"IMO Play2Win referring to Judge Reynolds as part of the problem is just a poorly considered dismissive line."
He is part of the problem by adopting a blanket approach. Everyone is different. Some kids don't need a smack - others continually push boundaries and do.
When they are little they have no concept of boundaries and need to be taught. The first thing they need to learn when the can crawl is to do, or not do, as they are told. If they refuse to obey the spoken word, they need to learn that they will get hurt. The psychological damage of a smack on the leg is, IMO, insignificant compared to putting the child back in his cot, strapping them in a pram or denying them food - about the only "privileges" one can deny a crawler. They just won't understand at that age.
But the smack must never be administered in anger. It must be clear that they are being smacked simply because they are not doing as they are told. They have no responsibilities, they must submit to authority. As they get older than the boundaries are relaxed, and they can understand the withholding of privileges for transgressions of remaining boundaries. Hopefully you've got it all sorted before they become teenagers ....... I've got three.
We know a family who had three children. All of them grew up to be great kids. They may never have been smacked, but their parents were very pleased that they had done so well with them. Respectful, obedient, mature beyond their years, etc. The parents were a bit judgemental of other parents whose kids weren't the same. They must be doing something wrong. When the youngest was ten, though, they had a little surprise. Turned out to be the child from hell. Big shock. Two loving parents and three loving siblings.
