helena903:
I agree with Goodgulf about attitude; I'm sure it's hard to create sympathetic characters with attitudes that fit well with modern political and social ideas, and especially when spanking (and by extension, questions about who has the right to do it to whom, and why) is involved... but sometimes writers seem to go too far in trying to give their historical dominant men very modern attitudes, along the lines of 'I'm not spanking you for wearing trousers, but rather for endangering yourself in a society where not everyone understands our enlightened attitude', or similar
Yes, this is a danger, and not just with spanking literature. The only way of avoiding this is to immerse yourself in the period and read lots of stuff written by people alive then (or other forms of historical record if that isn't available). At the same time, our stereotypes of the past can lead to us condemning as inhistorical attitudes that actually WERE around then. To illustrate both points: a Puritan lady of the landowning or merchant class in Enland around 1640 might well be exceedingly well-educated, speak several languages, know about the latest scientific discoveries and have a penchant for racy Latin verse (one real such woman had translated Catullus into English) - but even those radicals of the time who argued for all free men to have the vote don't seem to have thought this might apply to women.