I have a particular spanking friend, and we get together every now and then to play out a few spanking scenarios; we both switch, although I get to spank her around 60 percent of the time.
We've been discussing a Dennis the Menace scene. I should mention that, as we are both Brits, the Dennis we know is the often spanked naughty boy who appeared in 1 or 2 page strips in The Beano comic, rather than the US incarnation.
The scene would feature me, as Dennis, getting into trouble at home and at school, during the course of the day. Each infraction would result in corporal punishment; a spanking, slippering or caning, mostly over clothing and each fairly brief.
None of that is important however, except that I was doing some research about Dennis, and I came across a Yahoo group which had a lot of spanking scenes from British comics.
What struck me about them was the matter of fact way in which the naughty children accepted their punishments, as simply the cost of doing mischievous business. No bawling, no running away, and little in the way of protests. Just over father or mother's knee, or across the desk at school. and let the whacking begin.
Of course these strips were produced by adults, but for years they were massively popular in the UK, so it reasonable to assume they, at least in part, reflected the world view of their readers.
Back in the real world I attended school in the days when the threat of the cane or slipper, or, for younger children, the palm of teacher's hand, were very real. Of course, I was fairly well behaved so my encounters with these disciplinary methods was fairly limited, but I did have friends who were much better acquainted with them.
I was always amazed by the casual way they treated the ever present and, to me, rather overpowering fear of the cane. In fact, they showed no fear at all; if they were caned it was merely a few painful minutes, followed by a few hours of uncomfortable sitting.
I don't think that knowing they were likely to end up bent over their Housemaster's desk, with a stingy rod whacking across their tight trouser seats, ever stopped them from misbehaving.
I have one more example; in the 1970's there was a British children's TV show called The Tomorrow People (the inspiration for the recent failed US reboot). There was one story which introduced Liz, a young black secondary school teacher (at a time when having a black actor portraying a major part on a kid's show was unusual enough to be noteworthy) who turned out to have telepathic abilities.
She had a discussion with several boys in her class, after she threatened to send them to the Head. They told her that they were frightened of the Head, because he used a cane, but the knowledge of this did nothing to change their behaviour.
I've commented before that I think the corporal punishment of kids is little more than bullying, however much the adult inflicting it may believe it's for the good of the child. At the end of the day it's just proof that the physically stronger adult can get away with dealing violently with a smaller weaker adversary.
I'm pretty sure that constitutes bullying.
All of the evidence that I've seen suggests that kids don't really think of the consequences when they misbehave, whether they are physical or not. At the end of the day naughty children don't really expect to get caught; hell, we all think we'll get away with it some of the time!
Whatever it might be. This theory has, of course, ended many marriages.
Another aspect of this is that kids live in the moment, far more than adults do (or realistically can, when the end of each month just brings more bills). Because of this they are far more likely to dismiss the transient nature of a sore bottom than an adult would be.
This should not be seen as me arguing for adult corporal discipline. I'm fine with those couples who do practise it (although when only one party is liable to be spanked I wonder about the strength of the relationship) but for me spanking is a consensual and fun way to spend time.
It does perhaps mean that adults consider the threat of a well smacked bottom to be more fearsome than the children threatened with it do. I dunno; it's too long ago for me, and I didn't really get spanked, other than by girls my own age in play.
As I understand it, the rational for spanking children is two pronged; either they are too young to realise that they shouldn't do something, in which case a quick slap and a brief pain will give them a reason to behave (and I must say that, for very young kids this kind of makes sense to me) or they are old enough to understand that actions have consequences, and therefore attaching an unpleasant consequence to any particular action makes it less likely the child will undertake it.
Now I think about it, that's pretty much one reason expressed in two different ways.
Let's sum it up in one little, but oh so large word, fear.
All punishment is based on fear, whether of being fined, jailed, executed or spanked. Difference is a matter of degree only.
The real reason that most parents smack their children is anger, plain and simple. Humankind has not advanced beyond the impulse to strike out when confronted, and a sharp smack is easier than explaining why something is wrong.
Of course, some children are naturally naughty, however they have been brought up. And some people are naturally dishonest too. For them no amount of threats or actual punishments will work.
Whew. Hey look, I've rambled on, once again.
This is a lot of words to say that, in my opinion, corporal punishment is a poor and ineffective tool in child rearing. We've never spanked our two kids, and they turned out well.
Maybe we're just lucky.
And, of course, none of this stops me using parental and educational authority figures in role plays; it's not real but it is just plain fun. For consenting adults.
Pictures used are either extremely appropriate or the total reverse; those ladies are only for the entertainment of adult spanking enthusiasts!