if not al) countries, both would be called "assault", just like spanking is, in many democratic European countries, where the rights of children not to suffer abuse are enshrined under the protection of European law. To insert opinions that criticise European law, for instance, would be well and truly POV. Remmy.

FYI, I removed a link to an image I posted titled "A student receiving a spanking from his teacher." It is not erotic, but in hindsight I decided that showing such a photo was inappropriate.Kippin 17:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kippin's image was not inappropriate or erotic (at least not to me or any reasonable person) as it does not appear to be sexually motivated and illustrates the article, especially for those who might (if it's possible) not actually know what a spanking looks like in that context. It doesn't seem to be in bad or disturbing taste, so restored. Pictures in articles are generally a good thing. Best, --164.107.223.217 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disambig

I've outlined the disambig. Otherwise there is the implication that either (A) erotic spanking material is on topic or (B) that erotic spanking is not spanking. Martin 23:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. According to the Manual of Style, a bolded link within the text leads to a detailed article elsewhere. As such, it implies the exact opposite of (A); namely, that this information has been moved elsewhere. And it is the top disambiguation notice, the same style we use to separate between a 1980s cover band and a religious movement, which suggests that erotic spanking is something entirely different from spanking. It is different, but it is not different enough, in my opinion, to justify a standard disambiguation notice.--Eloquence* 21:00, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I sort of see your point. I'll have one more go. Martin 21:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I have changed "which is discussed at" to "see" because I like to keep meta-sentences short.--Eloquence* 01:12, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Question about intro

The article intro now states "Spanking is a hotly debated social issue. Questions include whether children should be spanked, whether it is an effective method of discipline and whether it constitutes child abuse."

Without using morally relativistic arguments, I think we need to specify in clear language what is meant by "child abuse." I'd like to change the intro to read "...and whether it constitutes child abuse under the law." Whether it causes psychological damage or damages the child in some way would also be clarified language that could supplant "child abuse" in the intro paragraph. It's a term that is not easily defined and is left unclarified in the article. --ABQCat 20:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I woudln't refer to the law. Perhaps "..or whether it harms the child" or ("...does lasting harm". Andy Mabbett 21:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whether alcohol, ecstasy, or cannabis, do long-term harm, is debatable, however, all three, are often described as harmful, and are regulated in different countries, and as such, the "harmful" and "criminal" aspects of all three substances, would have to be given equal airing, if Wiki isn't merely concerned with extremely POV, and very unprovable arguments whether as spanking causes harm, or not. A few tokes on a spliff, one might argue, might not harm you in the long term unless you have various allergies or illnesses, so why do people talk about "the dangers of cannabis?"

Short term effects, like discomfort, are used to make laws, on whether something is right, or not.

The worldwide legal definitions are inescapable, as part of the definition, in so much as, if the law differentiates against a form of punishment as being "barbaric", and gives it the term "child abuse", one would be justified in portaying the spanking of children as being illegal, as it is in many European countries, today. Worldwide legalities and definitions must have equal standing on Wiki, to the microcosm that is, the United States. The world is far bigger than one particular country.

The Wiki world is far bigger than the United States alone. If at least one democratic, human-rights regulated, country outside the "US of A" calls spaking child abuse, for the sake of clarity, without making moral judgements for or against spanking, the angle of spanking as child abuse, must be given full prominence, to uphold the worldwide nature of Wiki. many countries outside America, do register spanking as chikd abusem and so, spanking as child abuse must be considered.

Remmy (a non American Wiki user):)

Hello

I wish to create a world map of spanking laws. There is a map that exists in the death penalty page that shows where the death penalty is illegal, or legal; and I want such a map for spanking here. How do I get one?

North_Wolf_Inuit

[edit] My apologies:

(cur) (last) 22:29, 25 Aug 2004 198.81.26.70

(cur) (last) 22:37, 24 Aug 2004 Raina

Upon rereading some corrections I made to the article yesterday, I realized that I was writing more from experience and prejudice than from reason. When I went in to correct this, I did not realize I was not signed in. Both of the above are me. Raina

Adqwildcat: You are clearly wrong in claiming that I "can't sneak that change in under the excuse you gave - discuss on talk if you have proof of "most" vs 'some'." The article clearly states, "Spanking (not beating), by today's definition, consists of striking the buttocks. . . ." Furthermore, if you are able to consider the response of most parents to such intrusion upon the person of any child, to strike them upon their bare buttocks, you will have to admit to the truth that most are horrified at such an indecent, inhumane act. You might also check statistical documents, as I did. Do the research. To strip the child of such common and basic decency, by striking them upon their bare bottom, is clearly inhuman and inhumane. May every parent who does such an incridible act suffer the consequences without recourse or relief. Raina

Raina, not to just be argumentative (I'm a nice person, really), please CITE the research and statistical documents if you wish to make a substantively perjorative change to the language of the article. Now "To strip the child of such common and basic decency, by striking them upon their bare bottom, is clearly inhuman and inhumane" is neither against common decency (some argue children in fact learn modesty and "basic decency" rather than it being an inborn instinct) nor is it "clearly inhuman or inhumane." There is just no clear ANYTHING when talking about what is or is not humane. It's a clearly POV stance to claim that a practice is inhumane. Now, if you'd like to make the point that you believe bare-bottom spanking to be inhumane, quickly search around for a respected group (some association of child psychologists, for example) that has stated "spanking is inhumane" or some such. Then you're not interjecting your own opinion, but balancing the article with the claims of a respected group. I'm just trying to maintain NPOV status on an article that's contentious. I apologize if you took any of my comments as personal attacks upon your character or good standing in the Wikipedia community. That was not my intention. I respect your viewpoint and I welcome further discussion on the subject. --ABQCat 01:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You have explained to me that you are a nice person, and I have no reason whatsoever not to believe that. However, what I do not understand is why your opinion with regard to this article carries more weight than does what I wrote, which is based upon many years of experience and observation; some writing on this subject, which required research; working with parents who have abused and those who have not done overt abuse; many years of reading on the subject, because it is my heart; and years of looking into the statistics. I am also curious about the fact that you believe you are correct to change the article in that manner, based upon your opinion. What proof do you have of your opinion? Raina
I require no proof to leave the word "some" in the article - it carries no assertion of quantity. "Most" on the other hand is an assertion of majority that requires evidence. It's as simple as that. I do not think my opinion matters more than yours, but something you should realize: the fact that your opinion has ANY effect upon the writing of the article indicates that you need to take a step back and examine how you're approacing this article. NPOV means neutral point of view. If you're writing based upon your point of view, I think you could agree that there are other people with opposing views. By that logic, your point of view cannot be asserted to be neutral on the subject. I respect your experience. You are the perfect sort of person to have editing this article - you're educated on the subject and care about it. I would ask that for the benefit and education of other wikipedians and any individual who uses this article for reference, that you assemble some of your knowledge into a form for inclusion in this article along with sources for that material. If you can't prove it (and inhuman, most, etc are unproven/unprovable) it's likely unsuitable for inclusion in this article. --ABQCat 06:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Some" is a very mild modifier and is, therefore, incorrect. The correct modifier is "many," if you want honesty in the article. The statement, as it stands, is untrue. Raina 16:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Steven Hallis -- Good change! Thank you. Raina 02:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Once again, the legal as well as populist argument of what constitutes child abuse, must be given an equal grounding on Wiki. As I said before, the world is far larger than one particular country, i.e., the United States. Many modern, democratic countries around the world now regard spanking as being "barbsric" and being illegal, and this stance is thus valid in a non Amerocentric Wiki.

Whether short or long term harm is caused, or perhaps deep psychological harm, or a change in character of the "spankee" is appararent, doesn't mean the subject of spanking cannot be approached from the angle of abuse. If many countries around the world assume spanking to be "wrong" and "harmful", FOR WHATEVER REASON, we must give this moral definition equal airing. Whether most things in this world, including soft drugs, cause long term physical harm is ambiguous, however it doesn't stop lawmakers making cannabis an unlawful, prohibited substance.

In many countries round the world, basic human rights apply to children as well as adults. This doesn't include the right to vote, because of educational reasons, however, protection from (long or short term) suffering, humilation, is enshrined in such universal rights of the protection of the wellbeing of man and child.

Remmy:)

[edit] POV Concerns

I have tried (off-line) for the past 3 days to make this article NPOV, and can't. Come on, comparing spanking to Slavery? Pedophilia? (at least, that's what I assune "paraphilic" was supposed to be.) What's next? Relating it to Nazism? This is highly Western civilization centric, for that matter, highly neologist thinking. Great care should be made to differentiate between spanking as a corrective action, and child abuse. While many claim that one is the other, the reality is vastly different. I've also never heard that humuliation was a desired effect of spanking. Cite please, and not from an anti-spanking source. I've come to the conclusion that the only way to salvage this article is to rewrite major portions and restructure. Comments? - Vina 23:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

paraphillias are aberrant sexual behaviors - including frotterism, etc. Spanking is legitimately part of that subgouping, and wouldn't be considered POV. Check an abnormal psych book. You can cross that concern off your list. --ABQCat 00:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also, couldn't we just leave it as "Some groups believe" or "there is a theory that" referring to the intent of spanking to possibly humiliate? That seems easy to move to NPOV context to me. You don't necessarily need a citation for EVERYTHING on wikipedia, just things that sound ridiculous or warrant it. --ABQCat 00:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Disagree with both of the above. (and how come m-w doesn't have paraphillic as an entry?) "Aberrant sexual behavior" should be filed under erotic spanking, which has a separate entry. Spanking as a form of corrective action has got nothing to do with sex. And I do believe that humiliation is not a form of corrective action, and therefore not an intent of spanking, and it IS quite ridiculous. -Vina 18:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ok, finally found paraphilic, but at dictionary.com instead of m-w.com. It references Merriam-Webster Medicine Dictionary, so unfortunately you won't see it on m-w... Vastly annoying... -Vina 22:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Spanking as a form of corrective action has got nothing to do with sex" - Ok, I agree with you that at first glance, it probably doesn't. This article or this particular section, especially because it references paraphilias, sounds like it was written by a psychologist or psychiatrist. I think it might be a valid claim that there is a Jungian or Freudian belief that spanking has the intrinsic motivation of sexual humiliation designed to change behavior. I do agree with you though that no normal parent spanks their child out of a desire to sexually humiliate the child. The passage warrants inclusion, in my opinion, if it is clearly stated that the inferrence of sexual humiliation is Jungian or Freudian. --ABQCat 00:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I must take exception to this, as what constitues a "notrmal parent" is in itself POV. What exactly is "normal?" In terms of sexual bahaviour, is a participation S&M "normal" or "abnormal?"

Child abuse is abnormal, but as someone who has lived through times where coproral punishment was allowed in schools in the UK, I did witness acts of "sadism" where the punisher, was more than "relieved" the punishment had been carried out. Some rather normal-looking games teachers (PE) in the school I went to, took physical and mental delight at inflicting pain, in such a way that they might have been considered, perverted, had it not been for the legality of spanking. Anyone who has been to a British public school, will undoubedtly have witnessed similar acts of (alleged) "sadism", by respected members of society who were not labelled "perverts".

Remmy (UK)

[edit] Clothing NPOV issue

The article states: or upon the bare buttocks in increasing order of intended pain, and potentially humiliation. The latter is considered by many to be too humiliating to be appropriate. It seems to me that the second sentence should be struck as it is very not NPOV and replaced with something like:

Spanking on the bare buttocks is commonly thought to be significantly humiliating to the recipient

Thoughts? 63.197.31.110 04:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The NPOV of this article was a point that I raised a while ago, but apparently feelings run high on this issue. If you can suggest some change (overt removal is probably not preferable) that conveys the same sort of information about some people feeling that humiliation is the issue, I think you have a good chance of convincing people to accept the change. --ABQCat 05:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I realize that it's a significant issue, that's why I'm proposing the change above. It brings up the issue of humiliation being an issue, but without concerning itself with whether the action is appropriate. 63.197.31.110 06:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it needs mentioning about the added humiliation, tbh - as it stands it's not NPOV and the suggested revision is "weaselly". violet/riga (t) 10:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Law

The article currently states:

Canada has tightened its laws and the laws now say that no infant or teen may be spanked, although the spanking of children is legal.

are infants and teens not children? I'm confused.

-Vina 10:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

here's some citation [1] it says that the law upholds spankings, but only for children ages two to twelve. I've rephrased the sentence to be more accurate. Ziiv 06:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is illegal in some provinces such as the North West Territories in which Yellowknife is found.

There is an absolute abolishon of any form of physical control methods and any form that takes place will result in assult charges, such as a jail term.

[edit] Paragraph in wrong section, uneven titles

The last paragraph in "The argument for Spanking" belongs in "Arguments against spanking". The comparison with slavery and spousal abuse is clearly an argument against, not for.

Why is is "argument" and "arguments"? Why not use "arguments" for both? This is a bias against spanking.

[edit] "Unnecessary" and "vulgar"?

I see nothing unnecessary or vulgar about addressing common synonyms and euphamisms for spanking. The rational for deleting that paragraph should be discussed here before the edit is kept. --Icarus 05:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought the entire paragraph seemed un-serious and puerile as well as lacking in taste. Perhaps there should be a separate page for "euphemisms for spanking"?
It might benefit from being re-formatted, but to me it just looks like a summary of various other terms, along with brief explanations of those terms. I honestly don't see why you think it is as you've characterized it. I don't think it's an extensive or seperate enough topic to merit a seperate page, but a seperate section with a ==Euphamisms and Other Terms== header or the like would be fine. Icarus 05:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

The last link at the bottom of the page reads: "Plain Talk About Spanking - an online anti-spanking bookletsp:nalgada" - I'm presuming the "sp:nalgada" bit shouldn't be there. Should it be taken off, or is it there for a reason?! --Studiosonic 15:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the "sp:nalgada" is supposed to be an invisible link to a version of the page in another language. But seeing as it's not turning up invisible, I've removed it. Anyone know how that works? Can only bots make invisible links like that? --Icarus 16:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV: "Moderate"?

I don't really mind the change, but why would the heading "Moderate Views" be considered POV?

I certainly don't think that "moderate" means or even implies "correct." There was a time, after all, when calling for the immediate and total abolition of slavery was a radical extremist position. Nevertheless, it was the correct position, and the "moderates" on that issue were just plain wrong.

Here we've got two opposite viewpoints ('spanking=abuse' vs. 'spare the rod and spoil the child'), and a third viewpoint that's intermediate between them ('spanking is somewhat bad and usually to be avoided, but it's not always abuse per se, and in some rare circumstances it's the best option'). Is there a better, more NPOV word that means "intermediate between two opposing viewpoints"?

Like I said, I don't mind the current heading ("Moderate Use of Spanking"), but it's not really accurate. Moderate use of spanking is not what that section is about. It says explicitly in the "Arguments for Spanking" section that many of the 'spare the rod and spoil the child' crowd believe spanking should only be used in moderation. What separates the third group is not necessarily how often they spank, but their views about it - that it's an occasionally-necessary evil, only OK in certain specific situations, rather than thinking it's totally fine and healthy as long as you don't go overboard. (Come to think of it, "Minimal Use of Spanking" might be better than "Moderate Use" - how about that?) 68.226.239.73

I'm the one who changed it from "moderate views" to "moderate use". I did so because moderate viewpoints can be seen as the happy medium between two radical extremist viewpoints, and I thought that there was possibly an NPOV implication that the views therein described are correct while anti-spanking views are radical and extreme. But you're right, it's more about the views than the frequency of use. I can't think of a perfect way to put it either, but I like your idea for "Minimal use of spanking". That sounds the best out of the possibilities presented thus far. "Conditional use of spanking" might also work, as it the main difference between the "pro-spanking" POV and the Moderate/Minimal/Conditional POV appears to me to be whether spanking is always a good form of punishment, or whether it's only good under certain conditions. --Icarus 02:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I pity your offspring if you feel physically attacking children is a "radical extremist" viewpoint.
"Conditional use" is a good idea, but "minimal" sounds slightly less awkward to my ear. I'll go ahead and change it to "Minimal"; as always, feel free to change it again if anyone's got a better idea. 68.226.239.73

[edit] Re: POV concerns

I think it's very hard to make a unbiased entry on spanking, because it's very difficult to see it neutrally. For example, I saw a father at Disneyworld, spanking his child. His child's face was beet-red, he was crying his eyes out, screaming. Do you really feel this is an experience that will benifit a child in any way? I do not. I'm not saying this is representative of all spankers. However, it's like taking a hit of E your first time, and saying "Well it wasn't so bad, so it must be ok". You never know when the next hit will kill you. With spanking, you don't know when you will cross the line into abuse.

Any claim that a parent should react to a pure emotional state, physically against a child, is wrong. It's just opening the door to Pandora's Box. Sure maybe not this time, the child will end up in the hospital. What about next time, and the time after that. What about when the child becomes sexually promiscuous, or takes drugs. The parents aren't going to admit it's because, they put their child in a state of fear and anxiety, by physically repremanding them. Oh no, it couldn't be that!

Think about a giant coming over, and hitting you. That is what it's like to be spanked. It's natural to feel terrified out of your mind, and to feel you no longer can trust the person who hurt you. It does not make sense to me, spanking. It just seems so caveman, primative. It is teaching a child, they better shut down emotionally, and be perfect 24/7. They have no other option, it's the only way to defend themselves. Then the parents wonder why, years later, they're paying psychiatry bills. Feel free to give me your opinion on this. Or even try to explain what benifit could possibly come, from what is perceived by a child, as a horrific experience. Making anyone feel powerless, is immoral. Especially when done to a child.

Maybe it's difficult for you to make an unbiased entry, so why not leave it to someone else? The analogy with ecstasy is extremely weak and technically flawed.

"For example, I saw a father at Disneyworld, spanking his child. His child's face was beet-red, he was crying his eyes out, screaming." I've seen my nephew with a beet-red face, screaming and crying his eyes out because he let go of his balloon. It took him half an hour to stop crying. Perhaps we should outlaw balloons, because they can lead to psychological damage in children? Egomaniac 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “Spanking Therapy?”

There's a brief paragraph about "Spanking Therapy" with no sources. It looks rather dubious, does anyone know anything about it? Rafaelgr 23:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There use to be a whole linked article about it, along with off-site links about it. What we have in this article comes of as POV because there is no citation. --Bear Eagleson 20:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing this nonsense, as it has no sources. --Xyzzyplugh 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spanking

its not right what you wrote thet in israel people doesnt spanking. i am israeli, and here a lot of peopele spank chieldren if the dont good. i am spanks, too.

  • considering your spelling, apparently not enough ?! (unsigned talk is never taken seriously - UNSIGNED)

[edit] NOT just Allusions to paraphilism

Since the article states at the top, "This article is about the punishment. For spanking as erotic activity, see erotic spanking; for punishment as an erotic activity, see BDSM." there should not be allusions to erotic spanking sprinkled throughout the article, e.g. the use of the word pervertible to describe objects used to spank. St. Jimmy 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Though the word pervertible originated in a BDSM context, the concept it expresses is NOT exclusively limited to that sphere, in fact it's just a new word for a wide-spread practice which is older then BDSM (the term, at least): like nature evolved the hand essentially for other purposes, many implements were around for their (intrinsic or polyvalent) non-punitive use before people started 'perverting' them (in fact converting would be a better term), with our without modification, for physical discipline. The difference is often in people's mind, not in the objects as such. Fastifex 23:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the word in a modern context is almost entirely sexual in connotation, and it links to a page that describes the word in unambiguously sexual terms. Perhaps a neutral word like, as you mentioned, "convertible" would be a better compromise? St. Jimmy 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The concept may be older, but it's still the wrong word to use, since pervertible refers to an erotic context. The only other meaning of this word is to suggest that it is a deviation from what is right (and hence obviously POV). What's the point in putting the reference to the article, when the article is about the erotic usage? "Converting" would be a better word, except there's no Wikipedia article to reference there, so I'm not sure how you mean to put it in there. Mdwh 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fastifex said in an edit summary: "I don't actually state the term is used for this purpose" - but the text says "for which the generic term pervertible exists". So if this doesn't mean that this term describes the aforementioned act of using implements not designed for spanking, then what is it meant to be saying?

If you agree that the term does not apply, but the concept does, then it should be worded to reflect that - e.g., "(when used for sexual purposes in BDSM, such objects are referred to as pervertibles)". But even then, I do not see it is relevant, since that is talking about spanking in an erotic context (and the word surely stems from "perversion" in the sense of sexual deviance - it is POV to suggest that this concept applies here, i.e., that spanking is a perversion of some kind). Mdwh 22:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm also curious what your reason is for wanting to put this term into the article? It's not even mentioned in erotic spanking for example, which is where it would be far more appropriate. Mdwh 22:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you've added "in the context of BDSM" which is better. Firstly, the wording seems rather confusing to me (presumably you're trying to say "In BDSM, this is known as a pervertible"?) However, I still disagree, as:

  • According to pervertible, the term doesn't mean "using an ordinary objection for spanking", it means "using ordinary non-sexual objects in a sexual manner". So it's rather misleading to say the term is relevant here, as the usage refers to a sexual act (even if it includes spanking), which obviously doesn't apply here.
  • Even if pervertible did mean "using an ordinary object for spanking", I disagree a mention is relevant here - why not take it to erotic spanking?
  • Also, what is "which often enacts or includes real punishments" supposed to mean? Obviously it's not real in the sense of this article. Presumably you mean "real" in the sense of "the spanking actually happens" - but it's very vague.

Lastly, several times I've been asking questions on Talk - please can you discuss the issues here rather than simply reverting. Mdwh 14:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grounding

I've removed the following sentence:

In some North American families where restriction to home outside school hours (grounding) is used to punish a teenager for misdeeds, the teenager is allowed to request a spanking in lieu of up to ten days of grounding. Each hard open-handed strike over clothed buttocks while standing is used by the parent at the teenager's request to cancel a single day's grounding.

Firstly it just repeats what's already been said (about asking for spanking to cancel another punishment). Secondly, it seems dubious that every single family which does this follows exactly the same rules of "one spank per day", "over clothed buttocks while standing" and "up to ten days". Evidence? Mdwh 14:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pop culture

I really don't think "pop culture" is in anyway related to spanking in the minds of most people. Should that be in there? The "pop culture" article can only muster up an article in some obscure online journal. I'd be for taking out the "pop culture" thing as irrelevant. Anybody second it? Vince In Milan 16:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I second it. St. Jimmy 23:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree also. Fastifex, can you explain what this bit is trying to say? Mdwh 12:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful research

This research may be useful as a source for this article [2]. However I wouldn't recommend the Herald as a source for this one. For one thing, I would say their coverage up to now has demonstrated a clear bias. Nil Einne 12:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move pro/anti arguments to Corporal Punishment page?

I suggest that the sections "arguments for spanking" and "arguments against spanking" be moved to the Corporal punishment page and merged with the section on arguments for and against corporal punishment in children (which should then be split into two sections, for and against.) Otherwise, the for and against sections on this page are essentially a duplication of the for/against section on the Corporal Punishment page. Since most of the arguments are applicable to any form of corporal punishment, that page seems the better place to merge the arguments, leaving this page with only stuff specific to spanking. Which ever page the arguments end up on, a prominent link should guide readers from the other page. Wikipedia has a policy against Content forking, i.e. different pages covering the same subject, sometimes from different points of view. --Coppertwig 20:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. For now I ve marked the two articles with the partial merge template. Anytime is good for doing the merge.--SummerWithMorons 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as long as the "Corporal punishment" page is prominently mentioned here, because for many people "spanking" and "corporal punishment" seem to be pretty well interchangeable terms. But I agree, all the "for and against" stuff is entirely about corporal punishment generally, not spanking specifically.
Even when that change is made, though, this article still needs a lot of tightening up. Whole chunks of it (e.g. on the legal situation) appear twice in two different places. It's an unwieldy mess. Ffaarrrreellll (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Picture

I strongly feel that we should delete the photo of the boy getting spanked at the top of the page. Bare bottom or not, spanking is a very private and intimate discipline, and public showing to thousands, perhaps millions of people and web surfers isn't appropriate, no matter how "decent" it is.Ohyeh 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I wouldn't call being abused intimate but the picture's been moved anyway. Wikisquared 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Alleged links between smacking and dev of certain paraphilias

I removed this section [3] because other then the fact it was unsourced (although I have no doubt it's true), it's irrelevant. No one has AFAIK suggested everyone who enjoys erotic spanking was smacked as a child. What they are saying is smacking may (help) cause this behaviour. However they have never suggested it was the sole cause or from what I can tell even the primary cause of this behaviour in even a minority of cases. It's a bit like saying some people who have developed lung cancer even though they've never smoked or been around someone that smokes (er so what???). If there was for example, research suggesting there was no correlation between the two then we could include that. Nil Einne 15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanking of pets

This article focuses nearly entirely of the spanking of children, however, cats and dogs also get spanked, so this article should focus some on that too. Voortle 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have witnessed cases of animals being spanked and it could be more serious for them due to thier size and would possibly result is more serious injury including death!--North Wolf Inuit 07:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judicial model

I recommend that the judicial model section is way too long for this article and ought to be its own page, e.g. "Judicial Corporal Punishment." People who are searching for "spanking" are generally looking for information about domestic or school aspects, not judicial floggings. St. Jimmy 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nanny shows

These shows are stupid. They are obviously anti-spanking. Oh oh, no! A parent hit a child in his butt! The kid is scarred for life! The people who are against spanking never had kids, or they do whatever their kids tell them to do. Kids need to learn disipline. If you think that spanking is violence, then, don't spank when you are angry. If you spank while you're angry, could take it too far. --69.67.234.129 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue either way on smacking. But it's bullshit to claim that all people opposed to smacking are not parents or that they do whatever their kids want. Nil Einne 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find many parents don't resort to this form of action to mis-behaviour.

[edit] Spanking

Spanking is just as much abuse as is wifebeating which centuries ago was just as acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voortle (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That is merely your opinion. This article is not here for the purpose of expressing your or anyone else's opinion. It is supposed to give an unbiased, factual account of spanking, what it is, how it is/was used, the cultural context, etc. Ffaarrrreellll (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
... and, of course, the various opinions and political reactions that there have been to it. --FOo (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request a link

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good discipline resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/27.htm

The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.

The discipline page of this site includes articles containing extensive research and worthwhile advice on various forms of child discipline within the family and the classroom. Useful articles suggest ways to discipline a child, including forms of child discipline and safe measures for parents to take to control their children. Teamme 15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punishment horse?

Will someone define punishment horse, since it just redirects to spanking position.
~ender 2008-01-13 08:45:AM MST

[edit] Rehoboam reference

The section containing arguments against spanking reads, "Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, to whom the book of Proverbs is traditionally attributed". The Wikipedia pages on Rehoboam and Book_of_Proverbs do not mention any such traditional attribution. Do we have a citation for this? 199.44.16.72 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

Kudos to User:Ffaarrrreellll for a nice edit of the article.

I'm wondering if part of the problem is that it's way too long, and should be broken into several sub-articles. Some subjects that come to mind:

  • School corporal punishment
  • Spanking as discipline
  • Spanking as child abuse
  • Spanking as sexual abuse
  • Spanking as a judicial practice
  • Spaking and the law
  • Spanking as play

Not that these should be the names or the final categories, just throwing something out there. Wikidemo (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)