Fairness, Severity and Morality

To clarify at outset i find real life child sexual abuse like any right minded person does, to be totally and absolutely 100 per cent abhorrent, no excuses can be given for it, and there can be no mitigating factors for abusers.

You find even the fiction gross because you do, that is just your way of viewing it, unless you are going to pay to go into therapy, to find the reason then you just have to accept you do, and i would ask why even question it?. Plus society has created certainly here in the UK, a climate where it views everyone, and certainly males as a possible risk to children. I saw a clip on the TV where 2 child actors were placed in a busy shopping centre both looked lost and distressed.(quite convincingly) and they secretly filmed them. A total of 1,817 people walked past the children (looked it up memory not that good) a seven-year-old girl and a nine-year-old boy, but only five did something to help, and all admitted they had been worried their actions would be seen as suspicious, therein lies the problem, we are now instilled with fear of even showing compassion to a distressed child for fear of being labelled deviant.

A comedian even making a joke about child abuse is pilloried, child abuse is at the pinnacle of what people see as evil, even in prison the cons live cheek to jowl with the most evil murderers, terrorists, rapists etc, but a child sexual abuser is seen as the lowest of the low and a target for attack.

So to answer your question in my opinion your finding that fictional child abuse is gross is fine.
However also society has made it the ultimate taboo, resulting in a implied expectation that we citizens hold that view also. Thus a person even mentioning it in fiction opens themselves to ridicule and suspicion, which frankly is wrong, FICTION is just that fiction. Not mentioning it does not make the taboo go away, and we are all wired differently, taboos can often be in our fantasies, but we would never wish it to happen in real life, ie being over powered and raped. However that said LSF rules on such stories are correct, as we cannot risk LSF ever being put at risk.

I agree completely. I am always a little surprised to read comments that group the two together. The Mood videos to me are unnecessarily brutal and always seem to lack a strong story line. They are just an endurance test. The objective seems to be to see how many vicious whacks the actress can take without showing any emotion. The Rigid East / Lupus videos (at least the older ones) in contrast tell a story, often entailing humour, irony or even satire, and contain actors who can act and display emotions. And some of the girls are really cute, whereas the Mood girls all look the same.

I find the spanking story, or the spanking video counterpart to be more exciting, when the younger male spanks the older female on her bare bottom. Such as the male student, spanks the female teacher, or headmistress. The office boy, spanks the secretary, or female executive. The son, spanks his mother, or grandmother. The young priest, spanks the Mother Superior. etc.

It's okay Rosie, I don't need therapy. I was only asking the question out of curiosity (despite my flippant remark about being 'put out of my misery').

I found your example of the child actors in the shopping centre a sad indictment on modern society. I would like to think I would have been one of the five who stopped to help, but if faced by suspicious looks by bystanders who knows?

There was a time when I was completely opposed to any form of censorship, but as I get older I am beginning to feel that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. I think there are two factors. One is that because of the internet it is increasingly impossible to restrict the viewing of material to adults, so minors are invariably going to be exposed. The second is that repeated viewing of something that shocks when first seen becomes more acceptable when viewed repeatedly. Thus people's standards of what is or is not acceptable get lowered. We therefore need to retain some taboos. Censorship of all forms of sexual activity would be futile (even if one thought it was desirable), but I would support the censorship of explicit gratuitous or sadistic violence and also the sexual abuse of minors. While most people can make a distinction between fiction and reality, not everyone can - for example, have you ever heard someone say they do not like a particular TV actor because of the way their character behaves in a soap?

We all have different notions of where to draw the line. Despite my argument, I suspect I may have a more liberal interpretation of what is acceptable than most; but, in my opinion, stories involving sex with children should be prohibited, quite apart from any need to defend the LSF against any legal consequences that might arise. While such stories might provide an outlet for some people with such tendencies, my guess is they would be more likely to undermine the notion that such acts are taboo.

Yes, there is a difference, I shouldn't have grouped them together. Lupus videos can be erotic as the girls are invariably stunningly attractive and they do have an eye for detail (Crime at St Thomas's) whereas Mood videos are to my mind just brutal. However Lupus usually spoil it by going over the top. Of course its just personal taste anyway.

BashfulBob pleased to hear you don't need therapy, though i must admit i love therapy as i get to cry for an hour.

It does freak out my patients though.

Child sexual exploitation (CSE) is the ultimate taboo and it is censored online, but even those who police it on the internet accept they do not/cannot stop it. This is a sad indictment of the 21st century, internet enabled gadgets are getting more high tech, faster, more mobile and such like, but control of content is still very much 20th century.

All these historic CSE cases we have heard of in recent years carried out by celebs, religious officials etc were perpetrated in the pre internet era, so no desensitization was created by "repeated viewing of something that shocks when first seen becomes more acceptable when viewed repeatedly", these perpetrators just used their status to commit their evil acts and appear to have been protected by the establishment while doing so.

My opinion regarding 'explicit/sadistic' violence on film is, as long as all parties are totally consenting then leave well alone, if i had the high pain threshold of say Nikki Montford or actresses/participants in films like Mood Castings, and wished to use that attribute to earn a living, or just make some money acting in films where that threshold was tested, then why shouldn't i be able to and why shouldn't viewers be permitted to pay to watch me

The 2 highest paid athletes in the world are boxers, the name of the game there is hit your opponent more often than he hits you or hit him hard/often enough to make him unable to continue. which does at times result in death or more often long term damage to the brain. The pain/injury experienced by actors/actresses in the above films does not even come close to the possible death/brain damage of boxing and many many other sports or recreational activities.

I will end by saying i heard a comedian who is non pc who i frankly don't find particularly funny, however he was talking about censorship and how a gentlemans private parts are not allowed to be shown on a TV fiction show as it is sexual etc, yet a action hero in a film can be seen to shoot and kill hundreds of people and that is accepted, he ended by asking the ladies on the front row of his show about the absurdity of censorship using the above 2 fiction scenes
"Ladies tell me would you rather be (he used a word beginning with f and ending in d) or shot" yes crude but made a valid point.

I agree. I personally do not think this type of video should be banned. Whilst the spankings are severe, the women know what they are letting themselves in for, and I for one would not begrudge them making a living. In fact I admire them for it. However, there are much more violent clips on the internet (although hopefully simulated) graphically depicting mutilations, strangulations, etc. What I find particularly disturbing is the number of misogynistic comments that they seem to attract along the lines of 'the bitch deserves it' (even though the clips rarely contain any sort of story line as to how the girl found herself in such a predicament). Maybe it is just that these videos do not appeal to my tastes, but I personally think such videos are potentially harmful and should be banned or at least in some way more tightly controlled.


I take Rosie's point that these abuses cannot be attributed to the desensitizing effects of material on the internet. You do not need to be a historian to know that rapists, sadists and abusers have always been with us. However, I still think we are in danger of becoming desensitized. I would note that at least most of these historic CSE victims are still alive to tell their tale. I would not like to trivialise the traumatic effect such abuses had upon their young victims, but some of the abuses as reported in the press (e.g. breast or genital fondling) seem very mild compared to what you can see every day on the internet. Whilst we are rightly shocked and outraged by what some of these celebrities and religious authority figures got up to, I can foresee a time (once the media-driven wave of hysteria has subsided) when such abuses may be regarded as too mild to concern ourselves about.

BashfulBob i cannot disagree with the points you make so eloquently.

I take the misogynistic comments people leave on the videos you highlight, as being primarily posted because of the ease in doing so, watch vid, scroll down and make a 'macho look at me look me' comment. I am sure some of those are utter misogynistic scum, but most are your average guy in the street, who is acting out their own little fantasy online, and if in the company of a female would be nothing like their online persona.

Bans around vids online as we know are difficult to enforce, and i guess like those who commit CSE and will make efforts to view CSE imagery, they will find a way of doing so with relative ease, and with at present little risk of detection, my view is we should only make laws, make bans and increase censorship if it can be policed and perpetrators apprehended.

We need to to take care regarding censoring etc, as it could be argued that the type of fiction we enjoy here is like a 'gateway drug.' Today reading about spanking, tomorrow whipping, next month carrying out consensual sadomasochism, breathplay then onto non consenting and worse.

The above is of course fallacy as we can differentiate between fantasy and reality, but let us not forget on LSF comments given by valued and esteemed members to some stories here state, that the fictional punishment was excessive and other even stronger words. Now if LSF members feel that what do we think society in general would? That is i might add not criticising the givers of those comments here on LSF, far from it.

I want things 'policed' in favour of the majority who know difference between fantasy and reality, not the minority who are unable/refuse to know difference of fantasy and reality.
Allow freedom for the innocent to pursue their lives and yes fantasies, and punish those who are guilty.

Would that not also apply to fantasy scenarios that would be sexual assault if they happened in real life?

If not, why not?

If so, how much of the LSF do you think would have to be censored?

So, after reading several of the more recent posts, I feel it appropriate to go back to the differentiation between "fiction" and "sexual fantasy". The terms are not the same. And while "sexual fantasy" is certainly fiction (even though it may be based on real experience), not all fiction is sexual fantasy. Since this is the "Library of Spanking Fiction", unless told otherwise by Februs or Flopsy, I will take that at face value......especially since there are so many types of stories here, including works of very realistic fiction that happen to have a spanking in them.

That said (again), how many movies, plays, and books are there dealing with something disturbing, or containing something disturbing? Are there not stories about murder, rape, even child abuse? Does a fictional story about these things condone them? They are simply works of fiction. Are all of these pieces meant to titillate? Is that the sole purpose of fiction?

Now again, I understand internet protocol and certain things tend to send up red flags and cause problems.......and therefore are safer left alone (or handled with great care), but the assumption that a work containing an act condones the act is as myopic as assuming every story containing a spanking is meant to act as fodder for sexual gratification.