Thu, Feb 28, 2008 (HealthDay News) — Researchers have uncovered another damaging consequence of spanking: risky sexual behaviors, or even sexual deviancy, when the child grows up.

"This adds one more harmful side effect to spanking," said Murray Straus, a spanking expert who was expected to present the findings of four studies at the American Psychological Association's Summit on Violence and Abuse in Relationships in Bethesda, Md., on Thursday.

"I think that it's pretty powerful," said Elizabeth Gershoff, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan's School of Social Work. "It's across several studies and across different forms of either risky or deviant sexual behavior."

Straus, who was the author of all four studies, hopes the findings will raise awareness among child development experts.

"My hope is to convince my colleagues that they ought to put this in their textbooks," said Straus, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, in Durham. "It's amazing. Something experienced by all American kids gets an average of half a page in child development textbooks, and not a single one comes to the conclusion that parents should never spank."

Even the revered Dr. Spock, who was anti-spanking, never came right out and advised parents outright not to do it, he added. Instead, Spock advised "avoiding it if you can."

A meta-analysis of spanking studies conducted by Gershoff found 93 percent agreement among studies that spanking can lead to such problems as delinquent and anti-social behavior in childhood along with aggression, criminal and anti-social behavior and spousal or child abuse as an adult.

"There's probably nothing else in child development that has 93 percent agreement in results," Straus said.

Five percent of people who have never been spanked hit their partners, versus 25 percent of those who were spanked frequently.

However, some 90 percent of U.S. parents spank toddlers, according to Straus.

The review being presented at the meeting are the first to look at the relationship of spanking to sexual behavior.

They found that spanking and other corporal punishment is associated with an increased probability of verbally and physically coercing a dating partner to have sex; risky sex such as premarital sex without using a condom; and masochistic sex such as spanking during sex.

There is a "dose response" at work here. "The more parents spank, the higher the probability of harmful side effects," Straus noted.

Of course, there's a similar dose response for smokers. But if someone reaches the age of 65 without developing lung cancer, it doesn't mean that smoking isn't harmful. It means the person was one of the lucky ones.

It's the same with spanking, Straus said. "If a person says, 'I was spanked, and I don't have any interest in bondage and discipline sex, that's correct, but it's not because spanking is OK, it's because they're one of the lucky ones."

And spanking a child once may be like picking up that first cigarette. "The trouble is, if you have a 2-year-old, you pretty soon decide you can't avoid it. The recidivism rate for whatever 'crime' you correct a 2-year-old for is about 50 percent in two hours."

"I've been researching corporal punishment for 30 years and, in the course of that time, the evidence has accumulated that it doesn't work any better than non-corporal punishment but has harmful side effects. I have come to the conclusion that parents should never, ever spank because, although it does work, it's no better than non-hitting methods that don't have harmful side effects. If there was an FDA for spanking, they'd say use an alternative that doesn't have harmful side effects."

Every year, 9 million babies are snatched from their mothers after birth

All females used for milk are torn from their babies shortly after birth. Some try to fight off the attackers, some try to shield their babies with their own bodies, some chase frantically after the transport, some cry pitifully, some withdraw in silent despair. Some go trustingly with their keepers only to return to an empty stall.

They all beg for their babies in language that requires no translation: They bellow, they cry, they moan. Many continue to call for days and nights on end. Some stop eating and drinking. They search feverishly. Many refuse to give up and will return to the empty spot again and again. Some withdraw in silent grief.

They all remember to their last breath the face, the scent, the voice, the gait of every baby they carried for nine months, sundered to, birthed with difficulty, bathed, loved, and never got to know, nurture, protect, and watch live.

After repeated cycles of forced impregnations, painful births, relentless milkings, and crushing bereavements, their spirit gives, their bodies wither, their milk dries up. At the age when, in nature, a female cow would barely enter adulthood, the life of a dairy cow is over. When her milk “production” declines, she and her other “spent” herd mates are trucked off to slaughter. Some are pregnant. All are still lactating.

As they are shoved towards death, they drip milk onto the killing floor.

Every year, millions of newborns are killed for their mothers’ milk

All babies born to females used for milk production are torn from their mothers shortly after birth. They are barely days old, umbilical chords still attached, coats still slick from the birth fluids, legs wobbly, eyes unfocused. They are defenseless. They are frightened. They cry pitifully.

They all beg for their mothers in language that requires no translation. They beg for the life-sustaining warmth of their mothers’ presence, the heartbeat that promised life and protection long before they were born, the comfort of their mothers’ scent and voice, the nourishing milk that is their birthright.

Chained in dark, coffin-sized veal crates, they search feverishly for anybody to bond with, anything to nurse on. Their curious minds cling to any stray object that may break the endless monotony they are forced to endure, any opportunity to learn and expand. Their developing bodies desperately need movement, sunshine, play, nourishment, nurture.

Calves destined for veal are fed a nutrient deficient, anemia inducing diet and are denied any opportunity to move in order to make their
muscles weak and pale enough to be sold as “white veal”. In their critical need for iron, they lick the rusty nails that stick out of the cage walls.

At 4 months old, having never been allowed to move or even turn around in their lives, they are too weak to walk on their own. Men drag them out of their cages by their legs, tails, or ears, shove them into trucks, push them down chutes and prod them onto the killing floor. Still desperate to nurse, many calves try to suckle the fingers of their killers.

All Dairy operations, including Organic, exist solely by doing to millions of defenseless females the worst thing anyone can do to a mother. Dairy consumers support this practice with their purchases.

(Source: Peaceful Prairie)

The recall was prompted by a stomach-churning video filmed at a California slaughterhouse showing workers tormenting sick beef cows, known as "downers."

The workers beat, dragged and jabbed the animals' eyes, hoping pain would make them stagger to their feet. They sprayed a powerful water hose into one sick cow's nose.

Their motive? A cow that can't stand up is a cow that won't make money. Federal law discourages turning cows that can't walk or stand into food. Such symptoms mean a higher chance of contamination from feces. They might be a sign of mad cow disease.

The California abattoir where this savagery occurred was cited in 2005 for animal cruelty. But what made the case most shocking is the fact it probably isn't unique.

According to the worker for the Humane Society of the United States, who secretly filmed the slaughterhouse abuse, no one there took any care to hide it. Like all meat processing plants, the facility was supervised by federal inspectors.

And because the plant reportedly was chosen randomly, there's little reason to doubt that what happened there has been repeated elsewhere.