If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:42:01 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote: "Kane" wrote in message It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the world and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain and humiliation in parenting. One can find a 'link' to just about everything, Yes, one can. I've noticed the spankers do, just as you will do very soon in this reply of yours. Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain given by that child when she grows up? yet there is a vast difference between 'abuse' and 'spanking'. A claim frequently made and rarely defended with any rigor at all. There is a very fine and tenuous line between the two. Many variables are involved. The child, the parent, the events, the time of day, the reasons for the abuse or spanking, even the health of the child, and much more. To try to qualify the link by using the state of the world and it's societies, you are ignoring the ever growing psychobabble that we have been spoon fed for the past twenty years about the evils of spanking. I'm not ignoring it at all. I tend to view it, as I have written, as weak compared to my observations for over 40 years, in both professional mileu and private life. Perhaps the absence of spanking is the greatest link to the state of the world today? Doubtful given the prevalence. Since more and more begin to follow that advice almost daily. All you must do is come up with a lot of children who weren't spanked or punished in our prisons and mental wards. Should be easy. Give it a shot. Caveat: Note that other researches have gone bust trying to find them. I never had and I've looked. Or is that beyond your comprehension. Not in the least. I began at age 19 to consider this issue. Very shortly it became apparent to me that when the unspanked child still behaved badly it was more likely a product of other more severe emotional or psychological punishments. I suppose you use 'reason' to a small child of one or two to keep him from running into the street. Well it doesn't work. There we go again. I do not "'reason'" with small children. I set up systems, as humans have had to do since the times when small children were the favorite prey of pack and predatory animals that preyed on the edges of the human pack. Jerry Alborn answered this question most eloquently some time back. I'll point you to his comment: http://tinyurl.com/rfzq or http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...igy.com&rnum=1 Not only have I proven to my own satisfaction and written many times about the method I used to teach children not to run into traffic, I do know that punishment does not work to keep children from attempting to make street entries. I've posted this study before, and I'll post it again just for you, since you appear far more dedicated to discrediting me than to searching for facts that might confound your locked in belief....three of which you've already shared with us. Let's start with the bonifides of one of those you believe is spoon- feeding you psychobabble, shall we? Then I'll provide you with a little note about what his observations showed on the very question you bring up: http://www.paxis.org/people/DR.%20Em...aphy-1999.html And here is what he had to say about his study: In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry writes: "Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged children. (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading cause of death to young children in the United States.) "Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain parents' attention. "Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple: 1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe players play on the grass or sidewalk." 2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than playing dangerously. 3. Praise your child for safe play. "These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children stopped going into the street. Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D. University of Kansas Lawrence Kansas" So you see it's not about reasoning with the child as in cause and effect or other abstractions (and they are to the toddler), but to simple management of what abilities they do have...though this does NOT in any way endorse the idea that the child can be left unattended by a busy street. Even before one can learn to reason, they learn what behavior is harmful. A child will not touch a hot stove again once burned because of his curiosity, They assumption they won't try again is disproven, and waiting for them to find out when they are too young to be taught with non-punishing methods my and has resulted in serious lifelong scars for the child. I'll pass thank you and supervise my child until she is old enough to teach and even then I'll supervise. and a swat on the behind which may wind up saving it's life is well worthwhile in the long run. The stove is a direct logical consequence and may serve to teach the desired behavior (at the risk of a severe burn of course) one cannot allow the logical teaching consequence of letting a child be hit by a care to learn not to go into traffic. Before the age of reason it is quite confusing to the child to be running and playing, unaware of any impending danger, and have a giant swoop one up and lay on with vigor the child's behind. The words "car," "traffic," "street," and "don't," are very likely not going to be processed accurately, and we don't usually when we have sudden pain and fear layed on by someone. In fact most mothers that pay attention, and most have to, know that saying "don't" or "no" to a toddler will very likely result in them doing exactly what they were asked not to do, spank or no spank. Most spankers, especially those that kid themselves, wind up supervising just like we non punishers, and finally getting the child to the age they get it.....but we don't kid ourselves that it was punishment that did it. As we know it's the passage of time and the developing brain that much more likely turned the trick. I pity those who feel they can use 'reason' and 'logic' on a one or two year old, Me to, right along with those that think the child will understand the logic of being whacked a good'un and had words babbled at him or her. and just hope they don't realize how flawed and deadly their handling of a situation can truly be. On the contrary. The flaw much more likely arrises in the parent that believes, because the child froze a few times out of fear with the adult present, that they will do so when danger threatens. The child under six is going to have a very difficult time connecting the danger to the freezing because they will not have absorbed with any meaning what the defined danger actually is. They will merrily ride their tricycle behind the car backing out of the driveway and be terrified of going toward the street...not really knowing why. The fact of the matter is, lessons learned without fear and pain are far more powerful than those with. But I still, in either case, would not leave my child unsupervised...would you? Think you can spank them enough, creatively, to trust them to not go into traffic without you? You may not LIKE it, my examining and questioning, but there is nothing dishonest about it. If you think so I'm sure you can point out what is dishonest on my part by showing us the truth you think I am not showing. No? Kane It's doubtful the use of brain scans can provide much insight as to lessons learned by experience, even painful experience. Why? The point of the studies is to do just that. All they can do is measure the response of the brain to a situation, not the logical analytical thought involved pertaining to one's perceptions of the event. On dear, one of the poor souls that do not know of the extensive mapping of the brain going on for years now that identifies exactly such thing. They know precisely, for instance, where conscience derives in the brain, down to a small area. It can be tested with pics and other testing while the subject is having their brain scanned. Even the lowest of creatures react to pain, learn to avoid certain situations once they've experienced a bad consequence of their actions. It often takes a number of lessons in animal and human. Even a flatworm, famous in psych 202 college classes, will try a couple of more times to get to food and light at the expense of some pain. Eventually they will learn, but while MY child is learning she may well get to die from the lesson. Are you saying that humans are less than animals in their ability to deal with pain? Actually there isn't much difference in pain responses. Our human superiority is that we can, once we pass out of the animal linear thinking stage of toddler hood, make reasoned choices based on an analysis of the situation with all kinds of variables (as well learn by experimentation and later by study of other's work). Animals never get to our ability of abstraction and cause and effect reasoning. Some of the apes just skirt it but can be confounded by things that a grown human would laugh at if we presented them as a problem. We know the source and transport of water. Animals cannot figure that out. Once we reach the age of reason it is easy, quite, to figure out how one stays alive by staying out of traffic...I call it "The Flat Possum Lesson," though all I could ever find for my kids was a flat Racoon on that particular day. One was old enough for reason, the other old enough to believe his elder when she reactied to the lesson. I assume you know now to research a little, so why not do so next time out? The Embry Street Entry study is just one of those that give us more than a little hint that thousands of years of thumpin' butt may just not have been entirely in the best interests of our race. Check out Tom Edison....not only not spanked but pulled by his mother from school because of the hitting done to him by a teacher. I do not think Albert Einstein was spanked. At least the info about him from his teen years showed a remarkably indulgent family that pulled him from Gymnasium (HS) were he was failing mathematics, and sent him off to Italy to family friends to wander the sunny roads there and have what later was identified as his epiphany of E=MC2. All of our children who are spanked and punished, I estimate, has some portion, sometimes significant portions, of their development displaced into survival reactivity. It's a fascinating study. I hope you'll join in. The very first thing you need to do though is admit that there might be the slightest possibility that the spankers have erred. I don't think you can even entertain it as speculation, but I tried. Step two is easier if you have managed step one. Get a book on the stages of childhood development and project all the behaviors of children you know into that list. In other words, instead of thinking of children in terms of adult understandings of right and wrong, good and bad, evil, willful, etc. try thinking in terms of all behavior, before the age of 6, as being driven by nature...forced compulsive exploration of the environment, which you are just a part of to the child, once she does that 1.5 to 2 year old definition of self separate from the environment and YOU. Best of luck.. Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Kane" wrote in message m... On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:42:01 GMT, "Dennis Hancock" wrote: "Kane" wrote in message It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the world and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain and humiliation in parenting. One can find a 'link' to just about everything, Kane wrote: Yes, one can. I've noticed the spankers do, just as you will do very soon in this reply of yours. No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not exist. Amusing that you now can predict what others will say. Kane wrote: Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain given by that child when she grows up? I haven't seen a single person make that claim here, your kind of stretching a bit aren't you? Pain received in childhood teaches a child at the simplest most basic level to avoid certain situations BECAUSE they can be painful. It doesn't 'reduce' adulthood pain, it reinforces against stupid behavior. yet there is a vast difference between 'abuse' and 'spanking'. Kane wrote: A claim frequently made and rarely defended with any rigor at all. There is a very fine and tenuous line between the two. Many variables are involved. The child, the parent, the events, the time of day, the reasons for the abuse or spanking, even the health of the child, and much more. But it is YOU who seem to equate both equally. There is a hell of a difference between a swat on the butt with one's open hand and beating them unconscious with one's fist. Apparently, you cannot defferentiate between the two in your conclusions that all spanking equals abuse. I wrote: To try to qualify the link by using the state of the world and it's societies, you are ignoring the ever growing psychobabble that we have been spoon fed for the past twenty years about the evils of spanking. Kane wrote: I'm not ignoring it at all. I tend to view it, as I have written, as weak compared to my observations for over 40 years, in both professional mileu and private life. Most of the rest of us have had 'observations' for just as long or longer Kane. I've observed both spanked and non spanked kids, AND in fact reported abusive situations to cps myself. One of the things about personal observation is the ability to distinguish between useful spanking and outright abuse. We are given minds to make that distinction with. Perhaps the absence of spanking is the greatest link to the state of the world today? Doubtful given the prevalence. Since more and more begin to follow that advice almost daily. Kane wrote: All you must do is come up with a lot of children who weren't spanked or punished in our prisons and mental wards. Should be easy. Give it a shot. Another straw man here Kane? It was YOU who made the claim that spanking leads to all these conditions, not I, nor any of the other debaters in here. Thus far, you've failed to show credibility in providing that proof. Caveat: Note that other researches have gone bust trying to find them. I never had and I've looked. Or is that beyond your comprehension. Not in the least. I began at age 19 to consider this issue. Very shortly it became apparent to me that when the unspanked child still behaved badly it was more likely a product of other more severe emotional or psychological punishments. You still haven't considered but the tip of the subject. emotional abuse can be much worse than physical abuse in many cases. I would much prefer a spanking than being abused emotionally, just as I would prefer a spanking over physical abuse. Again, you fail to look beyond a simple glance at the surface. I suppose you use 'reason' to a small child of one or two to keep him from running into the street. Well it doesn't work. There we go again. I do not "'reason'" with small children. I set up systems, as humans have had to do since the times when small children were the favorite prey of pack and predatory animals that preyed on the edges of the human pack. I can tell you have had absolutely no, or very limited contact with small children. Guess what, many of the grand 'systems' of conduct just don't work with some children. And the parent who truly understands this, knows which children need reinforcement and which of their children don't. Any parent who approached teaching all of their children in exactly the same way is surely doomed to fail in their teachings of at least one of them. Jerry Alborn answered this question most eloquently some time back. I'll point you to his comment: http://tinyurl.com/rfzq or http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...igy.com&rnum=1 Not only have I proven to my own satisfaction and written many times about the method I used to teach children not to run into traffic, I do know that punishment does not work to keep children from attempting to make street entries. I've posted this study before, and I'll post it again just for you, since you appear far more dedicated to discrediting me than to searching for facts that might confound your locked in belief....three of which you've already shared with us. No, Im discrediting your beliefs. I can wager that you never lived in the inner city, on a heavily populated street whereby small children run into traffic all the time. As a child I watched a friend of mine get his head crushed by a truck's tire. Of course I suppose it's easy to simply lock the small child up all day, but anyone who has had to chase one around for a few hours surely knows that simply telling them something is bad just simply doesn't work. Let's start with the bonifides of one of those you believe is spoon- feeding you psychobabble, shall we? Then I'll provide you with a little note about what his observations showed on the very question you bring up: http://www.paxis.org/people/DR.%20Em...aphy-1999.html And here is what he had to say about his study: In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry writes: "Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged children. (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading cause of death to young children in the United States.) "Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain parents' attention. "Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple: 1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe players play on the grass or sidewalk." 2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than playing dangerously. 3. Praise your child for safe play. "These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children stopped going into the street. Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D. University of Kansas Lawrence Kansas" Is that supposed to 'impress' someone who has lived in this situation? I say it's total bull****, from another psychologist who simply wants to get his 'finding's published as some caveat. First of all, giving a swat on the butt for approaching the street is not 'NAGGING'.. lol. Once you've taught the small child that nearing the street is painful, it stops, no need for 'nagging'. Sounds more like the 'talk to your child approach' which has caused more children to run into the streets. Give them a 'positive' way, play on the grass etc? Again, you ASS U ME that the child is old enough to understand. Where I lived, we had a small mound of dirt between apartments, surrounded by concrete. Or in the back, railroad tracks. Tell me HOW you find a positive play place in that situation. LOL.. I can imagine a parent walking up to a child every few minutes and hand them stickers, or say, 'great job playing'. Get real. That scenario only assumes that the child already has the ability to comprehend and is already avoiding dangerous situations. You've only reinforced the nonsense of the pyschobabble just as I suspected. So you see it's not about reasoning with the child as in cause and effect or other abstractions (and they are to the toddler), but to simple management of what abilities they do have...though this does NOT in any way endorse the idea that the child can be left unattended by a busy street. LOL.. now you've done what I predicted you would, portray that the parent simply leaves their child unattended on a busy street. For an 'expert' with much observation, you apparently have not chased a child down who decides it's fun to 'play' .. example.. I took my sister and her kids camping. My two year old nephew decided he needed to go to the restroom and started running towards it. Only problem was, we were behind it and there was a six foot drop off at the retaining wall. I nearly dropped from exhaustion as I chased him.. calling him only made him laugh and run faster.. I managed to catch him JUST as his one foot went over the edge as he was looking back at me. By applying YOUR tactics, I would have wound up with a dead nephew instead of a near heart attack. Even before one can learn to reason, they learn what behavior is harmful. A child will not touch a hot stove again once burned because of his curiosity, They assumption they won't try again is disproven, and waiting for them to find out when they are too young to be taught with non-punishing methods my and has resulted in serious lifelong scars for the child. I'll pass thank you and supervise my child until she is old enough to teach and even then I'll supervise. BULL****.. the fact IS proven, time and time again. Just ask ANYONE who has touched a hot stove, or hot iron and ask if they ever did it again? Spanked or not spanked. Your assumption that it is not proven shows a disdain for human intelligence, even at the most primitive level. and a swat on the behind which may wind up saving it's life is well worthwhile in the long run. The stove is a direct logical consequence and may serve to teach the desired behavior (at the risk of a severe burn of course) one cannot allow the logical teaching consequence of letting a child be hit by a care to learn not to go into traffic. Before the age of reason it is quite confusing to the child to be running and playing, unaware of any impending danger, and have a giant swoop one up and lay on with vigor the child's behind. The words "car," "traffic," "street," and "don't," are very likely not going to be processed accurately, and we don't usually when we have sudden pain and fear layed on by someone. Nonsense again. The swat on the butt is clearly associated with the action itself. Again, you assume that a child has less intelligence than an animal who learns by association the consequences surrounding the event. In fact most mothers that pay attention, and most have to, know that saying "don't" or "no" to a toddler will very likely result in them doing exactly what they were asked not to do, spank or no spank. Most spankers, especially those that kid themselves, wind up supervising just like we non punishers, and finally getting the child to the age they get it.....but we don't kid ourselves that it was punishment that did it. As we know it's the passage of time and the developing brain that much more likely turned the trick. Right.. that's why so many are self indulgent, spoiled little brats who generally wind up bribing their way through life because they had so much success at upsetting the parents and getting exactly what they wanted in order to follow prescribed behavior. I pity those who feel they can use 'reason' and 'logic' on a one or two year old, Me to, right along with those that think the child will understand the logic of being whacked a good'un and had words babbled at him or her. and just hope they don't realize how flawed and deadly their handling of a situation can truly be. On the contrary. The flaw much more likely arrises in the parent that believes, because the child froze a few times out of fear with the adult present, that they will do so when danger threatens. The child under six is going to have a very difficult time connecting the danger to the freezing because they will not have absorbed with any meaning what the defined danger actually is. Your talking in circles again Kane, showing you've truly lost the logic of your debate. Children are much more intelligent and much more manipulative than you can even comprehend. They KNOW what they are being spanked for, it's not 'freezing'.. and they associate that pain with the action. They will merrily ride their tricycle behind the car backing out of the driveway and be terrified of going toward the street...not really knowing why. Truly stretching there huh Kane? And I haven't come up with a fraction of the basic logic that some of the others in this debate have thrown towards you. Explain your nonsense then... How the hell do you teach a child to avoid traffic .. cars backing out of a driveway??? If you are too insensitive to teach them to stay out of the street? Geez.. Oh yeah, you'll 'talk' to them. Sorry dude, your methods only wind up getting more kids killed than most other methods of child rearing. The fact of the matter is, lessons learned without fear and pain are far more powerful than those with. Where's your proof? Most of your studies have been flawed and result only from your personal observations. And for someone who has done so much extensive observing of children, one wonders how you had much time for anything else. Your credibility is truly lacking here. But I still, in either case, would not leave my child unsupervised...would you? No one has ever said they should, that's another straw man and you know it. The typical mantra of a non spanker, keep your children under lock and key 24 hours a day from birth til adulthood else you are a bad parent should you resort to spanking. Think you can spank them enough, creatively, to trust them to not go into traffic without you? You may not LIKE it, my examining and questioning, but there is nothing dishonest about it. If you think so I'm sure you can point out what is dishonest on my part by showing us the truth you think I am not showing. No? Kane It's doubtful the use of brain scans can provide much insight as to lessons learned by experience, even painful experience. Why? The point of the studies is to do just that. All they can do is measure the response of the brain to a situation, not the logical analytical thought involved pertaining to one's perceptions of the event. On dear, one of the poor souls that do not know of the extensive mapping of the brain going on for years now that identifies exactly such thing. They know precisely, for instance, where conscience derives in the brain, down to a small area. It can be tested with pics and other testing while the subject is having their brain scanned. Even the lowest of creatures react to pain, learn to avoid certain situations once they've experienced a bad consequence of their actions. It often takes a number of lessons in animal and human. Even a flatworm, famous in psych 202 college classes, will try a couple of more times to get to food and light at the expense of some pain. Eventually they will learn, but while MY child is learning she may well get to die from the lesson. Are you saying that humans are less than animals in their ability to deal with pain? Actually there isn't much difference in pain responses. Our human superiority is that we can, once we pass out of the animal linear thinking stage of toddler hood, make reasoned choices based on an analysis of the situation with all kinds of variables (as well learn by experimentation and later by study of other's work). Animals never get to our ability of abstraction and cause and effect reasoning. Some of the apes just skirt it but can be confounded by things that a grown human would laugh at if we presented them as a problem. Of course they don't.. that's why your 'logic' is flawed in believing that you can set limits on a child before the age of reason, and expect them to follow them without reinforcement, both negative and positive. A completely positive approach does absolutely nothing, just as a completely negative approach. You are hung up on only a single aspect on the topic, and ignore the rest. Which shows your failure to comprehend and apply that abstraction. We know the source and transport of water. Animals cannot figure that out. What does that have to do with this subject Kane? Animals DO know instinctively that they must drink the water, they don't have to know where it's coming from. And animals DO learn from painful experience to avoid certain things, only proving that short term pain can be a learning experience. Once we reach the age of reason it is easy, quite, to figure out how one stays alive by staying out of traffic...I call it "The Flat Possum Lesson," though all I could ever find for my kids was a flat Racoon on that particular day. One was old enough for reason, the other old enough to believe his elder when she reactied to the lesson. Not true at all. Once a child has been spoiled, it becomes difficult to change the pattern of behavior developed very young. A child used to getting his/her way for throwing tantrums is not going to simply 'believe' his/her elder .. they expect something in return, because this is the system you've already established in them. I assume you know now to research a little, so why not do so next time out? I have researched Kane.. much more than you and it appears much less believing in psychobabble which has been shown to be nothing more than nonesense. I come from a large family, and being the oldest, have 'observed' many more issues among young children than you seem to be portraying in your vast 'experiences'. The Embry Street Entry study is just one of those that give us more than a little hint that thousands of years of thumpin' butt may just not have been entirely in the best interests of our race. Check out Tom Edison....not only not spanked but pulled by his mother from school because of the hitting done to him by a teacher. I do not think Albert Einstein was spanked. At least the info about him from his teen years showed a remarkably indulgent family that pulled him from Gymnasium (HS) were he was failing mathematics, and sent him off to Italy to family friends to wander the sunny roads there and have what later was identified as his epiphany of E=MC2. All of our children who are spanked and punished, I estimate, has some portion, sometimes significant portions, of their development displaced into survival reactivity. It's a fascinating study. I hope you'll join in. The very first thing you need to do though is admit that there might be the slightest possibility that the spankers have erred. I don't think you can even entertain it as speculation, but I tried. No Kane, your nonsense is complete and utter bull****, and you want to believe it so badly, that you tend to put down everyone else. It is YOU who want to try to discredit others, simply because you've run out of logic, and been shown to be a complete fraud time and time again on this newsgroup. Step two is easier if you have managed step one. Get a book on the stages of childhood development and project all the behaviors of children you know into that list. Kane, guess what? There were NO books on childhood development in the earlier stages of our history, and people fared quite well. You want a list of names to try to 'impress" people with, well, just open a history book and Im quite sure that you will find that 90 percent or better of our greatest leaders had been spanked as children. Understand something before it's too late, or with you, it probably is. There are NO manuals on being a parent, and anyone who thinks they can read bull**** from psychologists who most likely never had children are kidding themselves. In other words, instead of thinking of children in terms of adult understandings of right and wrong, good and bad, evil, willful, etc. try thinking in terms of all behavior, before the age of 6, as being driven by nature...forced compulsive exploration of the environment, which you are just a part of to the child, once she does that 1.5 to 2 year old definition of self separate from the environment and YOU. Best of luck.. Kane LOL.. Kane, you truly amuse me. It is YOU who tend to treat children as adults with reasoning power.. I think you've completely lost it here. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Debate on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | June 12th 04 08:30 PM |
A great article on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | February 28th 04 12:27 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 03:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 05:27 AM |
|| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 0 | October 9th 03 08:35 PM |