Originally Posted by Feral Fantom

So I oppose spanking, although I don't oppose it being legal obviously.

May I ask you to clarify this? I am unsure as to why it is "obvious" you do not oppose it being condoned by the law. Is it simply a matter of opposing any laws governing behaviour? You know I agree with you (insomuch as a lack of government is concerned; if we must have a government, then the only laws that should exist are those that protect citizens from one another) if that's the case. But if not, does it mean you view a parent spanking a child as not important enough to warrant a law against it, and if so, does that extend to other forms of violent offenses or is it limited to those involving children?

I do not believe we must have a government. If speaking within the context of governments being legitimate and inevitable I would say sure outlaw spanking. But I speak from the belief that the government exists only by perception, not actual grounding in reality, and all legitimacy given to it by people strengthens it and is the only reason for its existence. I therefore act upon the belief it does not exist, but still recognize the effects that most people believing in it has.

Wow, people are still here, nice!

Handed in my paper, if anyone cares. xD He already read it and said it was lovely, but will be giving me my grade later (after he's done peeling the silly string off his hood... Hm) Thank you again everyone and keep it up!

Our method of punishment was bare hand on the behind, end of story.

My father would sit my brother and I down after the matter and explain to us what we did wrong.
As we got older and spankings didn't work as well, my father did a scare tactic. For our punishment, he let us chose from the cooking tools drawer, what he would use to spank us.
I chose a rubber spatula, thinking it was soft. My dad mentioned it was rubber and would REALLY hurt, and told me to wait in my room until he got there. I was so scared of it hurting that I stayed in my room for 5 hours, silently laying on my bed.
He never did come in, it was the threat of doing so that did the discipline.

Due to my upbringing, I find that anything more than an open hand is going overboard, and always explain to the child why you are punishing them.

I do not think that a "tap on the rear" should be considered abuse unless that "tap" is actually doing damage. Usually it's more of an attention-getter, which is why it's on the rear and not elsewhere. However, I do not agree with the use of corporal punishment of any kind.

Glitter: So, since the abuse is sexual instead of physically harmful (since it's "only a tap"), that makes it okay?

Originally Posted by Keyori

Glitter: So, since the abuse is sexual instead of physically harmful (since it's "only a tap"), that makes it okay?

Spanking a child for disciplinary measures is not sexual. If it is being used in a sexual manner, then that can be counted as psychologically damaging and would then be abuse. There's a difference.

Whether or not it's sexual for you does not change its sexual effects on the child you are beating.

You tap a child on the rear, that's a sexual area, and therefore sexual abuse. YOU cannot tell that child that it's not abuse when you are deliberately touching an area that is sensitive. I dare you to smack an adult's ass in public and tell them that it's not a sexual advance. The only difference is that the adult will likely hit back. A child is defenseless and powerless. It's a sick one-sided display of aggression that does nothing but instill fear, hostility, and resentment into the child, and opens them up to a life of sexual dysfunction.

I'm willing to bet that a vast majority of people were spanked or hit at some point as children and that it did not affect them in the way you seem to be implying. Adults and children are very different from one another, as is the reason for such physical contact. These differences must be acknowledged in order to make any real assessment of the situation.

Yes, children and adults are different -- but not vastly so. Sexual areas in adults are sexual for a reason: they're very, very sensitive to touch. That is no different in children, indeed if anything it's amplified. There's a couple here who are in trouble for pinching their son's scrotum as a form of punishment, and they are being charged with sexual abuse, not just child abuse. It does not matter that it was not done in a sexual way, it was a sexual area, therefore it was sexual in nature. And that is as it should be. The focus should be on the children, not the adults.

I will maintain that a spanking is NOT sexual. The back of the rear end is not typically sexual in itself, and is not as sensitive as other areas of the body. It's less so; it absorbs shock. A spanking is generally used to grab attention/administer punishment in a way that is not as painful or damaging and thus not as cruel as hitting the child elsewhere. Hitting someone on the rear end, child or otherwise, is not always a sex act, nor can I say that this is even "usually" the case.

Originally Posted by Glitter Golgotha

[Hitting on the buttocks] is not as painful or damaging and thus not as cruel as hitting the child elsewhere.

(emphasis mine)

Oh, so now it's a case of, "Well cutting off one arm isn't as bad as cutting off both arms, even though it's still damaging to the child." Good to know that hitting a child in the rear isn't as bad as smacking a child on the head, surely that makes it perfectly okay. YOU ARE STILL HITTING A CHILD.

Also, if you're going to assert that this "isn't usually the case," I'd like to ask you to back it up with some evidence. I've provided a study demonstrating that hitting a child on the butt is sexually traumatizing to a child even if you don't mean it to be. You've only provided the equivalent of saying, "No, the study is wrong, because I said so." Could you be bothered to provide some sources refuting the source I provided? Judging your responses thus far, you might actually have to read the link I provided, since you seem to be saying that children aren't sexual, even though the article clearly says that they are.

I'm also curious as to why you are so dead-set on wanting to hit children. What kind of twisted world do you live in that there exist absolutely zero harmless disciplinary alternatives to assaulting a child? If this behavior is really "harmless," then why is it banned in 24 developed countries?

Originally Posted by Keyori

(emphasis mine)

Oh, so now it's a case of, "Well cutting off one arm isn't as bad as cutting off both arms, even though it's still damaging to the child." Good to know that hitting a child in the rear isn't as bad as smacking a child on the head, surely that makes it perfectly okay. YOU ARE STILL HITTING A CHILD.

Also, if you're going to assert that this "isn't usually the case," I'd like to ask you to back it up with some evidence. I've provided a study demonstrating that hitting a child on the butt is sexually traumatizing to a child even if you don't mean it to be. You've only provided the equivalent of saying, "No, the study is wrong, because I said so." Could you be bothered to provide some sources refuting the source I provided? Judging your responses thus far, you might actually have to read the link I provided, since you seem to be saying that children aren't sexual, even though the article clearly says that they are.

I'm also curious as to why you are so dead-set on wanting to hit children. What kind of twisted world do you live in that there exist absolutely zero harmless disciplinary alternatives to assaulting a child? If this behavior is really "harmless," then why is it banned in 24 developed countries?

First of all, where do you get off putting words in my mouth and making such ridiculous assumptions? It was very clear that my reason for stating that hitting on the rear wasn't as bad as hitting elsewhere was to explain WHY that is the area used.
Spanking is not all that harmful and it is not sexual, nor does it cause sexual problems. My source is experience. Neither I nor anyone I know has had any sort of sexual dysfunction, much less as a result of something completely unrelated like spanking in childhood. The cheeks of the rear end are not sexual parts and yes, intent does have a lot to do with outcome.
Likewise, you seem to be implying that because it's in an article you found, it must be true. I think what I've seen and heard from people who've been spanked as children speaks louder than some article that seems to be reading too far into things.
And did I ever once say that I wanted to hit children or that anyone should? Funny, I thought I said the exact opposite. If you can't respond to me without making things up and twisting them into personal attacks, then I would rather not speak with you any more, thanks.
I made it clear from the beginning that spanking was negative--but it is not negative because of sex.

Originally Posted by Glitter Golgotha

I will maintain that a spanking is NOT sexual. The back of the rear end is not typically sexual in itself,

Then explain why, as Key noted, if you were to spank an adult without her consent, it would be considered a sexual crime and not simply a physical one. I somehow doubt "But I didn't mean it in a sexual way!" would fly as a defense.

and is not as sensitive as other areas of the body. It's less so; it absorbs shock.

Every area of the body absorbs shock, the arms and legs a whole lot more so than the butt. How much shock it absorbs is dependent on how much "cushion" it has. If you have very little, as many children do, there's not a whole lot of shock-absorbing going on. And that in no way addresses its sensitivity and thus how the recipient is affected, just how much damage it does. There's a lot of really horrible things you can do to a child that don't do damage.

A spanking is generally used to grab attention/administer punishment in a way that is not as painful or damaging and thus not as cruel as hitting the child elsewhere.

As Key said, you're allowing cruelty because it's less cruel than the absolute worst. Punching someone is less cruel than setting their head on fire, so should we allow that? It's not the least cruel way of disciplining your child, so how cruel it is relative to other possibilities doesn't really matter, I don't think.

Hitting someone on the rear end, child or otherwise, is not always a sex act, nor can I say that this is even "usually" the case.

No, it's not a sex act, but it is an assault on a sexually-sensitive area. What matters is what the child feels, not what your intent was. The child will not understand your intent, so the only thing that matters is your actions.

Although, I find it kind of funny that we're discussing the defense of the use of violence against children, and what upsets you the most is that it might be seen as sexual. Oh, committing assault against your kids is fine, but gods forbid they decide later in life that they like it!

EDIT: No, your experience does not count for more than an article. Your experience really doesn't count for anything, especially when it's coming from someone who approves of it being legal. You're already biased in favour of seeing nothing negative about it; I know at least one person who believes that what even you would consider abuse made her a better person and had no negative effects at all. And I think the statement that so many people are unaffected sexually by spanking is fairly ignorant. Why, then, is the spanking of adults so sexualized? What about the common context of said sexual spanking? People are free to enjoy what they want, and I'm not judging, but how can you possibly say the two aren't related?

Philomel: Again, you are trying to put children into the shoes of adults. Some things are considered sexual to adults because they make them that way for whatever reason. There are, in fact, instances of "spanking" in the adult world that are not considered sexual by either party. Don't assume that just because a lot of adults see something as sexual when it happens to them (especially when they generally only see it that way because that was how it was clearly intended in the first place), it has sexual connotations everywhere it goes.
And I will not respond twice to ignorant statements putting words in my mouth.

Name a single one, then. Name an actual occurrence in which the spanking of an adult is not in any way sexualized.

And what words are we putting into your mouth? You are for it being legal, therefore you are for it occurring, there's no middle ground here. You say it's negative, but when evidence is presented as to why it is negative, you ignore it and act like it contradicting your personal, entirely subjective and opinion-influenced experience makes it not credible.

Originally Posted by Glitter Golgotha

It was very clear that my reason for stating that hitting on the rear wasn't as bad as hitting elsewhere was to explain WHY that is the area used.

But you have yet to explain WHY it is okay to hit a child.

Spanking is not all that harmful and it is not sexual, nor does it cause sexual problems. My source is experience. Neither I nor anyone I know has had any sort of sexual dysfunction, much less as a result of something completely unrelated like spanking in childhood.

Do you know any slaves? No? Well that must obviously mean that slavery doesn't exist. Oops, except it does. Your anecdotes are not evidence, and I am skeptical that you would know with 100% certainty that "no one you know" have any sort of sexual dysfunction. You really think that's something that people openly discuss? You don't think that, perhaps, these people hide these dysfunctions out of shame, and opt not to share them with you? I'm not saying that any of them actually have dysfunctions, I am just appalled that you would make such assumptions with a disgustingly unapologetic certainty.

The cheeks of the rear end are not sexual parts and yes, intent does have a lot to do with outcome.

"I didn't intend to rape her! She wasn't supposed to say no!" And if the buttocks are not sexual parts, then why can you get slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit if you grab a coworker's ass without his or her consent? If they are not sexual parts, then why exist so many fetish tools such as whips and crops, specifically for play spanking?

Likewise, you seem to be implying that because it's in an article you found, it must be true. I think what I've seen and heard from people who've been spanked as children speaks louder than some article that seems to be reading too far into things.

People who "turn out fine" after a childhood of spanking don't come out that way because of the spanking; they are fine despite the spanking. Oh, and here's a meta-study using four more studies. So, that's five studies linking physical punishment to sexual behavior; six if you include the results of the International Dating Violence Survey at the end. But, clearly, your anecdotes are far superior to these peer-reviewed studies.

And did I ever once say that I wanted to hit children or that anyone should?

Right around the time where you implied it was acceptable to hit a child as long as it "doesn't do damage." Right here:

I do not think that a "tap on the rear" should be considered abuse unless that "tap" is actually doing damage.

If it's not abuse, what is it? If you really think that it's not okay, then how do we prevent it? How do we stop it? How do we protect children who cannot defend themselves?

If you make it okay for an adult to hit a child as long as it "doesn't hurt," then you are allowing that adult to define what hurts. That definition doesn't always line up with how children actually feel. You are being completely ignorant to the rights of that child.

If hitting a child is only meant to "grab attention," then all the more reason it should be banned. There are many better ways to grab the attention of a child without using assault.

@Glitter Golgotha-
The problem with relying solely on personal experience is that it is by definition nothing more than anecdotal evidence. As such problems that arise from depending on such a source are your physical limitations. That is you are limited in how much you are capable of witnessing. Not only will it be limited in terms of sample size, but it will also quite likely be limited in terms of demographics. Obviously this will raise questions about how representative it is. The other problem is you may lack the appropriate intellectual tools required to analyze the situation effectively. I do not mean this in a derogative way. But rather you might simply lack access to the theoretical and methodological tools for embarking in such an endeavor.

As for myself, I live in a country which has banned use of physical force for corrective purposes. Something which I am greatly in support of. It is essentially an issue over whether or not children are to be perceived as having person-hood or not. A report from UNICEF identified 7 reasons why such a ban is beneficial to the rights and well being of the child. I have quoted the seven reasons, although I would advise reading the report as it goes into more detail.

Reason 1
Hitting children leaves them feeling hurt and confused.
Reason 2
Hitting children is a breach of their human rights.
Reason 3
Hitting children does them harm.
Reason 4
Hitting children can lead to injury.
Reason 5
The ‘rod’ is not for hitting, but for guiding and comforting.
Reason 6
Hitting conflicts with the essential goals of raising children.
Reason 7
Hitting is not necessary to control children’s behaviour.

Although as methods of raising children are by and large culturally defined, it can be quite worthwhile to get the perspective of someone who is trained in cross cultural studies. I turn now to an anthropologist whose findings point out physical discipline is detrimental. This is particularly important as some people would argue that it is simply a matter of culture. This is what he had to say on whether we should turn a blind eye to cultural use of physical discipline.

First, the data don’t suggest that spanking is a good thing. Rather, they suggest that spanking kids may be less harmful in certain cultural settings.

Second, as many people have pointed out, spanking children may teach kids that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems. Even conditional spanking raises this objection. And there is anthropological evidence in support of the idea that physical punishment trains people to accept higher levels of societal aggression.

In a cross-cultural study of 186 different societies, Jennifer Lansford and Kenneth Dodge found that corporal punishment was more common in societies that endorse violence and engage in frequent warfare (Lansford and Dodge 2008).

Similar work by Carol and Melvin Ember reveals links between corporal punishment and political inequality (Ember and Ember 2005). In their world review of nonindustrial societies, the Embers found that frequent corporal punishment of children is more common in societies with high levels of social stratification and/or low levels of democracy. In other words, corporal punishment is more common where people live under restrictive, authoritarian rule.

In a defense on the sexual part, I don't believe that all forms of spanking is considered sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse by definition means "for an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation". I want to think, and I kinda do think, that most adults do not gain any sexual stimulation while spanking a child. That is not to say that it is not , by definition, a "sexual attack", only that it is not intended as such.

This is to say that 30% of all children in our day and age who have been actually sexually abused have been so by family or a close family friend, which is scary to even think about. Of course I would like to go back to when I was a child, and even my parents. You could once leave your children alone with the man down the road without knowing him all too well, or even let them play outside far past dark, because the world was significantly "safer". Such attacks, kidnapping, incestuous acts, rape, pedophilia was practically unheard of. Rarely did people come forward to say that they had sexual problems in adulthood, and have been able to find proof that it lead back to their parents spanking them as children.

This is not to say that it did not exist, and of course our forms of psychological treatment was different then. Also though we have to depend on the words of those people. A lot of sexual problems in childhood are forgotten, embedded in the brain, and linger. Many times people don't understand why they have sexual problems later in life for these reasons. It is significantly easy to blame the parents for what is occurring now, rather then dealing with deep rooted problems that might not ever resurface.

Of course this is all psychology, where I am gladly accepting my masters soon, and where there is no true right answer.

I would like to feature this one case study by a gentleman I do respect very much, Murray A. Straus, in which he took a survey of more than 14,000 university students at 68 universities in 32 countries. He found that:

”…both men and women who had experienced corporal punishment as children were less than 10 percent more likely than those who had not been spanked to verbally coerce sex from a partner.”

He clarifies later to say that while spanking does appear to increase the chances of sexual problems later in life for some people, it cannot be seen as a ‘one-to-one causation.’ In other words, there is often more at play here than the occasional spanking. I want to also say that he IS AGAINST SPANKING Many of his studies, which are easily found by google, show that he fully believe spanking not only increases violent tendencies, but lower IQ and sexual fetishes as adults.

For some of his studies

Mm, seems still heated. I feel honored. xD

Originally Posted by Keyori

But you have yet to explain WHY it is okay to hit a child.

I never said it was OK to hit a child.

Do you know any slaves? No? Well that must obviously mean that slavery doesn't exist. Oops, except it does. Your anecdotes are not evidence, and I am skeptical that you would know with 100% certainty that "no one you know" have any sort of sexual dysfunction. You really think that's something that people openly discuss? You don't think that, perhaps, these people hide these dysfunctions out of shame, and opt not to share them with you? I'm not saying that any of them actually have dysfunctions, I am just appalled that you would make such assumptions with a disgustingly unapologetic certainty.

I also never said that just because I and the people I know do not have any problems, no one does. Read again, please. What I am saying is that just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's the usual.

"I didn't intend to rape her! She wasn't supposed to say no!" And if the buttocks are not sexual parts, then why can you get slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit if you grab a coworker's ass without his or her consent? If they are not sexual parts, then why exist so many fetish tools such as whips and crops, specifically for play spanking?

How can you even try to compare rape to a spanking?
Just because fetishes exist doesn't mean that the parts are sexual. In fact, that's what "fetish" means--sexuality being derived from a non-sexual part. You know why you get in trouble for grabbing a coworker's ass? Because it's sexual in nature, quite unlike spanking a child.

People who "turn out fine" after a childhood of spanking don't come out that way because of the spanking; they are fine despite the spanking. Oh, and here's a meta-study using four more studies. So, that's five studies linking physical punishment to sexual behavior; six if you include the results of the International Dating Violence Survey at the end. But, clearly, your anecdotes are far superior to these peer-reviewed studies.

Once again, never said that spanking made people turn out better OR that everything which applies to me must apply to everyone else. However, you need to be capable of turning that around on your own evidence.

Right around the time where you implied it was acceptable to hit a child as long as it "doesn't do damage." Right here: If it's not abuse, what is it? If you really think that it's not okay, then how do we prevent it? How do we stop it? How do we protect children who cannot defend themselves?

Frankly, a spanking isn't damaging enough to be considered abuse except in extreme cases, which should be individually examined. It can be prevented by informing parents and potential parents about proper discipline and encouraging them to work with the needs of their children.

If you make it okay for an adult to hit a child as long as it "doesn't hurt," then you are allowing that adult to define what hurts. That definition doesn't always line up with how children actually feel. You are being completely ignorant to the rights of that child.

It doesn't take much to upset a child. If you let children define what is or isn't acceptable, then you end up with children who have no discipline whatsoever. What needs to be looked at is whether the child is being truly harmed physically or psychologically and if there is neither, then there is no crime.

If hitting a child is only meant to "grab attention," then all the more reason it should be banned. There are many better ways to grab the attention of a child without using assault.

I didn't say there weren't better ways. However, a near painless smack to the rump is hardly assault worthy of legal action.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Name a single one, then. Name an actual occurrence in which the spanking of an adult is not in any way sexualized.

And what words are we putting into your mouth? You are for it being legal, therefore you are for it occurring, there's no middle ground here. You say it's negative, but when evidence is presented as to why it is negative, you ignore it and act like it contradicting your personal, entirely subjective and opinion-influenced experience makes it not credible.

I've seen plenty of instances in which adults would smack each other's hindquarters as a sort of "good job" or "encouragement" gesture that exists only as a sign of acknowledgment and pushing forward. It is not intended to be sexual, nor is it taken that way by the recipient. I've also seen it used as a (usually joking) form of punishment, alluding to the spankings that children get. Also not sexual for either party. Adults sometimes use it simply to get attention, yet again not for sexual pleasure.

Allowing something to remain legal is not the same as saying that it is the best option or even a good one. There are plenty of things with which I personally do not agree that I would still not consider worthy of being made illegal. The fact of the matter is, the evidence that has been presented here does not apply to all individuals and thus cannot be used as a generalization for why an act in itself should be banned. Intent and outcome are every bit as important as action, and need to be taken into consideration.

Originally Posted by Glitter Golgotha

The fact of the matter is, the evidence that has been presented here does not apply to all individuals and thus cannot be used as a generalization for why an act in itself should be banned. Intent and outcome are every bit as important as action, and need to be taken into consideration.

I take it then you also believe driving under the influence of alcohol should be legal? As people who do so, do not intend on having an accident and/or causing grievous harm to other members of the community and themselves. Furthermore not everyone who drives while under the influence will have the negative consequences.

I turn now to Dr Ian Hassall. His quotation here which was also used in the UNICEF report which I provided in my previous post is quite fitting. After all, as my other source identified cross cultural studies have highlighted the risk in physical discipline shaping the reality of the child. That is it increases the chances of them being more supportive of authoritarian sources using more physical measures.

Originally Posted by Dr Ian Hassall

It feels wrong and when we reflect, we know in our hearts it is
wrong. What ordinary parent can recall the look of fear when they
raised their arm to strike and the expression of pain that followed,
without feeling deep remorse. We may justify such an act to
ourselves with the support of custom or religion but we know it
was wrong.
Even worse, if as parents we have become inured to the fear and pain
we cause by hitting our children, what have we become? And if our
children over the years become used to us hitting them and regard
it as normal, what have they become? . . . We are not brutes. We do
love our children. Against our better judgement we have fallen into
the habit, generation by generation, of hitting our children.

Originally Posted by Glitter Golgotha

I also never said that just because I and the people I know do not have any problems, no one does. Read again, please. What I am saying is that just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's the usual.

And I'm saying that you have no idea if it's usual or not. I just presented FIVE studies (again, six including the survey) saying that it IS usual. You have yet to refute them with any real evidence.

How can you even try to compare rape to a spanking?

Because you brought up intent.

Because it's sexual in nature, quite unlike spanking a child.

Again, just because it's not sexual for you does not mean it is not sexual for the child. YOU cannot be the judge of what someone else feels is sexual in nature or not, regardless if the recipient of your actions is a child or adult.

Frankly, a spanking isn't damaging enough.

Here it is again! It's another matter of, "It's not as bad as cutting off both arms, so that makes it okay." You are still damaging a child.

It doesn't take much to upset a child. If you let children define what is or isn't acceptable, then you end up with children who have no discipline whatsoever. What needs to be looked at is whether the child is being truly harmed physically or psychologically and if there is neither, then there is no crime.

In no way and at no time did I suggest that an absence of discipline is the only or even an acceptable alternative to hitting a child, nor did I suggest that you should allow the child to define "acceptable" punishment. I said that YOU cannot decide how a child feels for him or her, and YOU cannot decide where that pain threshold exists for that person.

However, a near painless smack to the rump is hardly assault worthy of legal action.

Assault is assault is assault. Assault is illegal, period. Oh, unless it's assault against a child, in which case it's considered "parenting," for the arbitrary reason of the recipient's age.

I've seen plenty of instances in which adults would smack each other's hindquarters as a sort of "good job" or "encouragement" gesture that exists only as a sign of acknowledgment and pushing forward. It is not intended to be sexual, nor is it taken that way by the recipient.

It also involves the consent by both parties. How many children do you know of who consent to a parent hitting them?

The fact of the matter is, the evidence that has been presented here does not apply to all individuals and thus cannot be used as a generalization for why an act in itself should be banned. Intent and outcome are every bit as important as action, and need to be taken into consideration.

The right to not be assaulted DOES apply to everyone. Except children, according to you.

And let's not forget that spanking does not work, especially in the long-term. Spanking in the short-term does not even yield consistent results.

Of the 92 studies reviewed by Elizabeth Gershoff, over 90% found that parental physical punishment is linked with negative behaviours and experiences of children.

Behaviours and experiences that increased included:

• child aggression (being violent to others)
• child delinquency and antisocial behaviour
• the risk of becoming a victim of more serious physical abuse
• adult aggression later in life
• adult criminal and antisocial behaviour
• risk of abusing one’s own child or spouse.

Behaviours and experiences that decreased included:

• the quality of relationship between parent and child
• child mental health, e.g., poorer self-esteem and poorer adjustment to school
• moral internalisation (physical punishment actually lessens the chances that children will learn the rules and values their parents are wishing to instill)
• academic achievement
• adult mental health.

Source. Emphasis mine.

I realize this wasn't to me, but I have to address this:

Originally Posted by Glitter Golgotha

Just because fetishes exist doesn't mean that the parts are sexual. In fact, that's what "fetish" means--sexuality being derived from a non-sexual part. You know why you get in trouble for grabbing a coworker's ass? Because it's sexual in nature, quite unlike spanking a child.

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

Definition of FETISH
1
a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression
2
: a rite or cult of fetish worshipers
3
: fixation

Source: Fetish - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So yes, fetishes can very much involve sexual body parts. And who are you to say that it's sexual? Hell, rape isn't about sexual gratification usually, so I see no reason why the intent behind grabbing someone's ass must be sexual in nature. Also, see the example I gave, which you kindly ignored. Funny, that your experiences are worth more than actual research, yet mine aren't even worth acknowledging.

I've seen plenty of instances in which adults would smack each other's hindquarters as a sort of "good job" or "encouragement" gesture that exists only as a sign of acknowledgment and pushing forward. It is not intended to be sexual, nor is it taken that way by the recipient.

As Key said, it is also consented to by the recipient, and as you said, it is viewed by them as non-sexual. No consent is given by the child, no thought given to how they view it. And finally, it's not punishment. That makes a whole world of difference. It's one thing to accidentally do something that they interpret as sexual, it's another thing altogether to use that as punishment.

I've also seen it used as a (usually joking) form of punishment, alluding to the spankings that children get. Also not sexual for either party.

Alluded to, not acted out. And yes, quite often such allusions are quite sexual. Telling a coworker you're going to "turn her over your knee" or something to that extent is often, rightfully, viewed as sexual harassment. I don't know that I've ever heard one heterosexual adult threaten to spank another adult of the same sex. If it even comes close to that, there are some...rather unfortunate assumptions made about the one who said it. I certainly don't agree with those assumptions being made, but given all of my experiences, I find your claim that spanking of non-children isn't usually viewed as sexual quite curious.

Adults sometimes use it simply to get attention, yet again not for sexual pleasure.

Please explain what you mean by this.

Allowing something to remain legal is not the same as saying that it is the best option or even a good one.

No, but you support it being an option. Making rape legal is allowing it as an option. Making slavery legal is allowing it as an option. Making killing legal is allowing it as an option. Personal decisions should not be legislated, but once those decisions affect other non-consenting people (and despite what some seem to think, children are people), they cease to be personal, doubly so when those decisions involve violence.

There are plenty of things with which I personally do not agree that I would still not consider worthy of being made illegal.

So children aren't worth protecting like adults are? Or do you think that adults should be allowed to spank one another without the others' consent?

The fact of the matter is, the evidence that has been presented here does not apply to all individuals and thus cannot be used as a generalization for why an act in itself should be banned.

Tell me you don't believe that. There are plenty of things which are banned that do not always result in someone being harmed. Indeed, I'd venture to say that pretty much every act affects people differently. Medications are pulled off the shelf when even a tiny percentage of people experience significant side effects that they weren't warned about. Think about the recent big egg recall and how many cases of salmonella there were out of all the people who ate eggs produced by that company -- probably not even a full one percent. As I've said before in this thread, not everyone who is raped, mugged, tortured, or otherwise attacked has her life destroyed. Not every child who experiences what the law currently considers abuse is scarred for life. It does not matter how many people are harmed, what matters is that harm is a distinct possibility.

Intent and outcome are every bit as important as action, and need to be taken into consideration.

No, intent does not need to be taken into consideration except in very rare cases, such as murder. And even if it were, does that affect anything? Even in the case of murder vs. manslaughter, the victim isn't any less dead because you didn't intend to kill them. Likewise, the child isn't any less hurt, physically or emotionally, because you intended it as a punishment and nothing else. The child will never know that, and if you tell her, she probably won't believe you. And I can't blame her -- parents also say that they never hit out of anger, but you look at any parent when she's spanking her child, her facial expressions, her words, her tone, her body language, and tell me she isn't angry.

As for outcome, that's definitely something that needs to be a consideration...and has been. The entire thread, Key and I have both been providing sources describing how hitting and punishment in general can and does have a negative affect on children, while you and those like you have done nothing but reference your own feelings and impossible-to-confirm experiences and ignore said sources as "unreliable" (and yes, the irony here is delicious). We are taking outcomes into consideration, just not in the way you would prefer.

I got smacked as a kid and with the belt at that. It didn't do any lasting harm so I don't feel that I was abused. Hell half the time I needed it I was a rotten little kid. I don't really see a problem with people spanking their kids as no one I know has suffered any lasting damage. As a last resort to correct bad behavior I think it's perfectly acceptable. I've read through some of these posts and it seems that people are comparing a trivial tap on the back side to: Sexual abuse, getting an arm chopped off, being beaten and other serious attacks. That seems sort of ridiculous to me I mean I know someone who's lost an arm it's a hell of a lot worse than being spanked, those things aren't even in the same category. If you were really that damaged by a spanking then you're either confusing a beating with a tap to the buttocks or you're a pansy. In which case I can't help you.

All I have to say to you, Faulkner, is that it is absolutely disgusting how you insult victims of abuse.