[Pax]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Hitting your child means you've failed as an adult, you propably feel powerless and can't find any other way, it can't possibly be for the best of the child, saying that is really sick!

While spanking or other forms of "get physical" discipline should always be a Last resort, trust me when I tell you that there ae some children who will never respond to anythign less.

And not all spanking even causes DISCOMFORT; a quick swat on a well-padded-by-a-diaper bottom doesn't do much except guarantee you have that particular unruly smallfry's attention, but good.

Generally, nonphysical forms of discipline and behavior-reinforcement are far and above the preferable approaches; one good one (that grows MORE effective as the child hits adolescence, up to about 16 or 17) is the age-old, tried-and-true "go sit/stand in that corner for X minutes" ... believe me, it's highly effective. To the very young, 5 minutes is a literal eternity. To young adolescents, sitting in the corner for ONE minute is humiliatingly embarrassing. Either way, the point is made: do something inappropriate, suffer something unpleasant as a consequence.

But again ... some children and youths simply will not respond to anything less than some physical discomfort -- including spankings. So, as a Last resort is, IMO, acceptible, so long as "Last resort" means "all else has been tried, and has completely failed."

And at any rate, it should never be done while the disciplining adult is angry.

And with that said: yes, I would put a fellow adult over my knee and tan their backside, given three things: (a) the authority and jurisdiction, (b) sufficient cause, and (c) the exhaustion of alternate remedies or solutions.

And those three things are the case regardless of age: authority and sufficient cause combined with having exhausted alternate means of resolving the issue.