Spanking teenagers

Yes well it's clearly important to be able to differentiate fiction from real events. The original question appears to relate to real events not fiction so the responses are entirely understandable IWHT.

Depends on what you mean by "teens." Seventeen and older is totally fine by me. Anything younger than that, not so much.

I'm not outraged - just giving a clear and unequivocable answer to a specific question. The fact vs fiction distinction by Februs is key.

As some know, about I all I ever write are stories about wayward teens. However, in REAL LIFE, I am the mother of two wonderful teens...one girl, one boy and I can probably count the times that either of them have been spanked in their whole life. And when they were spanked, I'm sure I cringed. I never felt like that was very appropriate. I have always grounded and taken away privileges as punishment.

As far as talking to someone else about how they raise their kid..... I don't think so. Not unless I see abuse going on anyway. Then I'd turn them in faster then you could blink an eye.

Now... as a teacher? There are times I'd like to bust a few heinies but alas...... the law prohibits it!! Although I guess that is SOMEONE's child isn't it. LOL

Spanking has always been a very sexual thing for me..... lots of fantasy involved..... not involving children at all!!

Katie B

Well, I don't preceive it as "outrage," rather it's people making it unmistakably clear where they stand on the issue--remember that members of this Library will overwhelmingly tend to sexualize spanking so that in punitively spanking teenagers we'd be engaging in sexually-oriented (to us) activities with minors.

Also, when I produce a story about a teenager or preteen child being spanked, I virtually always fantasize being the spankee--not the person (usually an older child or adult) doing the spanking--and I'm figuring that many other writers, probably the vast majority even, have similar perspectives.

So AFAIC this isn't a situation in which a large number of people are fantasizing about spanking the bare bottoms of teenagers and children, in some cases pretty severely, but then are afraid to engage in these activities or even a milder version of them (moderate spankings on the seats of pants/skirts), thus fullfilling their desires in RL.

As someone else mentioned, playful birthday spankings of younger children are something different--I see no problem with doing that with parental approval, as long as the child accepts it as simple fun as well.

As for watching an adult (relative/friend/neighbor) I was visiting spank his/her child, I wouldn't interfere with or comment upon that parent's choice of discipline. I'd offer to leave, but if the parent wanted me to stay (considering the discipline merely a brief interruption in what we'd been doing) I very likely would although I'd almost certainly want to leave the room for the duration of the discipline. (The only exception might be if the child were being punished for a direct offense to my person and the parent therefore insisted that I observe "justice being done.")

It is important to remember that most people don't sexualize disciplinary spankings of children, the great majority of those who spank their children do genuinely feel that it's in the children's long-term best interest and I wouldn't want to appear to be judgemental about that--even if I wouldn't ever do it myself due to the sexual element that I would perceive in the act of punitively spanking a child.

But again, I'm reasonably certain that the overwhelming majority of writers who are describing teenagers and/or children being soundly walloped on their bare bottoms, generally by adults and/or older children, aren't visualizing themselves swinging the paddles, hairbrushes, straps, etc.--they're visualizing themselves yelping, kicking and crying... --C.K.

Wrestler's part B question has interested/troubled me for some time. I'm sure we all know the joke with the punch line "we've established that, now we're just haggling over price." I was once offered $50 to change a grade, I said no right away, but afterwords I was left with the question of how many 0's would have been sufficient, $500? still an easy no, $5,000? a much harder no, $50,000? well how important are grades anyway, $500,000? next question please.
That said, I believe that any bare bottom spanking by an adult male of a teenage girl (my favorite fantasy) is prima facie child abuse and I would prevent it if I could. However, let's say I couldn't prevent it and I could watch it without either of them knowing, would I? Let's just say it is fortunate that this situation is highly unlikely to occur.

I don't think it's outrage. I think it is a firm view or belief that we have out in the "real" world, and we know the difference between the "real" world and our fantasy world, and we would rather not blur the edges together.

Many years ago there were many teenaged girls that I thought needed a good spanking. None of those girls are now teens... Actually, I doubt that any of them are in their 20s. Some might no longer be in their 30s (now I feel a bit old).

Today I don't know any teens that need spanking. I just know some kids (some of them are people I watched growing up) who are somehow in their teens rather than toddlers. No, I can't picture any of them getting spanked, needing to be spanked, spanking anyone, or having anything to do with spanking... Heck, for the most part I can't picture any of them being sexually active, but at some level I know that either they are or soon will be (because that's part of growing up).

But not with me. It's depressing, but I have so few shared experiences with today's teens that I can no longer envision having a serious relationship with one.

Thankfully I still have a great memory and can remember those girls who I once obsessed over spanking. I can still picture most of them at the beach, in their bikinis. Those "girls" who have been lost to time (and age, and in a few depressing cases, death) are in my mind's eye when I write about teenage bottoms being spanked, caned, strapped, paddled, slippered, etc.

So no, if given a chance to spank a teen or a tween not only would I turn it down but I think I'd be more than bit insulted at the offer. The idea of mixing a tween with something that I find as sexual as spanking - Ick.

Goodgulf

18 or 19 is fine (since that is age of consent). If they're not consenting, I'd wonder about the authority, but if it is a parent (or a pair in a D/S relationship involving some sort of mixed non-consensual consent or pre-consent) I'd likely be contented, though I'd leave unless it was at play party, or unless the dominant individual specifically said for me to stay. If the authority didn't actually have sufficient authority, I would try to stop it (sufficient authority outlined above). A parent with teens staying at home in this age range would count (and I'd argue older) since those teens are able to leave as they please. (although it should still meet a principle of "not resulting in longterm harm.")

The 13-17 range is a more interesting challenge (most of the following logic also applies to 6-12). The epistemic "knowledge" of no consequences is challenging. How certain am I that there would be no consequences? If this is within the realm of arbitrary thought experiment certainty, then we're good, but we'd have to establish the fact that this is unlikely to happen in reality (because in reality there would almost certainly be consequences, from 3rd parties overhearing and reporting it, to people noticing timeline problems for the individual, to psychological factors in the spanked teen). I think the no consequences criterion would also have to remove your own disgust; which would be sufficient to prevent a lot of people.

The follow question is if they deserve it and if it was useful for them; again, the psychological benefits of spanking teens is something that is challenged, so I doubt it, but if we give it a thought experiment level of justification; then we're still good.

Then there are authority questions. There might be no consequences, and the teen may deserve it, but am I the right person to administer justice? Our [generalizing since I know not the countries of all involved] countries generally do not allow vigilante justice, so usually no. If I was for some reason the proper person and there was not a more proper person (say, babysitting for some neighbours who gave specific permission to spank their younger teen (13-15) in a set of circumstances; or ones own kids. I'd argue that teachers/camp councillors/other child workers are not proper authority, because it is usually not expected for them to administer punishments except in very limited contexts).

Thus far, we've set up a thought experiment in which there are no consequences (for you or the teen in question), it is truly beneficial, and you have just authority to do so. No consequences includes no sense of negative psychology or guilt on you for giving the spanking, presumably.


The following question: Is your arousal actually relevant to the situation? We'll assume that the teen in question can not detect any visual signs of arousal (that would be a consequence, so hits the no-consequences clause), and that this arousal does not cause you to go too far or be unduly harsh (that would hit the "actually beneficial" clause because going too far would not be beneficial --- though admittedly your arousal would be likely to make you do this, which is problematic).

But lets assume that you meet these two criterion while aroused. Is there some visceral aspect of your enjoyment that prevents a good act from being a good act? Most consequentialist philosophy would say that the act is actually better. Deontology would have more of a challenge; are you treating this individual as a rational, self-interested actor and not as a means to an end? Not really; you're failing a categorical imperative. Kant can be challenged on the fact that society generally assumes children and teens to not be rational actors (indeed, he starts with that assumption, and people argue he discludes women, which obviously is problematic in a modern context). (Though Kant's basic criterion of not using others as means to an end has trouble with mutually beneficial userous relationships to begin with).

I do not think your arousal is a relevent criterion if it can be controlled. Doing "right" is still doing "right" if you enjoy it. But I think the criterion for making this set of circumstances right is very unlikely to actual occur.

In summary:
0: If (18 or 19) and proper authority or consensual, yes. If not, move to line 1.
1: If [no consequences]; move to line 2. (Unlikely to occur in reality). If not, no. (likely corresponding with reality)
2: If [individual actually benefits]; move to line 3. If not, no. Again, unlikely to occur in reality; especially given our lack of epistemic access to others psychological states. Actually perhaps impossible, though we could hypothesize some definitive psychology evidence eventually appearing that spanking teens is good.
3: If [I am proper authority]; move to line 4. If not, no. (Could occur in reality; babysitting a teen at 13 or 14, or your own child, or some other situation; still unlikely).
4: If [your arousal is not noticeable] & [your arousal doesn't cause you to go too far, violating clause 2], go to line 5. If no, do not spank the teen.
5: Yes, spank the teen. I admit that I am sceptical that such a situation could occur in reality, but if it did, and if and only if it met the above pre-requisites, I'd consider it acceptable. A parent spanking their own teen, for example, would only need to surpass clause #2 & #4 (that it is actually beneficial, and that your arousal doesn't lead to harm in and of itself) for it to be acceptable in my mind. But I feel clause #2 in particular would be one that is very difficult to prove sufficiently to justify spanking a teen (or a pre-teen).

The fact that people mature at different rates also muddies the issue, I think.

Some teenagers might be responsible, mature, and physically developed enough for an adult sex life as early as 15 or 16. For others, its not until 18 or 19. Age of consent laws are as strict as they are in order to protect that later group.

I understand the library's restriction on stories involving sex with minors (there are legal repurcussions to such online content, after all) but my moral views on the subject would really depend on the specific minor.