Spanking

Political cartoon from 1860 depicting Stephen A. Douglas receiving a traditional “over-the-knee” spanking from Columbia as Uncle Sam looks on approvingly.

Spanking is the most commonly-used form of corporal punishment, consisting of one or more sharp smacks applied, often on the buttocks, but sometimes on other parts of the body.

Linguistics

The verb to spank has been known in English since 1727, possibly onomatopeic in nature.

It is remarkable that English and several other languages have a specific, common verb for spanking, that distinguishes it from corporal punishment applied to parts of the anatomy other than the buttocks. Thus in Latin the only word derived from culus (buttocks) was culare, meaning 'to spank,' similar to the Italian sculacciare; in French, the verb is fesser, also from 'fesses' (buttocks). All of these terms testify to the historical or persisting prominence of this punitive target in many cultures.

What and how

Definitions

Spanking, by today's definition, consists of striking the buttocks, usually as a physical punishment, with either an open hand or a suitable implement.

In the United States and Canada, all discipline applied to the posterior is usually known as spanking. In Britain and many Commonwealth countries smacking or whacking is used as the general term; with spanking usually referring to bare-handed discipline (as opposed to implement-specific forms of spanking such as paddling, caning, birching and slippering).

There are many alternative terms, often linked with an implement (such as belting, caning, whipping), but also sometimes used more generally (such as thrashing, dressing-down (though this often refers to the lecture that precedes the actual spanking and perhaps refers to the undressing of the buttocks that often occurs during the lecture) , whacking, wupping or whupping) or using terms for a stroke (usually in the plural), such as blow, swat (hence swatting), lick (hence licking) and less common ones including onomatopoeias such as "pop". There are still other terms for hits (e.g. blow, stroke, cut refer to the effect), sometimes rather describing the physical punishment, such as cut, strip - nearly all those terms can of course also apply to beatings elsewhere on the body, and even though a term as hiding or tanning suggests administering on the bare these can also be used more generally. Next there are descriptive terms for spanking using a synonym of buttocks and a generic term for (corporal) punishment, such as posterior chastisement, stern discipline, sometimes specifying the degree of nakedness of the spankee, as in panties-down, or Physical punishment.

• It is striking how the (mainly informal) terminology is usually determined by the punisher's point of view, with terms such as lesson, medicine, ordeal, therapy, (woodshed) treatment), even helping, sometimes adding -in see unnecessary- adjectives such as firm, (jolly) good, healthy, sound, well-deserved, even (long) overdue; if the spankee is taken notice of, then as helplessly suffering the painful effects, as in: blistering, grilling, roasting, humbling.
• Several languages exclusively use words that directly indicate the buttocks as the anatomical target zone, either plainly as the French fessée (from fesse 'buttock') or somewhat ironic, such as the Dutch billenkoek (buttocks + cake); a similar word pun in English is posterior alignment.
• Sometimes there is another specific term for a spanking on the seat of the trousers, as the Dutch pak voor de broek ('load (of swats) for -i.e. on- the pantaloons'). On the other hand expressions for a bad beating -not necessarily only for a spanking- can precisely refer to the preliminary baring, as 'a dressing down' and the Dutch verbs afranselen ('take off the (back) pack') and aftuigen ('unharnass', i.e. divest).
• Similarly there can be analogous words for spankers, as the Dutch bilslager ('buttock beater') and the French (Frère) Fesseur ('(brother) spanker'), both referring to a cleric, especially in the Jesuit order, specifically charged with the professional administration of spankings on the (typically bared) buttocks of naughty pupils in reputedly strict Catholic schools; the clergy seems to have had a real reputation as bodily chastizers (there was a tradition of 'mortification' of the flesh, including self-flagellation, not only as penance), for in Paris's St. Lazaire prison the rod was administered on the bare buttocks of criminals by a member of the Lazarist order referred to as the Père fouettard ('whipping father') as allegedly happened to the writer Beaumarchais.

Scope of punitive use

The two subsections group the various spanking spheres for convenience: the 'domestic' model spanks in a paternalistic mentality, intending to (re)educate the spankees, often 'for their own good', and more informally, which often includes the use of conveniently available objects made for another purpose, such as a hairbrush, belt, pointer (rod), Physical punishment yardstick or various household objects, etc.; meanwhile, the 'judicial' model essentially aims to enforce the social code, be it the (formal or customary) law or a substitute order, 'for the common good' (raison d'état, social cohesion, public safety and morality...), usually with a traditional, often even formally imposed implement.

Domestic model

Spankings are administered in particular to children by their educators, i.e. mostly (biological -, step-, adoptive- or foster-) parent or guardian and school -, orphanage etc. staff. Race and gender have a significant influence on child spanking. Black children and male children are much more likely to be hit at home and school and spanking of boys tends to be more severe, more frequent and more aggressive than spanking of girls . Many countries in Europe, as well as New Zealand, have outlawed domestic spanking of children. In 2007, the Australian government spent 2.5 million dollars on a campaign to convince Australian parents not to spank their children .

Spankings were however also, especially in the past, administered to other persons considered as legal (and/or moral) minors (sometimes illegally still treated as such), including;

• Servants (especially domestics, not by coincidence also called (house)boy or maid; the British Lord Chief Justice declared their corporal punishment, like children's, indisputably justified in 1795);

• Often copied from domestic discipline, as in fraternities and sororities (originally living units where seniors and/or staff wielded the paddle rather like parents at home), and sports and other teams (though now nearly only as 'play' in hazing and rarely as actual coercive sanction) and other initiation context, as with recruits (in military, police and some other professions).

• Informal spankings in the domestic context can also occur in an institutional environment, parallel to the more formal punishments, when administered by the victim's peers.

Judicial model

Although non-erotic fiction usually shows or says corporal punishment for adults as administered above the waist, in most cultures and legal systems it was at least as common to administer on the buttocks, i.e. as a spanking, most forms of judicial and prison beatings (convicts by definition are at the mercy of the authorities; even today severe punishments, even the dreaded judicial 'Singapore' cane, are awarded to enforce internal prison rules in various countries).

For obvious practical reasons adults are rarely spanked over knee or lap, rather bending or bound over some object or construction (closely resembling the child's exposure, without the skin contact that is often undesirable or even indecent for the official spanker), in fewer cases standing or hanging (as usual for punishment above the waist) as against a wall or whipping post.

The parallel with child discipline is part of the deliberate use of public humiliation as part of punishments. Hence, the condemned is often bared, completely or partly to expose the buttocks, or only covered for modesty, with little protection against the instrument; this is still usual under sharia in many countries. While even the back is sometimes left clad for an Islamic whipping, as in Saudi Arabia, in (ethnically mainly Chinese) Singapore and (Muslim) Malaysia it is more common to cane the bare buttocks.

• Often the strong arm of the law — mainly (para)military and police, not seldom charged with the physical execution of corporal punishment — and some similarly hierarchical organisations, has particularly strict internal discipline, usually enforced internally (as by court-martial, or in 'minor' cases simply by the superior officer), which in many traditions entailed punishing the culprit's (often bared) tail-end;
  • especially navies, where order must be maintained in confined spaces at all cost, are renowned for stern discipline, and some measure of it not unknown in merchant naval traditions either, but usually only 'boys' (including midshipmen, though) were spanked, adult sailors rather had their back and/or shoulders lashed;
  • in general the treatment of boys under arms has at least a measure of the paternalistic 'educational' discipline, often meaning they are more likely to have the bare bottom punished;
  • when martial law is imposed (formally or de facto), at home (as in Pakistan under sharia-zealous former president general Ziah al Haq [1]) or under military occupation, such harsh practice is often extended to the civilian population (more difficult to control and/or less respected) as well, even limiting normal process of law; while regular corps discipline is generally conducted within quarters or correctional facility, to 'whip' the masses into obedience public administration is often preferred for maximized deterrence; yet in some cases the accusations of 'war crime'-type punishment are somewhat hollow insofar as the occupied country often already used similar physical coercion, e.g. Korea publicly caning the criminal's bare behind over a bench before and during the Japanese rule [2]

• Judicial corporal punishment is making a comeback in a number of post-colonial, non-Islamic countries, including the cat o' nine tails in various Antillean Commonwealth nations.
• Furthermore there is a wave of reviving or beefing up of (re)legalized traditional justice, as by tribal chief's courts, and their customary punishments not infrequently include spanking, sometimes even carried out by the regular police force.
• Even where corporal punishment remains illegal, or is very restricted, it rather often is a common weapon for so-called vigilante justice, sometimes tolerated or even legally legitimated by the authorities (as in various parts of Africa, e.g. Botswana), sometimes practiced by rebels (as in Nepal), often remarkably popular with the general public or a large section where official 'modern' western-style justice seems unable to stem crime, as in South Africa.

• The Empress Theodora is reported to have spanked a courtier:

Among the large number of men whom she treated this way were Leontius, who occupied the position of Referendarius, and Saturninus, son of Hermogenes the Magister, both of them just married.
This Saturninus had married a second cousin, a maiden of good birth and excellent character, whose father Cyril had approved the match, Hermogenes having died earlier. No sooner had they shut themselves into the bridal chamber than Theodora seized the groom and carried him off to another chamber, where in spite of his heartbroken protestations he was married to Chrysomallo’s daughter. This Chrysomallo had once been a dancer and later a courtesan, but at the time of this incident she was living in the Palace with another Chrysomallo and Indaro. For there it was that after abandoning woman’s oldest profession and the life of the theatre they had established their headquarters. When Saturninus had slept with his new bride and found that she had been deflowered, he informed one of his intimate friends that the girl he had married was nothing but damaged goods. When this comment came to Theodora's ears, she said that he was showing off and had no right to be so puffed up, and ordered her servants to bend him over like any schoolboy. Then she gave his behind a fearsome beating and told him not to talk such nonsense in future.

— Procopius, Secret History

• Finally, there are cases of 'summary justice' which do not even fit the vigilante logic, but still intends to enforce a social order by improvised corporal punishment, such as some Bolivian bus drivers using a belt on strike-breaking colleagues [3] on the streets, or “In French pit villages the wives of striking miners confronted scabs and humiliated them by removing their trousers and spanking them.” -Lynn Abrams, The Making of Modern Woman (New York: Pearson Education Limited, 2002), 203.

Educational spanking

In some schools, spanking is allowed as a means of disciplining students. Such schools often allow elementary students (ages 6–11), intermediate students (ages10–13), and high school students (ages14 –18) to be so disciplined.

School corporal punishment is banned in most of the western world, including every country in Western Europe, most countries in Eastern Europe, Japan, South Africa and New Zealand, among many other countries. Conversely, some advanced countries in Asia still use it, including Singapore and South Korea. In Australia, corporal punishment in schools is banned, partially or completely, in some states. Corporal punishment remained legal in some parts of Canada until 2004, when it was banned by a Supreme Court ruling. Corporal punishment was made illegal in all state schools in the United Kingdom in 1986 and this ban was extended to include independent schools in 1996.

School corporal punishment is common in African and India. It is also still permitted in 20 U.S. states, and of all 20 states, Ohio is the only one that requires schools to honor parental requests not to use corporal punishment. Schools or school districts usually specify the circumstances under which spankings may be administered and which personnel may administer them. In New Jersey and Iowa, all corporal punishment, including spanking, is prohibited in all schools, public and private. In some other states it is banned in public schools but permitted in private ones. World Corporal Punishment Research has compiled "Regulations of individual schools or school districts" throughout the United States, state by state, and internationally, "with external links to present-day school handbooks" that specify the circumstances and personnel who are authorized to administer spankings.

In the U.S., the degree to which spanking is used in schools in states which still allow it varies by state. For example, Ohio still permits spanking in school, but approximately 97% of the school districts in the state ban the practice, and all major cities either ban or do not use it even without a ban. In Alabama, however, only two districts in the entire state, Montgomery and Birmingham, ban the practice.

Nine states give teachers protection from liability arising from the use of spanking, even if parents requested the school not use corporal punishment, and sometimes even if injury occurs. They are: Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Indiana.

Of the U.S. states permitting spanking in schools, Texas administers the most, with approximately 170,000 per year. While it is banned in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, Houston still permits school spanking, as do almost all of the rural school districts.

Mississippi has the highest proportionate rate, with approximately 11% of the student body subjected to corporal punishment in any given school year.

Ohio is a "fence-sitter" state. Spanking is still legal in Ohio schools, but the law is written to sometimes be confused with a ban. The state law, Ohio Revised Code 3319.41, states that corporal punishment is banned unless school districts establish clear guidelines for a corporal punishment policy, and honor all requests of parents who do not wish their children subjected to corporal punishment. Approximately 97% of public school districts in Ohio ban spanking and corporal punishment anyway, which has been cited by some pro-spanking advocates as eliminating the need for legislation against school spanking in Ohio.

Twenty-eight states have banned spanking in schools. They are: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Rhode Island, the "honorary 29th" state, does not legally ban spanking in schools, but every school district in the state has banned since at least 1976.

Spanking is banned in all public schools in Canada as of 2004.

There is some disagreement about how much paddling occurs in U.S. schools. Some estimates place the number of paddlings at approximately 350,000 a year, while the National Association of School Psychologists places the number at 1.5 million cases a year Evidence suggests that in the United States, racial and sexual discrimination play a large role in school corporal punishment, with black students being much more likely to be hit than white students, and male students being much more likely to be hit than female students, for the same infractions. Corporal punishment of male students also tends to be more severe and more aggressive. In some places, this sexual discrimination has the force of law. For instance, in Queensland, Australia, school corporal punishment of girls was banned in 1934 but corporal punishment of boys in private schools is still legal in 2007. Likewise, caning in Singapore schools is strictly confined to boys.

Through the 1970s, paddling in public U.S. high schools was primarily administered to boys. However, in the 1980s this practice gave rise to claims of discrimination in which female students claimed to receive more severe punishments in the form of detentions or suspensions. Since that time, most public high schools that use paddling have converted to a "voluntary" system in which all students, regardless of gender, may choose paddling or some alternative punishment like detention. (Parents are also given the option of opting out of corporal punishment by informing the school that their child may not choose a paddling--an option few parents exercise.) Under this approach, students choose between a pre-determined number of swats or the alternative punishment. For example, a student with a third tardy may elect a 3-swat paddling or 3-hours Saturday detention.

To the surprise of some, most female students, like their male counterparts, choose corporal punishment over the alternative. The paddling of female students has become commonplace in some U.S. high schools, to the point that female teachers or administrators are designated to paddle female students, thereby avoiding any claims of a sexual motivation for the punishment. This provides little benefit to the recipients of the punishment, however, as such designated teachers tend to be coaches or other faculty members particularly well suited to the task. As a result, some maintain that female students are often paddled more severely than male students. It has been noted none the less that female students tend to react to the punishment less acutely than males, perhaps due to high pain thresholds and/or more natural anatomical protection. In any case, the number of male students paddled tends to peak in the 9th grade, while that of female students in the 11th or 12th grade.

Some anecdotal reports suggest that informal ("off the record") paddling of student and junior teachers occurs with surprising frequency in high schools employing corporal punishment. It has been suggested that the practice of consensual paddling between adults reflects a strong sexual component to the practice which may make corporal punishment of high school students inappropriate unless administered by a person of the same-sex as the student.

Circumstances

It is generally perceived in most cases that spankings are usually used as a last resort, after previous, alternative methods of discipline have been unsuccessful. Even then, students are often allowed to elect an alternative punishment if they prefer to do so. In some cases, however, spankings are mandated, and no alternative is provided. Spankings are usually delivered with a paddle, with a predetermined number (often three to five) to the child's clothed buttocks. Spankings are usually given in private so as to protect the student's privacy. However, the general perception that spanking is used as a last resort is often disputed by organizations such as Project NoSpank (nospank.net) and EPOCH-USA (stophitting.org)

Position

In its most common use as a means of domestic corporal discipline, spanking usually refers to a child lying, stomach down, across the spanker's lap — misleadingly referred to as taking a child 'over the knee' (though that is also possible) — and the parent or teacher bringing their open hand down upon the child's posterior. The buttocks are filled with nerve endings and the sting from sustaining repeated swats in quick succession is immediate and highly uncomfortable; hence the 'last resort' reputation of this form of punishment. Another way to administer is a spanking is called the "diaper position." In this position the child is laid on a flat surface and held legs-up, by the ankles, and spanked with an open hand. Still another possible spanking position would be the child being bent over a piece of furniture and touching their toes.

Spanking advocates argue that the buttocks are the safest place to administer corporal punishment since it produces a sharp stinging pain, but injury is usually unlikely; except that when the judicial cane (for instance in Singapore) is applied there, the kidneys can be damaged if accidentally hit.

Spankings are delivered over clothing, over the undergarments, or upon the bare buttocks depending on the amount of pain or humiliation intended; the latter is greatly increased by witnesses, such as the household, the class, or even a school assembly.

Most educators in modern-day Western societies consider avoidable humiliation inappropriate. Others consider the humiliation of exposing one's bare buttocks a legitimate or even essential part of the punishment, as the main purpose of spanking is to cause a psychological deterring effect through painful bodily degradation.

Most public high schools in the southern and southwestern U.S. require the student to assume a standing position, with the student's weight supported by placing her hands against a wall or similar support. The student stands facing the wall with feet at shoulder width, and bends over from the waist, placing her palms flat against the wall, approximately chest-high, and is instructed to hold this position until the paddling is completed. This "strip search" type position has several advantages. Primarily, it rotates the student's back-side upward and outward, which fully exposes the buttocks and minimizes the chance that a swat may be applied off-target to an area such as the lower back or upper legs. This position also provides support should the student tend to fall forward with the impact of a swat, as well as ensuring the student does not attempt to reach back and cover or shield her buttocks with her hands during the paddling, which could be inadvertently struck as a result.

Controversy

Spanking — like corporal punishment in general — is a hotly debated social issue in many countries. Questions exist as to whether children and pets should be spanked (see the sections below), whether it is an effective method of discipline (and if so how it is best done, see above), and whether or at what point it constitutes child abuse. Most of the points mentioned apply more generally to most or all forms of physical punishment.

Arguments for spanking

Those who accept spanking often frame the issue as a matter of effective discipline, stating that young children respond most effectively to sensations, like pain. They also hold that when used solely for disciplinary pusposes and not done out of anger but in moderation, there is little evidence that moderate spanking is harmful. Further, many believe that discipline problems among children have recently increased, and partially attribute the increase to the decline of both parental authority and the use of spanking. Proponents of spanking also argue that moderate spanking is simple and effective, especially compared to non-spanking disciplines proposed by both academic psychologists and parents which may rely upon what they consider complicated or unrealistic methods that are often not implemented successfully.

Another argument used by proponents of spanking is that proper and effective spankings cause only temporary pain and no damage. It has been argued that when parents and children are engaged in a prolonged struggle for authority, the anger and bitterness that results can cause an emotional estrangement that far outweighs any possible negative effects from moderate spankings, while a sound spanking would "clear the air." Some advocates for spanking assume a behaviorist psychology, and argue that as spanking is a form of operant conditioning, the child associates a certain behaviour with the physical pain and/or humiliation caused by spanking. Since a child's learning process may be less complex than that of an adult, they claim that children are more likely to be influenced by such a conditioning.

Some attacks on spanking appear to suggest that parents spank their children in order to gratify base urges, such as the will to dominate a weaker person (the “behaviorist” language of the preceding paragraph might seem to lend some weight to this charge, but few parents would justify spanking on behaviorist grounds). While recognizing that spanking is sometimes abused in this way (such abuses are not limited to punishments involving physical force), responsible advocates of spanking have generally maintained that its proper use is as an instrument in the child's moral education: the physical evil of pain serves as a concrete analogue, readily perceivable by the child, of the moral evil of wrongdoing. On this view there are occasions when spanking is not just a right but a duty, stemming from the general duty to educate one's child in moral good and evil. Those who see spanking in this light naturally view attempts to criminalize it as an attempt to penalize parents for doing their job. (It should also be mentioned that pro-spankers do not in general advocate a "one-size-fits-all" policy; they acknowledge that even for the same offense different punishments may justly be meted out to different children, depending on their degree of moral perception or their degree of sensitivity to pain. However, they hold that, except in very unusual cases, parents--or representatives that they personally designate--are the only legitimate authorities on how to a lot punishment or reward to their minor children.) Further pro-spanking arguments, from a medical point of view, may be found in "Spare the Rod? New Research Challenges Spanking Critics" [4] by Den A. Trumbull, M.D. and S. DuBose Ravenel, M.D.

Christian advocates of spanking often refer to Bible verses mentioning "the rod", and assert that spanking is therefore an acceptable punishment from a Christian moral or religious point of view. Some attribute the quotation "spare the rod and spoil the child" to the Bible; in fact, it comes from a bawdy poem entitled "Hudibras" by Samuel Butler. The Bible verse itself reads, "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him. Proverbs 13:24 (NIV)". A later verse also advises, "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death." Proverbs 23:13-14 (NIV). It is important to remember, however, that many non-Christian cultures have historically affirmed parents' right to use a reasonable degree of physical force in disciplining their children. In many of these cultures, any attempt by the rulers to curb parents' perceived rights in this area would have been seen as one the worst possible forms of tyranny. (This is not without irony, since many anti-spankers consider themselves libertarian and anti-authoritarian and therefore oppose the authoritarian parenting style which uses spanking).

There is a widespread and deep skepticism among pro-spankers of all the arguments against spanking, and a general feeling that the practice of spanking recalcitrant children, and comparable forms of corporal punishment, have proven their worth over a period of many centuries, and across many different cultures. They believe that the current Western fashion against spanking is an arbitrary and improper application of egalitarian principles to what they claim is an inherently unequal social relationship. A few of their replies to some of the more common anti-spanking arguments will now be briefly summarized.

To the common claim that spanking teaches children to resolve conflicts by physical force, some pro-spankers reply by distinguishing two senses of the claim. The claim is true, they say, if it means that appropriate spanking teaches children that parents have the right to resolve certain conflicts, resulting from a child’s disobedience, by a measured use of physical force. But (they ask) how is this supposed to convince us that all spanking is wrong? Unless (they say) spanking has already been shown to be immoral, the fact that spanking teaches children that they too, when parents, will have the right to spank their own children (not for the sake of revenge, but as a means of moral education), is scarcely a decisive objection against it. On the other hand, pro-spankers say, the claim might be taken to mean that spanking teaches children to use physical violence as a means of revenge. But this, they insist, is simply false, if taken to apply to all spanking. When appropriately administered (and when calmly discussed with the child, afterward), spanking, they say, is understood by the child to be a just punishment for disobedience, not a means of revenge (indeed, according to pro-spankers, most children who receive an appropriate spanking would subsequently laugh at, or else resent, the charge that their father or mother had acted out of vindictiveness). Pro-spankers do not find any respectable and demonstrably unbiased studies to support the currently fashionable charge that spanking, however administered, tends to produce violent, vindictive adults. To a pro-spanker a claim such as "the number one predictor of violent behavior is whether someone comes from a home where violence is practiced, including a home where children are subjected to physical punishment", is simply preaching to the converted: by putting spanking in the same category with child abuse and other violent behavior, the anti-spanker who makes such a claim is already assuming what he claims to prove: namely that spanking is the moral equivalent of child abuse. And thus (the pro-spanker argues) such claims prove nothing. What the anti-speaker ought to produce, according to the pro-spanker, is evidence that even spanking that is administered non-vindictively, as a just and proportionate punishment for disobedience, is a "predictor" of violent behavior. According to pro-spankers, anti-spankers have so far failed to produced such evidence, and for a very simple reason: there is none.

Pro-spankers take a similar line with claims such as this: "most violent criminals were spanked as children, and many cases of bullying at school have been linked to abuse cases". That most violent criminals and bullies were spanked doesn't tell us much, the pro-spankers say, unless we also know that most saints and virtuous people were not spanked: supposing that as children Abraham Lincoln, Sojourner Truth, and Martin Luther King all received some spankings, what conclusion are we supposed to draw from the fact that Charles Manson, David ("Son of Sam") Berkowitz and Ted ("Unabomber") Kaczynski did too? At most, they say, we might be tempted to conclude that spanking is not a very reliable tool for instilling moral values. But, pro-spankers argue, even this conclusion would be misleading, since for all we know the "spankings" administered to Manson etc. were in fact beatings administered out of revenge or anger, rather than the measured infliction of punishment intended to impart a moral lesson. It is only the latter sort of spanking that pro-spankers advocate. And, they insist, there is no evidence at all that spanking of that sort leads to violent crime or bullying. On the contrary, they argue, the gravest threat to respect for human life and limb is ignorance of the ugliness of grave moral disvalue, and (they say) for many children the only cure for this ignorance is spanking, or comparable punishment, used not vindictively but as an instrument of moral education.

But to this some anti-spankers would object that even if the "right sort" of spanking has all the benefits that pro-spankers think it does, the wrong sort of spanking is nonetheless a grave evil that can only be eliminated by outlawing all spanking, "right" as well as wrong. We ought not, they would say, allow a grave evil (child-beating), even for the sake of a great good (the benefit that many children allegedly derive from the "right sort" of spanking). In reply a pro-spanker who endorses the principle of double effect could reply that simply allowing an evil is not always immoral; before the anti-spanker's objection can carry the day the policy of permitting spanking must first be shown to fail the double-effect test: i.e. it must be shown either that (a) the policy is intrinsically evil (like the Nazis' "Final Solution"), or (b) the policy's bad consequences are directly intended, or less-bad consequences would result from some other attempt to secure the policy's good consequences, or (c) the policy's good consequences are the direct effect of its bad consequences, not of the policy itself, or (d) the policy's good consequences do not outweigh the bad. The only way to prove (a) is to prove that all spanking is evil, which (if we accept the pro-spanker's foregoing replies to the anti-spanker's arguments), has not yet been established. Nor (the pro-spanker would argue) does the policy of permitting spanking obviously satisfy conditions (b) or (c). As for condition (d), pro-spankers would argue that the many good effects of permitting parental spanking (aiding perhaps millions of children to perceive the disvalue of misconduct, thereby promoting their happiness and well-being, in addition to that of parents, neighbors, their own future children, co-workers, etc.), are not obviously outweighed by the foreseeable bad consequences. So the pro-spanker doesn't seem rationally obliged to accept the anti-spanker's objection.

In reply to the charge that spanking violates an implicit promise never to harm the child, some pro-spankers retort that the verb “harm”, as used here, is ambiguous: it may be taken to mean either “inflict physical pain on” or “inflict serious or lasting injury on”. Now, pro-spankers say, only someone who was already convinced on other grounds that spanking is immoral would agree that parenthood implies a promise never to inflict pain. On the other hand, they say, no mainstream pro-spanker advocates inflicting serious or lasting injury on the child. So, they ask, how is this claim about implicit promises supposed to convince us that all spanking is immoral?

The allegation by a few anti-spankers that parental spanking on the buttocks is a kind of sexual perversion, or that it “interferes with a child’s normal sexual … development” strikes some pro-spankers as a specimen of hysteria comparable to the Salem witch trials. If being spanked were a cause of sexual dysfunction, they say, this would surely have come to light long ago (especially since spanking—and other, more severe forms of corporal punishment—are less prevalent today than they once were). Such a causal connection, they add, is unsupported by any body of respectable scientific research. Even if such a link were ever established, pro-spankers say, this would impugn only one particular form of corporal punishment, not corporeal punishment per se. And it is the latter that is the anti-spankers' real target.

In answer to anti-spankers' claim that spanking has been proven psychologically harmful by science (as represented by the pronouncements of medical and psychological associations, and of certain United Nations agencies), some pro-spankers attempt to discredit the alleged scientific evidence, as follows. According to these pro-spankers, Western or Westernizing psychologists and physicians share the fondness felt by most soi-disant progressives for a pair of beliefs, characteristic of nineteenth-century European and North American romanticism, that gained a new lease-on-life in Western universities in the 1960s and 70s: (a) young children are able by reason to distinguish right from wrong, and will naturally choose to do what they perceive as right and (b) punishment of free choices (except perhaps of free choices to punish or harm others) is intrinsically unjust (as evidence for the prevalence of these beliefs in American schools of education, pro-spankers can cite pieces such as William Kirkpatrick’s Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong, chapter 5). According to pro-spankers, this pair of beliefs, still dominant in the social sciences and in certain fields of medicine, biases most psychologists and physicians against punishment as such, and especially against corporal punishment (normally perceived as the harshest sort of punishment); this bias, in turn, governs their interpretation, or indeed the construction, of data regarding the benefits and detriments of corporal punishment (for evidence of the role played by philosophical bias in the acceptance or rejection of scientific theories, and even in the construction of "empirical data", pro-spankers are able to cite a plethora of historical and philosophical studies inspired by Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). As a result, they charge, to argue against spanking by appealing to the studies and recommendations of psychologists and physicians, without first showing that their research and inferences were not unduly influenced by the above-mentioned biases, is to commit the logical fallacy of “question-begging“ or petitio principii: claiming to prove a disputed claim by means of a premise that is at least as controversial as the claim in dispute.

Some pro-spankers see the anti-spanking movement as part of a (to them, alarming) tendency among a sizeable number of Western elites and professionals to conflate authority, including its exercise in just punishment, with the arbitrary or vindictive use of power (the nineteenth-century Romantic provenance of this "Promethean" view, and its revival in the 1960s, were noted in the last paragraph). Such a confusion, they argue, not only implicitly denigrates the God of the Bible (who is portrayed as not only merciful, but also as justly punishing--sometimes corporally!--the wrongdoer), it also undermines the distinction between legitimate government and tyranny (a distinction that, these pro-spankers say, ought to be especially important to liberals, in view of their vaunted enmity to political and economic oppression).

Child's right to self defense

The issue of a child's right to self defense has long been debated. Spanking in public and private intuitions could be grounds for assault charges and therefore identification of a victim and perpetrator.

Public cases involving youth defending themselves against both legal guardians and public disciplinarians to include teachers have long been reported. Although resistance is often met with further actions against the individual occasionally the disciplinarian will become injured and possibly the victim of assault themselves, for example Eric Hainstock fatally shot his principal in Cazenovia, Wisconsin over reportedly being attacked and bullied by students and ignored by faculty members.

Arguments against spanking

Anti-spanking advocates argue chiefly that spanking is abusive, that it is ineffective, and that it teaches children that physical violence is an acceptable way to deal with other people. They point to the fact that scientific research has failed to back up any of the claims in favor of spanking while research has consistently shown that the number one predictor of violent behavior is whether someone comes from a home where violence is practiced, including a home where children are subjected to physical punishment. Some believe that spanking contributes to physical abuse in cases of domestic violence, bullying at school and physical abuse on siblings. Most violent criminals were spanked as children and many cases of bullying at school have been linked to physical abuse cases. Spanking is also criticized for being a violation of human rights. Many are concerned by the fact that spanking is a sexual activity enjoyed by large sections of the adult population and are afraid that spanking might constitute sexual abuse or cause sexual dysfunction.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) official policy statement [5] states that "Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior." The AAP states that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used". Furthermore, they state that "The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents."

The American Psychological Association opposes the use of corporal punishment in schools, juvenile facilities, child care nurseries, and all other institutions, public or private, where children are cared for or educated (Conger, 1975). They state that corporal punishment is violent, unnecessary, may lower self-esteem, is likely to train children to use physical violence, and is liable to instill hostility and rage without reducing the undesired behavior.

The Canadian Pediatrics Society policy on spanking states "The Psychosocial Paediatrics Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society has carefully reviewed the available research in the controversial area of disciplinary spanking (7-15)... The research that is available supports the position that spanking and other forms of physical punishment are associated with negative child outcomes. The Canadian Paediatric Society, therefore, recommends that physicians strongly discourage disciplinary spanking and all other forms of physical punishment"

England's Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Royal College of Psychiatrists have called for a complete ban on all corporal punishment, stating "We believe it is both wrong and impracticable to seek to define acceptable forms of corporal punishment of children. Such an exercise is unjust. Hitting children is a lesson in bad behaviour." and that "it is never appropriate to hit or beat children"

The Australian Psychological Society holds that physical punishment of children should not be used as it has very limited capacity to deter unwanted behavior, does not teach alternative desirable behavior, often promotes further undersirable behaviors such as defiance and attachment to "delinquent" peer groups, encourages an acceptance of aggression and violence as acceptable responses to conflicts and problems

UNESCO states "During the Commission on Human Rights, UNESCO launched a new report entitled "Eliminating Corporal Punishment - The Way Forward to Constructive Child Discipline". The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has consistently recommended States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment and other forms of violence against children in institutions, in schools, and in the homes...To discipline or punish through physical harm is clearly a violation of the most basic of human rights. Research on corporal punishment has found it to be counterproductive and relatively ineffective, as well as dangerous and harmful to physical, psychological and social well being. While many States have developed child protection laws and systems violence still continues to be inflicted upon children".

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends that States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment in institutions, in schools, and in the home.

Even without sexual motives on the part of the punisher, some maintain that spanking can interfere with a child’s normal sexual and psychological development. Because the buttocks are so close to the genitals and so multiply linked to sexual nerve centers, slapping them can trigger powerful and involuntary sensations of sexual stimulation. This can happen even in very young children, and even in spite of great, clearly upsetting pain.

Dr. Teresa Whitehurst said "The literature is replete with accounts of rape victims who never came forward to name their accuser or even to admit they'd been violated because they were so ashamed at their bodies' involuntary response to touch, thinking that this would suggest they enjoyed the assault. Nerve endings can and do function without our conscious consent. The pendulum is beginning to turn against spanking and paddling as science amasses more and more evidence regarding the sexual role played by the buttocks, and the ways in which any touch--with a hand or with a paddle--can create unwelcome but unavoidable arousal." Dr. Teresa Whitehurst, member of ChristCentered Christians for Nonviolent Parenting (CCNP); clinical psychologist; author of How Would Jesus Raise a Child? (Baker Books, 2003), Project Zero, Harvard's premier research institution.

Opponents also hold that spanking is ineffective and that other forms of discipline are more successful at teaching a child to behave properly. Also, unlike taking away a child's favorite toy, spanking is permanent and cannot be reversed if it is determined that it was not actually warranted. Spanking may lead, it is argued, to psychological damage and even possible PTS syndrome-related effects due to prolonged fear, feelings of mistrust , being un-loved and love-shyness, alike with bullying at school or other forms of abuse.

The fact that a parent (or other caregiver) is allowed to inflict physical and emotional pain on a child, whereas the same act performed upon another adult would be tantamount to assault, also brings into question the appropriateness of this form of physical punishment. For example, when Michael Fay, a young American man, was caned in Singapore, some Americans expressed outrage against that form of punishment.

Opponents also claim that spanking teaches children that violence is an appropriate way to treat one who offends. Some believe that spanking, like clear-cut forms of physical abuse, may perpetuate a "cycle of violence" which contributes to violent behavior in the child as an adult. Children learn by example, and those subjected to the deliberate infliction of physical pain "to teach them a lesson" will, the argument goes, learn that this is an appropriate way to treat others who have wronged them. (Though, as noted in the preceding section, pro-spankers would reply that responsible spanking is not revenge, but punishment for an infraction, and that, by being spanked responsibly, children are given an example of responsible parenting that will serve them well when they themselves are parents.)

It is also argued that there is a significant risk in regards to the trust of a parent. If children feel that they are being threatened by this form of chastisement, it is likely that they may have difficulty believing that the parents are there to protect them because of the claim "I would never hurt you" has been violated. This may impair their ability to follow their parents or do what they advise and to listen to them. (Though, as hinted in the preceding section, pro-spankers would object that it is refusing to spank, rather than spanking, that violates the claim "I will never hurt you", since in their view one harms the child by not giving due, reasonable and timely punishment and, in their view, responsible spanking is a licit means of inflicting such punishment).

It is also attested by neurological studies on neuronal stengthening and pain in brain development that children have a much lower pain threshold than adults.

When "Biblical" pro-spanking advocates use the "he who spares the rod hates his son" quote from Proverbs 13:24 to support their position, some anti-spankers try to turn the tables by noting that Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, to whom the book of Proverbs is traditionally attributed, grew up to be such a despised ruler that he split his nation in two. But since the traditional attribution of Proverbs to Solomon has been disputed by some biblical scholars, this is a dubious line of argument. A better objection against the use of Proverbs 13:24 to support spanking is that the Old Testament, from which the book of Proverbs comes, contains many instructions that we today have no moral obligation to follow, such as that a child of unmarried parents may not enter a place of worship (Deuteronomy 23:2), that a menstruating woman must sacrifice two turtles or pigeons to cleanse herself (Leviticus 15: 19-29), and that the parents of a gluttonous and drunkard child, who repeatedly rebels against them, should denounce the child to the men of the city, who should then execute the child by stoning (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Such verses are considered instructions but most Christians would not advocate the stoning to death of drunkard children or adulterers. On the other hand, this view completely ignores the fact that the verses which mention "the rod" are from the book of Proverbs, historically interpreted as advice, not law. However, the passages from Deuteronomy and Leviticus are part of the Torah, the Jewish system of law, which Christians reckon obsolete due to Christ's fulfillment of the law. Some religious organizations outside Christianity, such as Hinduism and the Church of the Cosmic Order, oppose spanking as it is against their teachings.

Alternatives to spanking

Main article: non-violent child discipline

Opponents of spanking state that there are numerous methods of non-violent child discipline which they think are at least as effective as spanking, and without the negative side-effects that they attribute to spanking.

Minimal use of spanking

Despite the intensity of the controversy over spanking, positions between the two extremes are also common. Many parents believe that spanking is not inherently abusive and can sometimes be an effective form of discipline, but also believe that it should usually be avoided. Some, for instance, use spanking only when a child does something dangerous and it is critical that an immediate, lasting impression must be made. Others point out that individual differences in temperament have a great effect on the way children respond to discipline, and criticize both extreme positions on spanking as taking a "one size fits all" approach. They argue that spanking may be the most effective form of discipline for some children, but that it should only be used on those particular children who respond well to spanking and do not respond to alternative methods of discipline.

Legal situation

School corporal punishment is banned in most western nations. All of Western Europe (including the United Kingdom), Canada and New Zealand have banned school corporal punishment. It has also been banned in most of Eastern Europe. In Australia, corporal punishment in schools is banned, partially or completely, in some states. In the United States, 22 states allow corporal punishment in schools. In each of these states, it is up to each school district to determine whether corporal punishment will be used, in what situations will it be applied, and the manner in which it is given – typically by a paddle. There are cases where school officials have lost their jobs for spanking students. There is some disagreement about how much paddling occurs in U.S. schools. Some estimates place the number of paddlings at approximately 350,000 a year, while the National Association of School Psychologists places the number at 1.5 million cases a year. Evidence suggests that in the United States, racial and sexual discrimination play a large role in school corporal punishment, with black students being much more likely to be struck than white students, and male students being much more likely to be struck than female students, for the same infractions. Corporal punishment of male students also tends to be more severe and more aggressive. In some places, this sexual discrimination has the force of law. For instance, in Queensland, Australia, school corporal punishment of girls was banned in 1934 but corporal punishment of boys in private schools is still legal in 2007.

In the United Kingdom, the striking of children by teachers was made illegal in state schools in 1986 and extended to all schools in 1996[6]. An amendment to the Children Act 2004 to ban striking of children by parents was defeated by 424 votes to 75 in the House of Commons; however, an amendment to ban parents from striking their children hard enough to leave a mark was accepted by 284 votes to 208, and came into force in January 2005 [7]. In January 2006, the UK’s four child commissioners called for a full ban on striking of children, even by parents, but this has been rejected by Tony Blair's government (Tony Blair has admitted spanking his older children but not Leo) this indicates the shift in thinking on the issue. [8]

Spanking of children within families is illegal in some countries (for example, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Malta, Cyprus, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Greece, NSW Australia and New Zealand).

On May 16 2007, New Zealand passed the Child Discipline Bill which scrapped Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, which had previously allowed parents to use "reasonable force" in correcting their children. Child welfare groups expressed concern about the wide judicial discretion seemingly given even to cases of 'discipline' that involved physical implements. It had previously outlawed corporal punishment within its educational institutions in 1989. However, the new law orders police not to prosecute "inconsequential" offences.

Similar initiatives in the U.S. have repeatedly failed. Parental rights groups have formed since the 1990s to prevent spanking from being criminalized. Critics of these organisations ask why these organisations assert a parental "right" to corporal punishment without acknowledging equivalent parental responsibilities. Some critics also state that children's rights should come first, and parental rights should come second. Advocates of parents' right to spank their children reply that (a) to assert a parental right to responsible use of corporal punishment is itself to acknowledge parental responsibility, namely, the parental responsibility to correct children by reasonable use of physical force, and (b) it is not "putting parents' rights ahead of children's rights" to assert that children have a right to parental guidance and correction, including correction by spanking. Major groups in the United States seeking a ban on spanking are Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education [9] and EPOCH-USA [10]. Groups or articles opposed to such a ban include "Spare the Rod? New Research Challenges Spanking Critics" [11], Family Integrity [12], and The Family Defense Network of Ohio [13]. The Supreme Court of Canada has, as of 2004, upheld a law which allows spankings by parents, caregivers, and teachers, but has restricted the law to only apply to children ages two to twelve.[14]. However, Canada now bans spanking children younger than 24 months or older than 12 years, and bans the use of any implements (belts, paddles, etc.).

United Nations human rights standards prohibit all corporal punishment, including spanking. But the assumptions and motives behind the UN's position have been questioned [15].

Non-punitive and voluntary spankings

Spanking exists in spheres of life distinct from punishment. Note the issue of legal consent which may or may not represent a defence to criminal liability for any injuries caused during the spanking. Apart from the erotic and from fraternity/sorority type initiations, which have their origin in educational (domestic or boot camp) types of discipline, these include :

Folkloristic spanking traditions

In Latvia there is tradition of hard spanking on Palm Sunday (called Pussy willow Sunday) morning. Spanker should sneak in the potential spankee bedroom and wake spankee up. Usually children and women are spanked. Whipping is done with pussy willow branches or (rarely) birch. Most of a cases this ritual spanking is done after remowing all clothes from posterior - on the bare buttocks. It is believed that positive energy from trees are coming to person who is spanked. In the folkloric tradition the variation was to go spank people not in the bedroom, but in the neighbourhood. In that case usually young men cath girl or young women and order to bend over for spanking. [16] Spanking on the bare bottom was optional, but in some areas completly naked whipping with pussy willow branches has been done too.

Religious customs

On the first day of the lunar Chinese new year holidays, a week-long 'Spring Festival', the most important festival for Chinese people all over the world, thousands of Chinese visit the Taoist Dong Lung Gong temple in Tungkang to go through the century-old ritual to get rid of bad luck, men by receiving spankings and women by being whipped (as in the Ancient Roman -unisex- Lupercalia); the number of strokes to being administered (always lightly) by the temple staff is decided in either case by the god Wang Ye and by burning incense and tossing two pieces of wood, after which all go home happily, believing their luck will improve. [17] One prime example of a pagan Czech Easter celebration is the "pomlazka".[18] Farmers used to believe that a strong whipping after the winter period guaranteed health, prosperity, and most importantly a good harvest. It is only the women who are given a good spanking on bare posteriors with whips made of willow twigs, decorated with colourful ribbons (as if a little bit of decoration would help to ease the pain!). It is mainly younger boys who go from door to door, hoping to thrash a few girls on their naked buttocks to get some eggs in return, while singing traditional Easter carols. After strong spankings, boys come and throw girls in a stream, or put girls' heads under a water pipe to be sure to give a good shower.[19]

Birthday spanking

There is a custom in certain circles , to allow a number of others (e.g., father at home, teammates in a club, classmates in certain training institutions) to administer a spanking to the bottom of the birthday boy or girl, as an annual rite of passage and probably a matter of bonding. Customarily, the person receives a number of spanks corresponding to their age, plus, "one to grow on"; that is to say, someone who was turning n would receive n+1 spanks. At a party, attendees might line up with their legs spread apart while the honoree crawls through their legs, known as a "spanking machine."

Adult spanking

Adult spanking is a highly contentious form of discipline spanking that is frequently mis-categorized and misunderstood. The controversy stems from a multitude of sources. First, there are those that prefer to consider spanking in this form as something that can only occur between a parent and a child. This opinion is backed up by the APA who includes parent - child relationship as part of the definition . Second, there are few recognized legitimate scientific studies that have been conducted on the subject. The leading source of funding for such research is an organization that earns its revenue through the promotion of entertainment spanking services leading skeptics to question the legitimacy of the work [20]. Third, the lack of credible licensed practitioners often leads to individual claims of group membership through self-diagnosis, affirmation from others who have made similar claims and a variety of alternative therapists. A study by McNulty and Wardle suggests that attempts to seek help through typical support channels may lead individuals to seek comfort through unconventional means .

Adult spanking differs from traditional parent-child spanking in that the act is between two consenting adults. Adults engage in the activity for several different reasons. The most common is simply playful spanking amongst people engaging in other intimate activities. People who require spanking to be a part of their sexual play are considered spanking fetishists. There are two groups of people whose use of spanking is discipline related. The first group incorporates spanking as part of their overall belief system in how a husband and wife should interrelate (see domestic discipline).

The second group considers spanking to be an essential component of their recovery and/or development.These individuals subscribe to the notion that they require some form of retraining or reparenting to be able to function as adults . They claim that the act of spanking is a necessary mechanism for modifying the behavior of the adapted child ego state of the adult being spanked . The idea is extracted from Alexander’s claim that a corrective emotional experience was required to allow patients to repair traumatic influence of previous experiences . They claim is not without merit as preliminary studies into this class of adult spanking indicate that participants have suffered from some form of childhood abuse. However, there is evidence to suggest that these individuals are in fact “stuck” in the earlier stages of recovery and lack the appropriate support to move on .

Recreational context

Playful enactment

Child's play often imitates real life, especially featuring part of daily life, even the most unpleasant.

Thus it has been recorded by a captain in the Royal Navy that boys on board often enacted the beatings they were subjected to in reality, both the 'day to day' caning and the truly painful and humiliating public administration of a flogging with the boy's pussy (lighter version of the cat o' nine tails) taking turns in the actual position on deck, sometimes including the lowering of the trousers (but using a cane for lack of a cat) [21].

Spanking booth

This fun fair-type attraction is a disciplinarian variation of the kissing booth, where the volunteer(s) (sometimes rather assigned, e.g. pledges as part of hazing) must earn the donations (either for charity or the funds of the organizing society) by enduring swats, for example with a paddle, usually bending over and/or in ridiculous and/or exposing costume. The rules may or may not prevent an actual painful 'punishment' of the bottom.

• In large groups this may well take the form of a spanking tunnel, which is a double row of spankers (a characteristic of running the gauntlet) the spankee has to run through, or crawl on hands and knees, thus presenting the butt (sometimes bared) exposed to hand slaps or even to implements such as paddles (hence sometimes also called a paddle machine).
• This is also sometimes done in a variant manner with a single line of spankers whose legs remain spread wide while the spankee has to crawl on hands and knees through the tunnel so formed.

In either case it is usually kept mild, more horseplay than punishment.

See also

• Erotic spanking
• Spanking implements

External links

• World Corporal Punishment Research (corpun.com) — objective website with large, constantly improved documentation, especially on discipline of boys
• Spanking facts and Research: Info and discussion about females who were spanked growing up
• Etymology Online
• Ecstagony- Dictionary of spanking implements, generally with punitive use
• Funk & Wagnalls Standard dictionary
• IMDb keyword spanking (in motion pictures)
• Is Corporal Punishment An Effective Means Of Discipline? (American Psychological Association)
• Corporal Punishment Articles (APA Psychological Bulletin Journal)
• A wiki devoted to Spanking Art, including a good deal of non-erotic spanking material.
• Christian anti-spanking critique, with reference to the theologian Paul Tillich

Anti-spanking

• End All Corporal Punishment of Children
• Project NoSpank
• The Center for Effective Discipline (StopHitting.com)
• Canadian government advice against spanking
• Why It Hurts To Spank A Child
• Chris's Anti-spanking Web Page An advocacy site containing the writings of the creator of the alt.parenting.spanking newsgroup on Usenet
• Nopaddle.com A site examining the practice of paddling in the American south
• Children are Unbeatable Organisation aimed at banning smacking in the United Kingdom
• Hit with the question: Were you spanked? CEOs say yes

Children's views

• Results of a 1998 survey in England and Wales
• Comments on CBBC Newsround website
• Smacking: Right or wrong? CBBC Newsround

Pro-spanking

• Family Integrity
• A pro-spanking activism group
• Spanking (Focus on The Family)