| lifetimefanofqueen 09.08.2011 14:31 |
i think yes, just as long as you dont smack to the point you leave a massive mark as many other people, i was also smacked when i was a kid, and it would put me in my place, and thats good because children NEED disaplin. from child behavier it dosent take an expert to see that its got worse as the years go on. children think they can get away with everything because the laws are changing to the worst. no im not a monster for thinking this. if a parent smacks a child and leaves a mark, obviously thats bad and i dont support that. but people say hitting a child makes the child violent, i think this only happens depnding on how bad you hit them and WHEN you hit them, if you give a warning first then they KNOW their doing somthing bad but if you do it randomly, they dont understand and they think its normal. basically i think warnings should always be given well. thats my opinion, i support it so long as it dosent leave a mark and that the child understands why their being smacked and they know they've done somthing wrong P.S dont leave shitty comments cus no ones laughin this is serious and if u dont like that get off and dont comment |
| catqueen 09.08.2011 16:34 |
You can seriously hurt someone without leaving a mark, although i know what you meant by that. I think discipline should ideally be non-punitive (not 'punishment') altho sometimes this is clearly needed. For instance, if a child is fascinated by something dangerous, like a fire, then a sharp smack might help them associate it with pain, and is better then letting them get burned. But in general, i think you can do a lot with positive discipline, like star charts, being careful how you use language, using rewards and consequences rather then smacking. Also, from what i have seen, parents tend to use smacking as almost a form of discipline without thought -- its just you annoy me so BAM. And i think discipline is an important issue and should be carried out with a purpose and with consistency. And if you are consistent, there is less need for smacking. Also so often people dont seem to think about the message the child is getting, eg: child has tantrum and starts screaming and shouting, and the parent shouts back at them, or child hits someone and parent hits the child. All that does is teach the child that shouting and hitting are ok. |
| catqueen 09.08.2011 16:37 |
*oh, also, i think its important to think about if smacking/shouting/whatever worked when you were a child. Did it just make u angrier, did it actually help u see that what u were doing was wrong or just that u shouldnt get caught? I know i was smacked as a child, and sometimes, when i was v small, im sure it did help, but i remember being smacked as an older child, and whatever i had done had only been misunderstood, so it wasnt a 'real' bad behaviour, or it was just purely from an adults temper, and that really didnt help me. And i know that still when someone shouts at me, i hate it and will not listen to what they are saying. And i assume that many children would also be that way -- they will comply to make the shouting go away, but it doesnt actually help them understand what was wrong. |
| brENsKi 09.08.2011 17:05 |
knock em out..the little fuckers.....(only joking) my son is now 22 and we never raised a hand to him....coming from an irish catholic background i know well how it feels to be "punished" by "God's way".....so we agreed that was not the way to treat our son... and guess what? surprise surprise...he'd grown up well adjusted and sensible and has loads of friends, enjoys life and doesn't behave like a thug |
| i-Fred 09.08.2011 17:37 |
I think to a degree it is.. I mean, it happened to me and every one else I know. Yet look at the touchy touchy types who say its not right.. Go hug a fucking tree |
| -fatty- 2850 09.08.2011 19:15 |
I only ever smack my kids in self defence. fatty. |
| Djdownsy 09.08.2011 20:08 |
Technically, it's alright to smack a child on the hand or their bum, because they feel pain, which they would associate with something wrong no doubt, but it's only temporary pain, it doesn't leave physical or emotional damage..what I mean by emotional is their reaction to it in the future, a child who gets a smack on the hand for doing something wrong isn't going to remember the slap by the next day; a child who gets battered around and beaten to a pulp for no reason from one or both of their parents, well....... Im not a massive fan of corporal punishment, however, I do think it's a necessary part of discipline, it should only be used as a last resort, and not while you're in a temper yourself. I actually agree with an awful lot of Catqueen's views, but it shouldn't be ruled out, my parents slapped me and I turned out fine, in fact, happy. Im happy they slapped me, because it gave me a lot of cop-on when I was throwing tantrums and such like. Giving out to me, banning me from playing the Nintendo, threatening to get the wooden spoon on you ( haha, anybody else ever get that threat growing up?) etc.. rarely ever worked, i mean, I would push the boundaries and see how much I could get away with. But the slap always stopped me in my tracks, it's the only universal thing you recognise as a child that means you're doing something wrong. I could go on all night, but I'm sure I'm already boring people to death, so i'll just conclude by same, 'Yes,I'm pro-slapping, but only at the right time and place'. |
| Saint Jiub 09.08.2011 21:04 |
lifetimefanofqueen wrote: i think yes, just as long as you dont smack to the point you leave a massive mark as many other people, i was also smacked when i was a kid, and it would put me in my place, and thats good because children NEED disaplin. from child behavier it dosent take an expert to see that its got worse as the years go on. children think they can get away with everything because the laws are changing to the worst. no im not a monster for thinking this. if a parent smacks a child and leaves a mark, obviously thats bad and i dont support that. but people say hitting a child makes the child violent, i think this only happens depnding on how bad you hit them and WHEN you hit them, if you give a warning first then they KNOW their doing somthing bad but if you do it randomly, they dont understand and they think its normal. basically i think warnings should always be given well. thats my opinion, i support it so long as it dosent leave a mark and that the child understands why their being smacked and they know they've done somthing wrong P.S dont leave shitty comments cus no ones laughin this is serious and if u dont like that get off and dont comment Yes. It is ok especially if there is anarchy in the UK and the kids are looting. |
| Thistle 09.08.2011 21:28 |
-fatty- wrote: I only ever smack my kids in self defence. fatty. ============================================================================================= lol |
| lifetimefanofqueen 09.08.2011 21:29 |
catqueen wrote: eg: child has tantrum and starts screaming and shouting, and the parent shouts back at them, or child hits someone and parent hits the child. All that does is teach the child that shouting and hitting are ok. ======================= aye exactly, its almost an incoragment |
| Saint Jiub 09.08.2011 23:39 |
Panchgani wrote: lifetimefanofqueen wrote: i think yes, just as long as you dont smack to the point you leave a massive mark as many other people, i was also smacked when i was a kid, and it would put me in my place, and thats good because children NEED disaplin. from child behavier it dosent take an expert to see that its got worse as the years go on. children think they can get away with everything because the laws are changing to the worst. no im not a monster for thinking this. if a parent smacks a child and leaves a mark, obviously thats bad and i dont support that. but people say hitting a child makes the child violent, i think this only happens depnding on how bad you hit them and WHEN you hit them, if you give a warning first then they KNOW their doing somthing bad but if you do it randomly, they dont understand and they think its normal. basically i think warnings should always be given well. thats my opinion, i support it so long as it dosent leave a mark and that the child understands why their being smacked and they know they've done somthing wrong P.S dont leave shitty comments cus no ones laughin this is serious and if u dont like that get off and dont comment ----------------------------------------- Yes. It is ok especially if there is anarchy in the UK and the kids are looting. |
| GratefulFan 09.08.2011 23:50 |
If smacking kids is wrong, I don't wanna be right. Ha ha. I think catqueen hit it when she said that it's usually out of adult anger, which is where the problem lies. Short of imminent danger, there are few situations where something wouldn't have been preferable to yelling or hitting. It's often a power play when a parent is at the end of his or her rope, feeling like control has been lost and fresh out of good ideas. It has a limited shelf life because eventually those smaller beings get bigger and louder themselves. Kids are often being taught less about natural consequences and more about lousy ways to deal with anger and frustration. That said, being a parent can be excruciatingly difficult and entirely confidence sapping. Sometimes it just boils down to being better the next time. |
| john bodega 10.08.2011 01:02 |
There are a few on this forum that need a bit of a pummeling. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 10.08.2011 03:13 |
Zebonka12 wrote: There are a few on this forum that need a bit of a pummeling. reply: and london,birmingham,liverpool,salford,bristol,wolverhampton,west bromwich..etc |
| Holly2003 10.08.2011 04:29 |
It's okay to hit other people's kids, especially if they won;t shut up while you;re trying to watch Super 8. har har. And now the serious answer. Once you hit your kid as a punishment you have nowhere to go next time except to hit harder. Not to be encouraged. |
| ms rebel 51604 10.08.2011 04:59 |
When I was a kid, my parents decided to use the smack method. :) |
| Hangman_96 10.08.2011 05:11 |
Yes, it's right to smack kids, because they're way too annoying. But don't even think to smack them when they behave good, simply because their parents will cut your head off. |
| catqueen 10.08.2011 05:40 |
Djdownsy wrote: Technically, it's alright to smack a child on the hand or their bum, because they feel pain, which they would associate with something wrong no doubt, but it's only temporary pain, it doesn't leave physical or emotional damage..what I mean by emotional is their reaction to it in the future, a child who gets a smack on the hand for doing something wrong isn't going to remember the slap by the next day; a child who gets battered around and beaten to a pulp for no reason from one or both of their parents, well....... Did you mean alright or legal? Technically in Ireland you can have 'reasonable' discipline (can't remember the exact words). That's normally interpreted as its ok to smack a little. So technically, the general benchmark is if it leaves a mark (which i have huge problems with, cos u can do a LOT of damage without leaving a mark. I have a friend who used to work in this residential place in another country and they used to pinch the kids nails cos they weren't allowed to leave marks, but that can do huge damage to the person's nailbed. Also, its pretty much impossible to quantify emotional harm in a court unless there has been massive abuse.) I think you can smack a child inappropriately on the hand/bum, esp if they are older - like over toddler age. Its a hard one to call cos it really depends on the circumstances and context of the smack. I probably would smack my child if i ever have kids, and obviously the social 'normal' way here is hand/bum but i think smacking would be the exception rather then a regular occurrence. Having said that, i know kids can be incredibly annoying and i am but human. :/ |
| Djdownsy 10.08.2011 20:42 |
catqueen wrote: Did you mean alright or legal? Technically in Ireland you can have 'reasonable' discipline (can't remember the exact words). That's normally interpreted as its ok to smack a little. So technically, the general benchmark is if it leaves a mark (which i have huge problems with, cos u can do a LOT of damage without leaving a mark. I have a friend who used to work in this residential place in another country and they used to pinch the kids nails cos they weren't allowed to leave marks, but that can do huge damage to the person's nailbed. Also, its pretty much impossible to quantify emotional harm in a court unless there has been massive abuse.) I think you can smack a child inappropriately on the hand/bum, esp if they are older - like over toddler age. Its a hard one to call cos it really depends on the circumstances and context of the smack. I probably would smack my child if i ever have kids, and obviously the social 'normal' way here is hand/bum but i think smacking would be the exception rather then a regular occurrence. Having said that, i know kids can be incredibly annoying and i am but human. :/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Currently, it is not illegal to smack your child in Ireland, a fact just one third of participants in the study were aware of. Some 42pc felt it should be made illegal while 34pc felt it should remain legal. A further 24pc felt that whether it was made illegal or not should depend on the age of the child. And of the 1,353 parents who were interviewed for the parents’ section of the two studies, 25pc of them admitted to having smacked their children over the past 12 months. 25pc of parents say they have smacked their child in the past 12 months Most of these parents said that they smacked their child on the bottom, hand or leg 67pc believe there is no harm in giving a child an occasional smack 42pc of parents feel smacking should be banned 48pc of parents have shouted, yelled or swore at a child in the past year 3pc said they shook, grabbed or pushed a child in the past year, either occasionally (1.3pc) or often (1.4pc) One third of parents reported being hit with a slipper or a similar instrument during childhoods, while their own almost a quarter smacked or slapped had been on the face, head or ears 64.6pc of parents believe smacking is not necessary to bring up a well-behaved child Almost 60pc believe parents should have the right to smack their children if they so wish 51.7pc of parents thought smacking was a good reason for stopping a child from doing something dangerous 58pc of parents did not believe smacking was effective in achieving long-term discipline goals ---- Well there's your answer Mel, it ain't illegal in this country, you have to admit, the occasional smack isn't much compared to swearing at your child, or even worse, shaking or slapping a child on the face. Some of that is disgraceful to be honest. It just depends of your method for lapping the child, personally, I would only use it as a very last resort, and I defo wont swear at them or put them down emotionally, I'm still shocked at some of those stats. |
| YourValentine 11.08.2011 02:54 |
I think it is totally wrong and inexcusable to hit a child. Wrong to hit a child in anger and wrong to hit a child in cold blood in order to "discipline" them. Luckily, it is now illegal in most European countries for parents to beat their children. For those who are so in favour of hitting children: what exactly are you trying to teach them? That you can be hurt when you "annoy" someone bigger than you and it is therefore better to shut up and surrender to big bullies? Or are you teaching them that violence is the best and fastest method to solve a conflict? The sheer idea that a defenseless child is not safe from abuse by their own parents in their own homes is just sickening. The excuse that children who are not beaten by their parents will grow up to become drug addicts and school dropouts is just a lie and disproven in many studies. Calling it "smacking" and "spanking" instead of hitting and beating is just a attempt to make it sound less harmful. A child has the same right to live unharmed as any adult. Not all adults who were beaten as kids grow up to become child abusers but ALL child abusers were beaten as a child themselves. |
| YourValentine 11.08.2011 02:55 |
I think it is totally wrong and inexcusable to hit a child. Wrong to hit a child in anger and wrong to hit a child in cold blood in order to "discipline" them. Luckily, it is now illegal in most European countries for parents to beat their children. For those who are so in favour of hitting children: what exactly are you trying to teach them? That you can be hurt when you "annoy" someone bigger than you and it is therefore better to shut up and surrender to big bullies? Or are you teaching them that violence is the best and fastest method to solve a conflict? The sheer idea that a defenseless child is not safe from abuse by their own parents in their own homes is just sickening. The excuse that children who are not beaten by their parents will grow up to become drug addicts and school dropouts is just a lie and disproven in many studies. Calling it "smacking" and "spanking" instead of hitting and beating is just a attempt to make it sound less harmful. A child has the same right to live unharmed as any adult. Not all adults who were beaten as kids grow up to become child abusers but ALL child abusers were beaten as a child themselves. |
| Djdownsy 11.08.2011 06:47 |
YourValentine wrote: I think it is totally wrong and inexcusable to hit a child. Wrong to hit a child in anger and wrong to hit a child in cold blood in order to "discipline" them. Luckily, it is now illegal in most European countries for parents to beat their children. For those who are so in favour of hitting children: what exactly are you trying to teach them? That you can be hurt when you "annoy" someone bigger than you and it is therefore better to shut up and surrender to big bullies? Or are you teaching them that violence is the best and fastest method to solve a conflict? The sheer idea that a defenseless child is not safe from abuse by their own parents in their own homes is just sickening. The excuse that children who are not beaten by their parents will grow up to become drug addicts and school dropouts is just a lie and disproven in many studies. Calling it "smacking" and "spanking" instead of hitting and beating is just a attempt to make it sound less harmful. A child has the same right to live unharmed as any adult. Not all adults who were beaten as kids grow up to become child abusers but ALL child abusers were beaten as a child themselves. ----------------------------------------------------------------- That's a little extreme do you not think? Yes, child abuse is a terrible thing, believe me, I know, but there's a lot more to abuse than just physical, there's neglect, emotional, sexual..... do you not think these are way worse? Besides, I don't think this topic is actually about Abuse per-say, it is about spanking a child, which is a far cry from abuse in my opinion. My parents both spanked me if I was out of line, does that mean they are child abusers? No, of course it doesn't. So long as the spanking is in a place where the child won't be left with a mark or withstanding pain, ie. hand, bum and it is done for the right reason, and not just done in temper, then I think it's ok, it's only my opinion, and I can understand if people don't agree with it, but saying it leads to abuse isn't right, it doesn't, that happens for totally different reasons. |
| ParisNair 20.08.2011 06:32 |
I think sometimes spanking is necessary...not just for kids, but wives too...just kidding ;-) Seriously, kids may not be able to differentiate good from bad at their age and some strictness may be required on the part of the parents. When they grow up, they'll appreciate it (in my opinion and experience). |
| pma 20.08.2011 14:53 |
Yes, a man has the right to discipline his subordinates and property... Oh wait, its not the nineteenth century anymore, and even back then more and more people were against punishing children physically. It amazes me how many people use flawed rhetoric (a child's brain is not mature enough to undestand any consequences, that's why we smack them... etc etc), and fail to admit that their habit of corporeal punishment is merely them abusing children, abusing their power over a helpless victim and abusing the power and influence they have on a minor. It's also sickening how a large number of people in my country seem to accept child abuse of this kind, and even defend it publicly in a vehement manner. Sickening degeneration in the year 2011. If we smack our kids, let's smack our co-workers, friends, online acquaintances, and anyone else who may at any time disobey, or simply pisses us off at any given moment. The gift of violence should not be limited to the helpless and feeble, it belongs to everyone, |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.08.2011 13:21 |
I think TS's spelling and general language skills are convincing evidence of the harm caused by "smacking kids". |
| paulosham 22.08.2011 13:36 |
Like my old dad used to say. "Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and I'll give you something to cry about you little bastard." |
| catqueen 22.08.2011 15:53 |
paulosham wrote: Like my old dad used to say. "Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and I'll give you something to cry about you little bastard." hahaha, i never understood that argument lol |
| catqueen 22.08.2011 15:54 |
link |
| YourValentine 24.08.2011 04:43 |
@ Djdownsy there is no difference between hitting a child and abusing a child. Calling it "spanking" does not take away anything from the fact that the smallest and most helpless member of a family is not safe from abuse at home. Wife beaters usually claim they beat the wives for some "good " or "right" reason, as well. What can be a "right" reason for hitting a child? When you say parents have to take care they leave no proof on the body of the beaten child it really makes me shudder. Wife beating, rape and all kind of domestic violence is rightfully illegal and is sanctioned by law. Why the most helpless and dependent member of a family should not have the protection of law is totally beyond me. Children cannot move out and they cannot defend themselves. A child that is entrusted to our love and care should be safe from abuse like any other creature on earth. I really cannot understand how anybody can argue against that in our times. |
| john bodega 24.08.2011 06:49 |
Hehe, tough love. You have to be cruel to be kind sometimes. I like to liven things up a bit when I'm giving my loved ones the bareknuckle treatment to the face. I enjoy doing it while playing "Tall Cool One" very loudly on the stereo. Singing 'lighten up baby I'm in love with you!' while pounding them for disciplinary reasons is really the best way to enforce the rules of the household. The things we do to teach obedience. |
| GratefulFan 24.08.2011 17:43 |
Thought of this thread when I read this today. Relevant stuff in the comments as well. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/mom-draws-flak-for-publicly-shaming-shoplifting-son/article2140355/ |
| FriedChicken 29.08.2011 02:28 |
I don't know if smacking a kid is right. Of course it's not right to smack a kid out of anger, frustration or to discipline. But you just can't tell a 2 year old "No, you can't hit Judy on her head. She doesn't like that, because it hurts". A 2 year old hardly knows it excists itselfs. Let alone be aware of anyone elses feelings. I think people (especially parents) really think too much of the emotional capabilities of an infant. |
| tcc 29.08.2011 03:52 |
I do not think it is right to smack kids. It is also not needed to discipline them - just glaring at them with a fierce look should be good enough to scare them into behaving themselves :-) |
| pma 29.08.2011 05:27 |
FriedChicken wrote: I don't know if smacking a kid is right. Of course it's not right to smack a kid out of anger, frustration or to discipline. But you just can't tell a 2 year old "No, you can't hit Judy on her head. She doesn't like that, because it hurts". A 2 year old hardly knows it excists itselfs. Let alone be aware of anyone elses feelings. I think people (especially parents) really think too much of the emotional capabilities of an infant. No, that's exactly what I tell my son and it works. For example, I might tell him that "you cannot hit your sister etc. because it hurts her" or when wants to throw sand in the air at the sand pit, I will tell him that it will get into your friends eye and it will hurt. Yes, he knows what it means to be hurt, because I can verbally relate the hurt to some experience he himself has had, like "hurts the same like when you fell off the pram and hit your head on the asphalt". People who think a two year old has zero capability to empathy, or no concept of how others may feel, should then take a second to consider why would spanking or hitting this allegedly un-emotional kid be any help, wouldn't this argument of yours Niek, totally make the impact of corporeal punishment annulled. This assumed lack of emotional capabilities would, I think, be an even more reason then not to beat anyone up, or should we do physical harm systematically to the mentally disabled, for example? I think people (especially those without kids) think way too little of the emotional and intellectual capabilities of infants. I'm constantly reading 19th century advice manuals for parents, men and wives in relation to my masters thesis, and I'm shocked at how some people here have similar opinions as those primitive brutes (pardon, they were all civilized men of their time) who wrote some of those manuals warning parents of the dangers of "sparing the rod" and how the "mischievous nature of children" requires discipline. I thought we had moved on from those times, judging by Queenzone many people here have been raised according to worst 19th century standards. |
| catqueen 29.08.2011 14:54 |
pma wrote: I'm constantly reading 19th century advice manuals for parents, men and wives in relation to my masters thesis, and I'm shocked at how some people here have similar opinions as those primitive brutes (pardon, they were all civilized men of their time) who wrote some of those manuals warning parents of the dangers of "sparing the rod" and how the "mischievous nature of children" requires discipline. I thought we had moved on from those times, judging by Queenzone many people here have been raised according to worst 19th century standards. The feeling i got from most people here is not a strict 19th century 'squash your child's natural exuberance and make him toe the line and conform' as much as 'in some cases it isn't wrong, such as if a child is hurting another person or if he is in danger.' There is a huge danger in physical punishment, and it is (in my opinion) often, if not usually, misused. Having said that though, i think there is something to be said for teaching reality -- and the reality as you get older is that if you beat someone up, you will be beaten up or put in jail. If you play with fire, you will be maimed. If you are mean to other people and take their stuff, they will not play with you. So sometimes, in my opinion, a light smack (and i;m not talking about 19th century beating with a belt, i mean a light smack and firm 'no') is basically allowing the child to understand that there are consequences to their actions. Having said that, i work with kids and would obviously never smack or 'punish' a child in work, we use a positive approach to managing behaviour. And when a child has been in that structure for a while, the 'need' for discipline gets less, and a lot of childcare workers will find that just giving a child a 'look' or saying no will be very effective. And this may sound stupid, but programmes like 'super nanny' also highlight that it is not necessary to smack. I dont watch it often, but the two or three times i have seen it, it seems like she basically uses time-out and loss of privileges, and when it is consistant, the behaviour comes back under control. I also have a friend who is very softly-softly with her kids, doesnt believe in discipline and DEFINATELY not in smacking... she reasons with the kids... it works to some extent, but they are really difficult to manage. They can't take no for an answer, they have to make a 'deal' with you, everything is a battle of compromises, doing anything or going anywhere takes forever cos they have to argue and 'deal' over shoes, coats, etc, and if the kids produce a tear, everything is dropped instantly and there are big long cuddle times. And when there is something that they 'have' to do (eg school) its really difficult for them. So i think that both approaches can be misused. |
| -fatty- 2850 31.08.2011 14:27 |
Instead of hitting my kids I find it's far easier to have them fight each other. We take them out into the garden, draw a chalk circle on the patio and let them slug it out over a period of no less than three 10 minute rounds. Not only does it teach them about dicipline but it's a great way for them to keep fit (apart from our youngest son who is sadly no longer with us). fatty. |
| FriedChicken 01.09.2011 05:25 |
I didn't say it's right to hit a kid. I would never do that if I had children. I just said I think it's hard to explain to a 2 year old that someone else can feel pain as well. |
| Micrówave 01.09.2011 11:36 |
Good Parenting 101 A Southern California man allegedly hit his crying 7-year-old son and then threw him off on a tour boat in busy Newport Harbor, Orange County, authorities said Tuesday. Sloane Briles, 35, of Irvine, California, has been charged with felony child endangerment and resisting arrest, the Orange County Sheriff's Office said. He was released Monday in lieu of a $100,000 bond. Briles, who's divorced, was on the tour boat Sunday afternoon with his two sons, ages 6 and 7, when he got into an argument with his current girlfriend, said sheriff's office spokesman Jim Amormino. Moral: Should have thrown the girlfriend overboard and avoided the bad press |
| john bodega 01.09.2011 12:52 |
"Should have thrown the girlfriend overboard and avoided the bad press" If she was a hooker, he might've even been able to claim some of the expenses back next financial year. |
| SiriuslySmitten 09.09.2011 07:47 |
When I was growing up, I only got a smack or spanking when I did something reeeeally bad. Like, if I cursed, or verbally disrespected my parents, I get a little pop on the mouth. Now a spanking...whew, you knew I'd done something bad - and my spanking I mean a good smack on the ass. I was never spanked with a belt or anything else like that. But...I grew up just fine. And if I had kids (I can't) I'd raise them the same way. The rest of my family does. BEATING a child is wrong, no matter how you slice it. I never understood why my folks would banish me to my room when I was bad. I mean, really. All my stuff is there. Like my Queen albums...my guitar...all my stuff. How is that punishment? My Dad got wise and would make me sit in the middle of my bed and not touch anything. That was brutal, although I usually fell asleep. lol |
| Micrówave 09.09.2011 16:02 |
SiriuslySmitten wrote: BEATING a child is wrong, no matter how you slice it. That's even worse!!!!! |