I've long suspected the same thing - in fact, I was going to call attention to Kirk Stiles' emphasis on the bosom in a future article (no one really needs to point it out in Bill Ward's case!). I know that if I were an artist drawing a spanking scene, I'd certainly lavish a lot of attention on the spankee's behind to make sure it was as spankable as possible. And our three Resident Artists, Dan, Phil, and b00m, certainly don't stint when it comes to presenting the female posterior! So let's start by taking a cursory look at the Humorama "Big Five" plus George Morrice, who got left out of the "five" because at the time I coined the term I didn't realize how many "spankers" he had done.overbarrel49 wrote: i realize this didn't start out to be a spanking drawing but i'm going to use the opportunity to make a general observation anyway. we often speculate if the artists who have done spanking drawings in the magazines, especially Humorama, actually have any spanking interest. i have a general observation which might be helpful in some cases. it seems to me that men who are into spanking are generally less interested in breasts than the average male, concentrating more on the bottoms. i have also noticed that girls who like to have their breasts touched and played with are generally not interested in spanking either and the reverse too..............if they like their bottoms to get most of the attention, they are more open to getting a spanking. some of the artists who did spanking drawings have had a tendency to draw big breasts, sometimes in the extreme, at least at some point in their careers. i would say that these artists probably have little interest in spanking even though they may have done some spanking drawings. i'm going to be keeping my eyes open from now on to see how these artists portray the bottoms being spanked.................whether they take the time to make them nicely rounded and spankable or if it seems more of an after thought. anyone else got any theories or observations about this?
Bill Ward requires little comment - although in his 40's and 50's art his women had reasonably normal proportions, he later became so completely boob-crazy it really harmed his work. And despite the fact he drew more spanking cartoons than any of the others, we may well doubt that he was into the scene himself.
Bill Wenzel and Homer Provence both seem to balance their interests in busts and behinds, but from opposite ends of the scale, so to speak, with Homer drawing women of overall slender builds and slightly larger than average busts, and Wenzel endowing his females with equally-generous proportions everywhere. It's hard to say if either man could have been into spanking - Wenzel probably invented the spanking cartoon, and Homer showed a distinct tendency to portray a consensual spanking which gives pleasure to both spanker and spankee. But Wenzel's invention of the "spanker" may simply have been due to his overall facility as a gag man, while Homer's rather sweet scenes could have been a projection of an idealized spanking in his mind without indicating a true spankophile's interest. I'm inclined to believe that Homer looked upon spanking as simply another kind of sexual foreplay, which in fact is how some non-spanko couples who do spank view this activity.
George Morrice clearly de-emphasizes the bust in favor of the behind, which however he generally clothes in loose-fitting cami-knickers as opposed to Wenzel's hip-hugging dresses. I found three Morrice "spankers" in a single digest (the March 1956 Comedy) which is probably a record and certainly indicates his interest in this type of cartoon, although it's not quite proof positive because the "spanker" was taking off in popularity then and he might just have been trying to please Abe Goodman.
Finally, there's Kirk Stiles, whose maddening inconsistency can make generalizations difficult. Still, there is a definite pattern to many of his women, and while he doesn't draw enormous bosoms the way Ward did, he often makes them particularly provocative to the point I have to believe he was personally more interested in them then he was in behinds. Here is an example from his non-spanking work - something about the male character leads me to believe he may have been a self-portrait:
- It's not an allergy that's making this guy's hands itch! From the August 1965 issue of Laugh Riot, but had certainly appeared earlier.
- kirk_stiles_itchy_fingers_laugh_riot_aug_1965_small.jpg (122.36 KiB) Viewed 15824 times
Initially, I left out Dan DeCarlo. Like Wenzel, he grants equal emphasis to the bust and behind; like Stiles, he certainly understood that a man might take pleasure in spanking a woman. But I don't believe that he was a true spanko.
The next question to be asked is, can we apply the same reasoning to comic book and strip artists? There are a number that many of us have wondered about, for example Zack Mosley and Roy Crane (Lee Falk is another possibility, but he was a writer). And recently, I've been thinking about Jack Sparling, who did two spankings we know about and who I suspect did one in Sick magazine that was uncredited but certainly done by a true spanko (a paddle with holes was being used!).
Plenty of food here for future thought - and discussion. Good topic, Phil!
. thanks, phil
Artist such as Ward and Decarlo who also might have been spankos drew most of their spanking arts in men magazines using it as humor but in realailty was a way for them to express their kink and fantasies Boss spanking secretaries husband spanking wivies or Doctors spanking Nurses 
Maybe they didn`t want their bosses to know they like drawing women being spank 
And that to me is a true sign of a spanko