Chicago Spanking Review Forum

hi everyone,

i have been bothered by the recent discussions concerning the spankee's exposure during a spanking and somewhat confused i belong to a yahoo spanking discussion group and as seems to be the case with such groups, the majority of the participants are female. when i decided to start allowing the spankee's female parts show in my pics i contacted the owner first since i didn't want to offend the ladies in the group. her reply was that this was an adult group and that spanking is a sexual act to most participants by it's very nature and to go right ahead. since then i have discovered that some of the ladies, even though the sight of the female sexual organs itself does nothing for them, do actually get an emotional reaction from these views because they are the ones getting spanked and they realize that they will be exposing themselves when they are getting spanked. since csr seems to be predominately men, it never even occurred to me that there would be a problem with such pics. i guess i just figured that the men would not be offended by this and would just see such views as an added bonus. web-ed has expressed some reservations about showing the spankee's private parts, boom would prefer not to see them either and dan seems truly upset by them looks like i was wrong on all counts at both groups .

i never do a pic for the purpose of showing some "pussy". when i am doing a spanking pic my intention is to convey certain physical or emotional reactions that i think are consistent with the spanking and the story. i show the pic from whatever angle i think will best show what i'm trying to convey. if, as in pic #15, the angle i select also shows the female genitalia then i allow it to show even though i could take steps to prevent it................and i always try to do them in a manner that i feel is in good taste. first off, i do see this as a natural consequence of spanking with panties down. secondly, i think the possibility of such exposure during the course of the spanking is part of the emotional mix for both spanker and spankee and serves to make the spanking a more intense experience for both. thirdly, i feel that spanking is a sexual activity, if for no other reason, because of the area being dealt with. many folks actually use sex as the last step in the spanking process, even for punishment spankings, to help finish the reconnection between spanker and spankee.

personally, i don't find that a view between the spankee's legs draws my attention away from the spanking or detracts from the overall effect of the pic. in fact i think that in some cases it actually adds to the emotions i am trying to evoke. what i have noticed in my travels through the spanking world is that even though we are all spankos, we all have different ideas about what we like and don't like...................what we think is acceptable and what isn't................what we think is a turn on and what is disgusting etc. the yahoo group i mentioned earlier is a very broad based group which encourages many viewpoints with the idea that there is no right or wrong but that whatever works for you is right for you. there are people there who engage in F/m spanking and many times i will just skip reading those posts because it's not my thing. as i think i have mentioned before, i started doing my own spanking pics because i don't care much for certain kinds of pics. a girl getting flogged or even caned just doesn't do that much for me and in some cases i find them somewhat revolting. there do seem to be lots of folks who do like them though and i could find lots of pics like that but not so many of the otk, hand spanking or paddlings that i like.

anyway, i'm gonna continue to go with my tastes in spanking although i do use a lot of ideas and suggestions from viewers. as a general rule there are actually few of these pics in my toons but i plan on continuing to allow the female parts to show in cases where i think it's appropriate and where the camera angle is such that it would happen. since we seem to have several folks who don't necessarily agree that these pics should be shown, i will post a warning along with any pic that does show this so that each viewer will have the opportunity to decide whether or not to open these. thanks for taking time to read these ramblings. phil

overbarrel49 wrote:boom would prefer not to see them either

Well, that's true, but I would like to point out that, although I'm not going to be saving that particular picture to my personal collection, I was not offended that you would choose to show a glimpse of the genitalia of your spanked woman. Everybody has their own tastes in this area of entertainment. In many aspects yours are similar to mine, but obviously not identical.

[This subject is somewhat spread out. I will add links from the "Weekly Updates" and "Wonder Woman" topics to this one.]

Phil,

Basically, I'm in complete agreement with you, both as to your specific spanking preferences and as to your observation that there is a wide spectrum of spanking preferences:

Personally, i don't find that a view between the spankee's legs draws my attention away from the spanking or detracts from the overall effect of the pic. in fact i think that in some cases it actually adds to the emotions i am trying to evoke. what i have noticed in my travels through the spanking world is that even though we are all spankos, we all have different ideas about what we like and don't like...................what we think is acceptable and what isn't................what we think is a turn on and what is disgusting etc.

I generally prefer spanking on the bare bottom, whether in real life or in art (the exception being that I prefer some superheroine spanking to take place over costume). It is possible to prevent exposure, as Dan suggests, by leaving some skimpy panties in place - that's one approach, but not the only one. The truth is, I've always hated thongs and other variations on the "wedgie", and I mean really hated them! They are not to my taste at all. I prefer panties all the way up or all the way down with no middle ground. Taking the woman's panties down is generally an important part of the experience for both men and women. As to the exposure question, if I were an artist I think I'd approach it the same way Phil does: allow it when appropriate. I might choose camera angles to avoid it at some times, but at other times as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's going to happen.

Of course, I'm not an artist, I'm the editor (web-editor, hence web-ed) of CSR. Is there any reasonable basis on which I could issue a "no exposure" edict? After considerable reflection, I'd have to say the answer is "No". First of all, not all nudity is erotic. Secondly, nudity for erotic effect in a spanking context is entirely justifiable and, as often as not, desirable as well. Let's consider some examples.

As I mentioned under "Weekly Updates," nudity even in mainstream comics has been around for a while now: True, this is male full-frontal nudity, but at least it proves we're not sexists here! Now there is nothing erotic about this scene. It's neither pornographic nor offensive in my opinion, and it would have been wrong of DC to have insisted on changing it, even though it was a mainstream book and not an underground comic (which had nudity and graphic sex going back to the 60's). Of course, I'm not out of the woods quite yet - having established, I hope, that not all nudity is offensive, there still remains the question of "exposure" in a spanking context. I think we can break exposure into three categories: incidental, non-incidental but integral, and completely gratuitous.

For a good example of incidental exposure, I would submit one of the works at the center of this controversy, Phil's Back Side Story picture #15. Let's hear from Phil again:

i show the pic from whatever angle i think will best show what i'm trying to convey

That, to me, is exactly what an artist's attitude should be. You choose the best viewing angle you can to show the spanking, and if exposure happens to result, that's the way it goes. With bare-bottom spanking, to paraphrase Tanner, exposure happens, and that is what I feel happened in this case: Phil's use of "exposure" was incidental to the work as a whole.

Next, for an example of non-incidental but integral exposure, let's consider this drawing from Paula Meadows:


I term this non-incidental because it seems to me Paula chose the spankee's position and camera angle deliberately so that "exposure" would take place. To Paula, the embarrassment and vulnerability are part of the experience of being caned, and (we may infer) important to her personally when she herself is the canee. It would be unreasonable to expect an artist of Paula's caliber to suppress this aspect of the spanking experience simply because some people might disapprove of it, and it would be unreasonable of me as an editor to deprive my readers of what is an excellent spanking drawing.

That brings us to completely gratuitous exposure. I'm not sure if Dan feels all exposure is gratuitous, but he strongly disliked this Supergirl/Supergirl example from Eric Nelson:

I admit Nelson is on much shakier artistic ground here than Paula Meadows was, for he could have kept almost every aspect of the work as is and still avoided exposure (the very definition of gratuitous), whereas Paula could not have. I did count the "exposure" here as a negative factor. But there were positive factors too - the subject (Supergirl), the good OTK positioning, the anatomy, and the expressions - these were more than enough to outweigh that one negative factor in my view. Also, if I'm in doubt, I want to err on the side of publication, because if I don't post something on CSR many readers will never see it anywhere else, even if it's available (which it may not be).

It it possible to avoid "exposure" entirely? Yes, of course. We have been fortunate in these forums to have been provided with a large selection of cartoons from Dan and b00m, and it must be admitted that they have produced some pretty damn good stuff without exposure. Congolike would be another example. But the approach of these three artists (and more), as valid and successful as it is, is not the only approach, and I'm not about to deprive CSR's readers of works by Nelson, Paula, and others because they do not adhere to it. Frankly, I'd much sooner put a "no thongs" rule into place!

Does that mean there are no standards of any kind at CSR? Of course not! I'm not going to post hard-core BDSM even if it involves a spanking element, nor will I do anything featuring excessive brutality - in fact, anything brutal is too much (say broken skin, for example). I may err at where I draw the line, but I do draw it, and there are many pictures and artworks that have come to my attention I would never post.

Very well-thought out post, Web-Ed. I think it is important to realize that while something may not be to a particular individual's taste or preference, that others may have a different take.
I think the site has done well in weeding out gratuitous porn stuff,no really brutal BDSM, and of course no juveniles.
Beyond that, its different strokes for different folks. Some prefer the traditional skirt up, regular panties lowered scene. Fine. Me, Iove even more a spanking given over cheeky daisyduke shorts, or any kind of a bathing suit. Or paddle swats on bottoms tightly packed into spandex or "painted-on look" jeans.
And the character of the spankee is a factor. Like, who she is and why she is getting spanked. Whether an errant superheroine, a spoiled college girl on spring break caught drinking underage with a fake ID, a shrewish, nagging middle age wife or girlfriend a la Kiss Me Kate, or a haughty mature businesswoman who drove home after too many drinks at a cocktail party and must have the skirt of her expensive dress suit raised, her panties lowered above her stocking tops, and receive a hard spanking on her bare bottom.

Don`t understand why Supergirl`s female part is expose Unlike Overbarrel Tammy where she was shot from rearveiw and her leg was spread Supergirl was from a side angle everyone knows that if a spanking is being veiw from the back it a good chance that the female if bare is going to have her V expose. I for one love seeing a grown woman getting a bare bottom spanking being it more shameful especialy if done to a headstrogh female and really have no promble seeing her V expose it add to the humiliation.Love to see the artist having the spankee protest about being bare and expose even if he make her holding onto her panties as the spanker try to pull them down.

Tanner wrote:Very well-thought out post, Web-Ed.

web-ed,

i agree with tanner on this. it is very well thought out. i hadn't considered different categories although i had noticed that some artists go out of their way to show and emphasize sex organs in their work. i particularly like your examples of the various categories and i especially liked the one you posted my paula. you are right that the exposure was deliberate and at the same time she chose this because it best showed the physical and emotional turmoil that she was trying to convey in the pic. you've given me some stuff to think about .

i think we've seen from the replies here, and other comments on the forums that we do have a wide variety of spanking tastes here at csr. for example, i really don't care that much for caning but i have this pic by paula in my collection. her drawings are way too good to ignore whether they exactly hit my personal tastes or not .

web-ed wrote:The truth is, I've always hated thongs and other variations on the "wedgie", and I mean really hated them! They are not to my taste at all. I prefer panties all the way up or all the way down with no middle ground

fyi, i couldn't agree more..........that's my personal taste too. thanks, phil

I'll toss my two pennies in, just for the helluvit.

First of all, any spanking drawing was done for titillation of some sort. For those of us gathered here, it is, at bottom , a sexual kick, so, in broad strokes (HAR), it can all be categorized as "pornography."

That word does seem to imply cruder and harsher material, which brings me to the point: More important to me than if genitalia are showing is the attitude behind the drawing: if it's mean spirited, misogynistic, and otherwise brutal, that display properly has a negative emotional effect. Any of Phil's playful eroticisms are a different matter entirely.

Insofar as consensual spanking implies surrender to a trusted and loving partner in the first place, an "exposure" takes it to the next emotional level. Whether that is an appropriate place to go depends on the people involved.

I think panty spanking is pretty cute and sexy, myself, as you may notice from a large number of WolfieToons. I'm always disappointed in a video where everyting is yanked down immediately. That's kinda like chugging a vintage glass of wine.

Hate to disagree with a celebrity like Dave Wolfe, but it sure looks like I'm about to try.

Dave wrote:

[A]ny spanking drawing was done for titillation of some sort. For those of us gathered here, it is, at bottom, a sexual kick, so, in broad strokes (HAR), it can all be categorized as "pornography."

I actually went to Wikipedia for a definition of that word. Here is what Wiki said:

"Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction."

Notice the word "explicit." Now, I would never claim that none of our spanking drawings or pictures are "erotic." I hope they are, to some extent, because that's why all of us show interest in this sort of art. But eroticism does not depend on the explicit display of sexual organs.

We know this, ironically, because The Chicago Spanking Review is interested in researching old comic books, and comic strips and comic panels, that show pretty women being spanked. The artists that drew "Smilin' Jack" and "The Phantom" certainly drew many such pictures; our web-ed has posted them here, and we may note that not one of these adorable pictures shows any nudity. Yet they are stimulating and arousing, without descending into the murky depths of pornography.

Somebody on this board -- maybe it was YOU, Dave -- wrote that we cannot base our preferences of today on comics that were drawn over 60 years ago. My first response would be Why Not? But my follow-up response would be: We DO update our pictures a bit, but we take care not to make them pornographic. For example, I have drawn many spanking pictures that are, I believe, chaste; but in almost every case, I make sure that the spanker has raised the spankee's skirt, so that we can see her perfect legs, and have him spank her on her cute panties. Surely that is not pornographic, but it is still arousing while remaining chaste.

We note that in the past, many mainstream films showed a grown female being spanked... and they were all perfectly okay to be seen by family audiences. Indeed, family audiences loved them. (cf. Frontier Gal [1945], She Wrote the Book [1946], Kiss Me Kate [1953], Blue Hawaii [1962], and let us not forget the biggest date movie of 1963, John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara's McLintock!)

Innocuous spanking scenes exist today, for example in Brazilian telenovelas such as "Perola Negra" (1998), "Suave Veneno" (1999), and "Lacos de Familia" (2000). The spankings in these shows all depict an older family member, a male, spanking a younger female relative, so needless to say, there was NO nudity, and NO explicit content. Another Brazilian product, "Alma Gemea" (2005), plus a show from Argentina, "Sete Pecados" (2007), show male/female spankings between lovers; but they do not show any nudity, yet they are erotic as hell.

American films have taken up the cause, such as Secretary (2002) and another 2002 film, Federal Protection. The first-mentioned film is, as a whole, erotic; but the spanking scene is not. Maggie Gyllenhaal receives her only spanking in the first half of the film. She is fully clothed, and there are no sexual overtones to the scene. It's true that the second half turns sexy, but that's not a matter that need concern us here. In Federal Protection, the very lovely Dina Meyer receives a spanking on her underwear, but she does not show us any private parts. In recent years, I adore the excellent OTK spanking delivered by Demián Bichir to the lovely seat of Mary-Louise Parker, in Showtime's "Weeds" (2008). In keeping with our more modern attitudes, here the spanker lifts the lady's skirt and spanks her on her panties. A great spanking to look at, well staged and very well acted; but there is NO pornography.

I could go on and on, but you know as well as I do that good, arousing spankings can be staged without being explicit about sexual matters. Indeed, on this very website, artists such as b00m and Y.O.S. have posted spanking drawings that can be sexy without showing private parts. My hope is that our pictures will stay that way: Sexy, but without being obscene.

Sorry Dave, but I do have to disagree with you. All spanking drawings are NOT pornographic. You can be sure that none of mine will ever fit that description.


Cheers,
Dan

Hiya, Dan!

(I'll be darned, a reply! )

Actually, on the big point we agree: you want "classier erotica!" You don't like the "pussy shots," and generally, I don't find them necessary, myself. I've never used one. But, sometimes they do have their place, and on that, we agree to disagree, and no problem at all!

Many thanks!

daneldorado wrote:i]"Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction."[/i]

Notice the word "explicit." Now, I would never claim that none of our spanking drawings or pictures are "erotic." I hope they are, to some extent, because that's why all of us show interest in this sort of art. But eroticism does not depend on the explicit display of sexual organs.

The distinction between "erotic" and "pornographic" has always been a fine line and highly subjective. I don't think everyone... even in a small, specialized group like this... will ever agree on where the line should be drawn. But it is something we all have to think about, and I think it is a topic worth discussing, as long as we can argue politely and not stoop to name-calling. Some of us prefer to keep the "private parts" private, and others don't mind a flash of genitalia. That's fine.

I see this is an old thread, but as a woman, I'll toss in my thoughts....

Wolfe said, "Insofar as consensual spanking implies surrender to a trusted and loving partner in the first place, an "exposure" takes it to the next emotional level."

I think any exposure that happens during a spanking is part, at least for me, of the emotional experience and I have a love/hate relationship with that element of things. It does ratchet up the intensity and I do like emotional intensity especially when paired with vulnerability. Its so nice.

No problem with the thread being old - they're here for new members to discover and for all members to add more to when ready. That's why I have never locked any of the topics, although of course I might do so under very unusual circumstances. Most of the time, I would rather add to an existing topic rather than start a new one to keep the board as orderly as possible. That's why I have occasionally moved someone's post from where they put it to somewhere else.

A few weeks ago I contributed to an old thread on a computer assistance board. It was a display adapter problem that I had another solution to, having found the thread when I was having the problem myself. None of the proposed solutions worked in my case, so when I doped out the answer (it had to do with which slot on the motherboard you were using), I knew I had something to contribute to others, and I took the time to do so because I wanted to help people.

A moderator wrote me a PM saying, "Look at the date, this is an old thread." I wrote back to him pointing out that search engines would still lead people there looking for answers to that particular problem (which is how I discovered his board in the first place!), and that if they didn't want to keep the thread alive, they should have locked or deleted it.

He locked it.

Needless to say, I think this is the wrong attitude for any discussion board, and I won't be contributing over there ever again.

I'm glad I can comment on old posts! So my opinion as a woman is that exposure in real life happens. How could it not? I try not to think about what my spanker sees when I am bare bottom but being realistic I know there is no mystery there. My spanker and I are not romantically involved, he is simply my spanker. But I know by letting him lower my panties there is exposure involved. That adds to my embarrassment and the overall experience of my spankings and I would have it no other way. So spanking pictures that show some exposure are not vulgar to me if done in good taste. I don't like nude pictures as I would never find myself in that situation. But I have seen pics tastefully done and that is alright with me. I prefer bare bottom pictures as opposed to pics with panties on, but again different strokes for different folks!

I trust any pictures that the web-ed allows on here. From what I've seen so far (and I have only scratched the surface here) they are all in good taste. So they do not not bother me except for the fact that that type of exposure could be what I am showing!