kdpierre:
In this arena, once a person realizes they need and should be spanked, and recognizes the dominance and authority of another, I sort of like when that dominant authority is a bit guiltless at being "in charge", even spanking "just because they can".
Yes, I often find that concept (primarily from the F/M perspective in my case) to be compelling as well. If there's an undeserved spanking being administered, I prefer that it be consensual, accepted by the spankee at least grudgingly and sometimes even happily--or if nonconsensual at the time, retrospectively granted acceptance by him/her as having been beneficial, subconsciously desired and/or necessary, its superficial unfairness notwithstanding.
Such sound chastisement being delivered just in order to "remind/show him/her who's boss," I enjoy that approach if the recipient has already agreed to undergo it for precisely that reason (among others), whenever the person wielding the hairbrush/paddle/strap/cane/switch/etc. decides to deliver that 'discipline.'
The spanker(s) and interested witness(es) can then be amused at the spankee's punitive plight without seeming callous, since he/she is facing corporal 'correction' by his own consent, either general or particular.
In a nonconsensual situation, which would usually involve children (including teenagers), if the spanking's recipient has been maneuvered into being chastised via exploitation of his/her negative personal traits (overconfidence, arrogance, mean-spiritedness, etc.), even though he/she hasn't intentionally misbehaved, I'd quite probably also be gratified at that outcome.
Of course, under some circumstances, spanking-oriented or otherwise, it's simply unavoidable that "justice doesn't prevail"...

--C.K.