Humiliation

Well, I agree with you concerning the embarrassment of one or more witnesses (female ones) being present to observe a spanking, I generally find that appealing although not 100% of the time--it depends on the nature of the story.

Of course, I do often describe intensive bare-bottom blisterings, but my spankees tend to be strong, healthy teenagers or adults who can endure such severe chastisements without any lasting damage.

I'd venture that there *is* a difference between even "extreme embarrassment" and "outright humiliation," although it depends on the characters involved as to what situations would be considered "highly embarrassing," which I typically enjoy, and which ones "deeply humiliating," which I try to avoid.

To me, the approach of the disciplinarian and attitude of the witnesses usually has a strong influence on how the spanking recipient will feel about and experience his/her punishment...

--C.K.

It's possible for the same act to be embarrassing for some and humiliating for others, depending on how it is carried out. I went to a school in Surrey for one year in the early 1970s. The Headmaster was an old RAF bombardier who wielded the cane against those sent to him. But other teachers could mete out their own punishments as well.

We had a horrid Math teacher (chalk throwing, verbally abusive, etc.) who caned students when he got pissed off. The boys had to grab their ankles and he'd give them two strokes with the cane. To me that equates to embarrassment. But if a girl was to be caned, he made her lean across his desk and flipped up her skirt so that everyone could see her underwear. Girls would only get one stroke, but with only the protection of their knickers it probably hurt worse than the guys getting them through our thick wool pants. To me they got exposed to the entire class for no other purpose than to humiliate them.

So in this case, to me spanking boys was embarrassing but spanking girls was humiliating. Your mileage may vary.

He threw chalk? Lucky you. My grade five teacher threw staplers and paper weights, or whatever was near him. He almost took out my left eye once when he aimed a steel ruler like it was a throwing knife at the boy sitting behind me, and I barely managed to lean to the side at the last second. Then he came over and I had to 'duck and cover' so I wouldn't get crushed when the teacher slammed his hand down on my desk to get leverage so he could haul the poor kid out of his desk to give him a proper beating.

It's only in hindsight that I realize how shocking and abusive his behaviour was. Back then it was just 'the way it is'. It's so easy to gaslight children into believing what they are experiencing is normal and acceptable. I wish I could say that the guy was also terrible at teaching, but he wasn't - he was really really good. Which made it easier for the school to maintain their position of "yes, we know he is a bit too strict, but he is an excellent educator," fully supported by most of the parents, including the ones whose boys (it was never girls) came home with pretty bad bruises.

Last I checked, he's still teaching at the same school, but he's probably too old now to drag people by their collars and stuff like he did back then.

Gee, what planet do you guys come from?! Behavior like that has been outlawed here since the 1950s. I never saw a teacher lay a hand on any student during my school years. I thought this was something that only happened in books, or before the war. And we never even had school uniforms here... I have live abroad as an adult though, in Central and South America, so my kids have had to wear school uniform. They hated every second of it.

That was France in the mid-to-late-eighties, so definitely a different planet, yes But France has just recently outlawed all forms of corporal punishment of children, at school and at home, so they have come a long way. (School CP was already outlawed when I lived there, but Frenchmen, you know.)

When we read of a story where a hand spanking is carried out over more than one layer of clothing, then it could be said that the intent was more on humiliation rather than effects of physical impact of hand to derriere interface, very minimal hurt but certainly in comparison a higher level of humiliation.

Now we all have a liking for 'spanking' in its various forms and intensity, but then debate the humiliation or embarrassment situation.
There is of course nothing wrong with debate in fact it is good, though just find it interesting that we are ok with hurting, controlling and possibly leaving the spankee with a marked derriere, though humiliation is a no no for many, each to their own of course, just amuses my little brain some what.

Touché!!

Yeah, it is weird. Objectively, spanking is already humiliating; hurting, controlling and marking someone's skin, in a private area no less, like you said, are acts which nobody would deny are humiliating if we took out the spanking aspect and transposed those actions to literally anything else. So maybe all these arguments about humiliation are actually just a measurement of how much or how little we are willing to admit that spanking and humiliation are not plausibly separable.

Touche indeed.

I guess it a case of us all liking the same meal, but it the condiment we add that changes it, from those who just want subtle mayo to those who seek a good dash of thermo nuclear pepper sauce.
At end of day as long as the 'meal' is enjoyed then all is good, if a course is not to your taste then miss it out and enjoy the next one.

Yeah, it's like walking into a room and finding that everyone is excitedly discussing all aspects of sheep porn, but I'm totally a goat porn kind of girl.

On second thought, let's stick with your analogy.