I don't believe all parents who spank are sadists or perverts. But I do believe that their choice to spank is at least somewhat informed by centuries of poor parenting practices that we have become collectively desensitized to.
I would analogize it to circumcision. Serious neurological harm is done by circumcision, but most people who have their children circumcised do so because they themselves were circumcised (survivor bias), they were given disinformation about the costs and "benefits" of the
mutilationprocedure, etc. While many who circumcise are not sadists or perverts...the practice was popularized by perverts who ritualized the mutilation and subsequent sucking of baby penises on the eighth day of life. Not to mention, more recently, there are sickos who capitalize on the baby foreskin trade (I remember a female celebrity going on Ellen years ago to talk about her adrenochromebaby foreskin facial). The whole thing mirrors the spanking issue.
I think there's something similar to be said about vaccines, too. I saw a post in the Men's Forum wherein some attention whore mom was pimping out her pre-pubescent daughter to a COVID jab trial for youth. Most normies are totally unaware of the dangers of [traditional] vaccines and believe vaccination to be in the best interest of their child, but the sadists and perverts were the ones who legitimized the practice in the first place, thrusting it into the consciousness of the normie.
That being said, I have absolutely encountered people who get sadistic pleasure out of beating their children, some of whom beat their children on the rear end until the day they turned 18. I realize most don't, but it has to be said. In my experience, the most enthusiastic proponents of peaceful parenting and the anti-spanking conversation are that way because they themselves were spanked and they are intimately aware of its deleterious effects.
Also, regarding the terms I used...I believe "spanking" almost always refers to the inflicting of pain on the buttocks. I think people generally refer to the inflicting of pain on other areas as "swatting," but I could be wrong. I referred to the buttocks as an erogenous zone because they unmistakably are - the nerves in that area are interconnected with the nerves of the genital region, and repeated blunt force trauma to the buttocks can result in genital issues like vaginismus.
My husband is from a culture where it is socially acceptable to cause blunt force trauma to the mouth of a child as a form of "discipline." One time his cousin's toddler daughter was acting out at the dinner table, and her mom took a blunt object and beat it on her lips until they bled. I think any heritage American would [rightly] recoil in horror at that incident (even minus the blood), but most would think it socially acceptable to spank a child a mere inch or two away from the genital region.
Lastly...there are many Catholic saints who taught against corporal punishment of children as early as St. John Chrysostom, who lived in a time far before postmodernism affected the conversation (c. 347-407). I remember reading about even more who lived during the medieval era.
The reason buttocks are spanked is because it causes no physical damage and no intense pain, no internal organs or bleeding such as a smack to the mouth or worse.
Sure some parents go overboard using a belt or a cane, but the idea is to NOT cause damage.
It doesn't hurt so much as lets you know you've crossed a line and are being punished. You are enforcing boundaries, not showing the child who would win in a fight.
Equating it to sadists and sexual molestors because it's an "erogenous zone" sounds ridiculous to me.