Talk:Paddle (spanking)

Gloria Brame[edit]

I have removed stuff about erotic spanking which cites Gloria Brame (http://www.gloria-brame.com). This is clearly a fetish website and not a serious scientific source. Respectable sources do not have web pages with headings like "Inside the oversexed mind of Gloria Brame".

Anyway, all this is not specifically relevant to paddling. It is about BDSM and belongs under "erotic spanking", to which there is already a link from this page. Alarics (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is a Wikipedia page about Gloria Brame and that she is the author of at least 4 books. I was trying to explain the physiological factors that lead people to use paddles for "fun spankings". DPS145192 (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the WP page about Gloria Brame is entirely lacking in references, other than four of her own books! (Also, several of the contributions to it have been made by "GloriaBrame", which is surely against the rules.) Anyway, whether "sexology" is a respectable science or not, the more important point is that this is a very minor aspect of the subject of paddling, and having a whole paragraph about it distorts the article, per wp:undue. I think it is enough that there is a link to erotic spanking and it is to that article that I suggest you should add your paragraph. Alarics (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse is not an "untoward allegation"[edit]

Rhonda Rose's allegation that the paddling of her daughter constituted sexual abuse was not "untoward"; i.e., unexpected and inappropriate or inconvenient. School teachers and administrators are fully aware that a female's buttocks contain sexually sensitive nerves. They know that striking a schoolgirl's buttocks with a paddle is an act of sexual abuse but they blithely ignore this indisputable fact. It is totally disgraceful for Wikipedia to try to conceal the sexual abuse of women and girls by using the euphemism "untoward allegations" and it's a gross insult to Mrs. Rose, who correctly described the paddling of her daughter as an act of "sexual abuse". In the following paragraph, "Doctor Mike" explains why paddling can cause orgasms and involuntary urination.

Wetting during corporal punishment

by Doctor Mike on Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:02 pm

An interesting point. I do believe that, although rare, children, and especially girls, have occasionally wet their pants/knickers while undergoing corporal punishment in the form of caning, paddling or slippering, when applied to the buttocks. There have been very few, if any cases of wetting when the punishment is applied to the hands. As I explained on the “orgasm during corporal punishment” thread, this phenomenon of wetting also has a physiological explanation. The phyisiological reasons why severe corporal punishment, applied to the buttocks, can cause a temporary, involuntary, loss of bladder control are very similar to those that can trigger involuntary orgasm. It is all to do with the complex sympathetic nerve structure in the pelvic, and especially the pelvic floor region. As I mentioned on the orgasm thread, the nerve branches which sensitise the skin of the buttocks, and the gluteal muscles beneath the skin, are part of the same nerve network, and share the same nerve roots, as those that sensitise the pelvic floor, including the genitals, clitoris, urethra, perineum and anus. Violent stimulus applied to the buttocks causes both a blood rush to the whole pelvic floor region, and a sympathetic stimulation, via the nerve roots, to the other nerve branches in the pelvic floor. It is this sympathetic stimulation which can affect control of the pelvic floor muscles, which in turn control the neck of the bladder and urethra...

continued at http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/board/wetting-during-school-corporal-punishment-t175248.html

DPS145192 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know whether her allegation was justified or not. To say that "School teachers and administrators are fully aware that .... striking a schoolgirl's buttocks with a paddle is an act of sexual abuse" is absurd. They are not aware of that, because it probably isn't generally true. For some weeks you have been trying to infiltrate your anti-paddling views into this article. You are perfectly entitled to your private opinions, but Wikipedia has to remain neutral per wp:NPOV. And you don't help your case by citing a dubious messageboard thread from a celebrity gossip site that is plainly frequented largely by fantasists. Please stick to neutral facts for which there is a reliable source per wp:RS. Alarics (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a reliable source for the physiological fact that a female's buttocks contain sexually sensitive nerve endings and you deleted that reference. It was, "Givens, David (1985). Love signals: a practical field guide to the body language of courtship. Random House: New York, NY. ISBN 0517550377, ISBN 978-0517550373". A female's buttocks contain sexually sensitive nerves which directly innervate her clitoris. Those nerves are naturally stimulated during dorso-ventral copulation (doggy style sexual intercourse) and thus provide some of the stimulation that triggers an orgasm. A female's buttocks are functional elements of her reproductive system. A female's buttocks are sex organs and you should be able to comprehend the proposition that using a board to smash a girls buttocks is an act of sexual abuse.

You also eliminated the reference to the Congressional testimony of Dr. Greydanus about paddling causing PTSD, while the existing Waters reference (Corporal Punishment and Trauma) contains information about a student named Joshua Watson, who was paddled and then diagnosed as having PTSD and then treated with "antidepressants and medication for anxiety". Paddling causes PTSD but that FACT cannot appear in the article. Why?

You make it look like no child has been physically or mentally injured by paddling since James Ingraham was literally beaten bloody in 1970. You eliminated the reference to Jessica Smith being forcibly restrained (held upside down by her ankles) and beaten bloody with a 4-foot-long wooden paddle in 2004. And now we have the account of a student who was grabbed by two school employees and literally dragged, while he was screaming, into an office and beaten. See http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/eady_our_students_deserve_better_030310/ Would you eliminate that reference too? Why?

Rhonda Rose was absolutely right and you know it! Please don't be an apologist for people who sexually abuse women and girls.

DPS145192 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that paddling normally constitutes sexual abuse. Quoting one or two extreme cases, some of which are mere uncorroborated allegations, just gives a completely false impression of the overall situation. Wikipedia is not a place for disseminating your personal views, or for arguing the toss about whether or not girls should be paddled. It has to restrict itself to providing balanced and neutral information. Alarics (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You use the word normally like it's some kind of magic wand that makes everything okay. The sexually sensitive nerves in a female's buttocks do not normally and magically cease functioning the instant that she sets foot on the grounds of a school. Those nerves are active 24/7. Those nerves are normally active when she is tackled by the school principal and they are normally active when she is being held upside down by her ankles and they are normally active when the principal smashes her buttocks bloody with a 4-foot-long board. And smashing her buttocks is absolutely no different than if the principal had brought the paddle down between her legs and smashed her vulva, which contains the same sexually sensitive nerves that are in her buttocks. It's sexual abuse either way and you know it and trying to sugar coat it with "untoward allegations" is disgraceful. You should have the courage to call it what it is: "sexual abuse".

They have been sexually abusing female students for so long that they are afraid to admit it and just stop. The paddlers are like the asbestos and tobacco companies, which insisted and insisted that their products were not dangerous while their own secret studies proved that the opposite was true. DPS145192 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you are simply wasting your time giving your personal opinions here. They are of no relevance to the article. Alarics (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong; it's not "absurd". Six teachers have admitted to me that they know spanking paddles are used for erotic stimulation. One of those teachers told me that she gave her husband a professionally made, erotically decorated paddle as a Saint Valentine's Day gift and that he has become very good at using it to induce orgasms. Teachers know that they are beating the sexually sensitive areas of student's bodies and say, for example, "Hey, that's just the system." But just because that's "the system" doesn't make it any less of an act of sexual abuse. Please don't try to hide that abuse with euphemisms. DPS145192 (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for endless rants giving our own personal views on the subject, which are completely irrelevant. The present wording is OK. It has to present a neutral point of view (NPOV) under WP rules. Unless you can leave your own POV at the door, please leave the article alone. Alarics (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School Paddling v. Home Belting[edit]

Alarics, you cited a North Carolina case that involved a father using a belt to strike a child in his home. That case is not about using a paddle to administer corporal punishment at a school. I think it is inappropriate to include that kind of "domestic" corporal punishment reference in the section about using spanking paddles in schools. I have therefore revised your edits. DPS145192 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant because the court was considering whether bruises can be called an injury, which is a question that legally must apply irrespective of the implement and of whether the paddling was administered parentally or by school. Alarics (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that "Bruising does not of itself constitute injury" is very strange. Bruising (hematoma) is the result of injury. Whether or not a particular injury, inflicted by corporal punishment, constitutes a tort and/or a crime is a matter for a court to decide. For example, a court decided that Laree Slack was murdered. Please do not confuse the injury with the legal standard (e.g., "serious injury") for deciding whether or not a particular injury constitutes a tort or crime. And please do not use the term "normal paddling" unless you are going to provide a definition of that term. DPS145192 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Normal paddling" is the 99.999% of paddlings that do not cause any problem or injury and which are accepted withut fuss. I do not believe that a superficial bruise indicates injury in any meaningful sense. Many of your edits seem to be pushing an anti-paddling POV and the article ends up giving the impression that paddling often causes injury or damage, which is complete nonsense. Alarics (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wall of a capillary is only one cell thick. Paddling creates pressures that can easily cause the wall of a capillary to burst open, resulting in internal bleeding and a bruise (hematoma). Some bruises are classified as "light" while others are classified as "moderate", "serious", or "critical" (life threatening). Whether a particular bruise should be classified as "light" and therefore legally acceptable or "serious" and therefore evidence of a tort or crime is a question that can be and is sometimes litigated, as illustrated by the two legal references that you added. What is not in doubt is the fact that paddling is a blunt force trauma that often causes tissue damage (the bursting blood vessels) and internal bleeding and the formation of bruises.

A light bruise can be lethal to a person who has hemophilia. Is it lawful to paddle a student who has hemophilia if the paddling only causes a light bruise? Is it legal to paddle a comparatively healthy student and cause a critical bruise? The courts deal with these kinds of questions; that's there job.

I don't know what part of the country you are from but in Texas they routinely hit students hard enough to lift them off their feet and that much force almost always results in internal bleeding and bruises, and that's completely legal in Texas. DPS145192 (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what DPS145192 wrote is both incorrect and POV. School officials in Texas do not "routinely hit students hard enough to lift them off their feet." Indeed, that isn't even possible because the student is positioned so that the paddle makes contact above their center of gravity. Thus, no matter how much force is applied, the paddle doesn't give any lift. The paddling done in schools rarely "results in internal bleeding and bruises" and when this form of corporal punishment occurs, it is usually because the student himself chose it instead of a lengthy detention or multi-day suspension. While I'm not an advocate of paddling, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled that it is legal in U.S. schools and nineteen states may use it in their public schools while forty-eight states may employ paddling in their private schools.TL36 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so, it is completely legal in Texas and several other states. That being so, we can assume that it is generally socially accepted there, which may differ from your point of view but still is a point of view that ought to be represented in a balanced article. This is particularly so when, as is often the case nowadays, it is carried out with parental consent. I never heard of anyone dying from a light bruise. Describing a light bruise as "internal bleeding" might be medically correct but is highly misleading. For many people, a light bruise is neither here nor there. The article should not take it as read that paddling is "a bad thing" when there are such widely differing views. Alarics (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the second paragraph of the "Paddling as punishment in U.S. schools" section is accurate. That paragraph might be extended to include the following: The amount of force that can lawfully be used to strike a student varies from one jurisdiction to another. In one jurisdiction, striking a student with enough force to cause a "light" or "moderate" bruise might be regarded as evidence of abuse while, in another jurisdiction, it might be lawful to strike a student with enough force to cause an "extremely serious" or "critical" bruise or even a bleeding wound. Would this extension satisfy you? DPS145192 (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely, but it would probably be an improvement. Alarics (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the school corporal punishment laws in various states, I have discovered that schools officials can beat a student bloody and be statutorily immune from civil and criminal liability for that beating while a parent who inflicts the same injury on a child in the home will be arrested and sent to prison. School officials can use "reasonable" force and what is reasonable in one jurisdiction will be regarded as "excessive" in another jurisdiction. In one jurisdiction, "reasonable" might be based on a "serious injury" standard while in another jurisdiction any amount of force is permitted, up to but not including lethal force. Explaining all that goes way beyond the scope of this article so I am not going to add anything to that second paragraph. Someone could try to sort out all those legal nuances and add a few paragraphs to the main article about School Corporal Punishment. DPS145192 (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any school official in this day and age who beats "a student bloody" is going to be fired from their job. You're not only POV but initiating a straw man argument when writing the school official is immune from civil and criminal liability for administering a "beating" that would put a parent in prison.TL36 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed edits - alleged injuries, sourcing issues[edit]

Some newly added material was removed by Alarics in this edit. First of all, I agree that the anonymous To Whom it May Concern piece should not be used as a reference. Although it may well be entirely accurate, it is a very personal account, and we have no way of knowing (and the authors of the website that published it would presumably have no way of knowing) its authenticity or to what extent it was coloured by the passage of time.

The "No Vital Organs There, So They Say" essay is rather different. Although it's obviously written with a very specific POV, and it's published by a website that has an even stronger POV, it's still written by a named qualified pediatric surgeon who states that an injury of a certain type occurred as a result of this type of punishment. The reason for removal as given in the edit summary, is that Alarics doesn't consider this type of injury to be a possible outcome of the way the punishment is currently supposed to be administered. That's a personal opinion - it's WP:OR.

Regarding the nospank site more generally, there may be certain things for which it is useable as a source. Admittedly, it has a specific stated mission and viewpoint (so does the Southern Poverty Law Center which is widely used as a source on Wikipedia), but it lists its substantial board of Trustees, and some of their backgrounds, on its website. By contrast, World Corporal Punishment Research, which is extensively cited on corporal punishment articles in Wikipedia, seems to have only a single editor, and although it is very comprehensive and states that it does not promote any particular viewpoint, the site owner does admit "readers may find editorial asides by me here and there", and indeed it's very clear that he has a specific viewpoint on corporal punishment. That doesn't disqualify ever using his personal website as a source, but I think it does support putting the nospank website rather on the same level. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they are probably on roughly the same level for Wikipedia purposes, though "nospank" is much more POV. I declare an interest as editor of WCPR. Both of those sites reproduce a lot of factual material such as mainstream news items, references to legislation, etc. with their source carefully cited and these may, I think, be considered as reliable sources where the original source cited is iself a WP:RS but is not otherwise available on line. I have the impression that most of the references to WCPR in Wikipedia (mostly not inserted by me, I should perhaps point out) fall into this category. Statements by either website on its own behalf (opinion rather than reliably sourced facts) should be used only as a source for what that website thinks, not a source of objective facts. Somewhat similarly, the "Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment Of Children" (GITEACPOC) at http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/ gives the impression of being a reliable source of summary information about the state of the law on this subject in every country -- at least, Wikipedia editors generally seem to have thought so -- but is clearly POV when it comes to stating what it thinks about these facts or what it thinks should happen. -- Alarics (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a man in our office to do me a small favor. He is about 5'10". He bent over a desk and rested on his elbows (not with his body flat on the desk). Still, it was very easy for me to see that when he spread his legs two feet apart a poorly aimed paddle strike could hit his scrotum. I stand by my assertion that a "feet wide apart" paddling policy is stupid and should be illegal. I believe that the reference to Dr. Taylor's essay should be put back into the article, if for no other reason than to warn school administrators that their feet-wide-apart paddling policy is an accident waiting to happen, again! Wikipedia does not have to take a position on this issue, just provide a pertinent warning.

In regard to the woman who reported being instructed to spread her "feet wide apart", if she still lives in that school district, and if her two children are attending schools in that district, those children could be violently retaliated against if their mother's name were published with that essay. School administrators might angrily conclude that she had undermined the chances of school construction bonds being approved by the voters of the district. Her name should continue to be withheld. AnnaBennett (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that "feet wide apart" has generally been a requirement in recent times in US paddling schools. And if it were such a dangerous practice, it seems odd that so few cases have been reported in which such an injury occurred. It clearly has not in practice been a major problem, so devoting space to it as if it were a significant factor seems to me to be WP:UNDUE. -- Alarics (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also point out that "conducting an experiment" in your office is clearly original research and cannot be used as the basis for anything in Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is not Wikipedia's job to "provide a pertinent warning" to anyone about anything. We must confine ourselves to factual information from reliable published sources. -- Alarics (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawful and unlawful paddling[edit]

I have deleted the short section with this heading: (a) The first sentence only reiterates what has already been said elsewhere in the article. (b) I have transferred the reference to the English common-law doctrine of "in loco parentis" to a new sentence in School corporal punishment, since it relates to that subject in general, not just paddling (and not just the United States). (c) It goes without saying that someone who paddles a person without legal authority, whatever their motives, is committing an assault. In the case cited, the perpetrator was not legally permitted to administer corporal punishment because corporal punishment had been banned in public schools in New Hampshire 27 years previously and, in any event, the assaults reported did not take place at the school or in the context of a school activity. Furthermore, the legal case reported does not appear to establish any new point of law that would be relevant to this article. -- Alarics (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disposable Paddles?[edit]

I attended high school in Mississippi back in the early to mid 90's, where a new standard was enacted. I don't know off hand if this was due to a law, or just a ruling by the school, but think it might be worth mentioning.

In order to prevent instances where paddles broke or became splintered and caused injury, the schools started using "disposable" paddles. These were relatively thin pieces of plywood (maybe a quarter inch thick) which were intended for a single use only. If memory serves, there was a two fold idea behind having the paddle so thin. Basically it prevented the person administering the paddling from striking too hard, since doing so would simply break the paddle; while at the same time it (as I noted above) would prevent a paddle from splintering since they were only used for one student and discarded.

It's also worth noting that the number of "licks" allowed varies by state. The typical average is 3 licks per offense, with no more than 9 in a full day.Kitsunedawn (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An intriguing novelty, but would need some evidence from a reliable source. Unfortunately an editor's own personal experience does not constitute a reliable source.

Some school handbooks mention a maximum number of licks but many do not. It can vary between different school districts in the same state, never mind between states. -- Alarics (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Paddle (spanking). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]