Size of Bottom with regards to spanking

njrick

I think rather than small bottom, big bottom size of bottom in inches or CMs would be more scientific. Then a graph with axes intensify of the spanking that could be taken, and size of bottom could be drawn to determine if there is any correlation. Position should be taken into account. I almost always spank otk. Yes I think a research project on this would be appropriate as all my own evidence would be classified as annecdotal and as everyone knows annecdotal evidence isn't worth anything scientifically.

@markuk
Clearly the actual size would need to me measured and graphed for the actual study. For the sign up, though, I think that classification as "small" or "big" is sufficient. ((Would we actually trust a)pplicants to send in accurate measurements?)

I'm very disappointed that we haven't had any applicants yet.

Here - let me get the ball rolling. I'll volunteer as c) a spanker.

(For the shy among you, feel free to apply to me via pop-up message.)

Is not the size of the spanker's hand also an important parameter to be considered? It's well known that implements of different sizes and materials have different effects, so the same should hold true for the spanker's hands - large, small and perhaps even the surface hardness would clearly be important.

Once I got complaints from a woman with a big bottom in her mid-thirties which was fatty yet still round and bouncy to the touch. She told me to quit holding back and whack her for 'real' with her sorority wooden paddle. I stepped up my game. She yelled and jumped up in pain after five heartier swats. My former college friend grimaced first and then impishly smiled up at me. We stopped because "Coal Miners Daughter' had started on the screen. She winced when she sat, so I know she felt it rather strongly, but that' was what she wanted from me.

Isn't it interesting how not only did no one yet volunteer for the proposed 'study', but not one female has yet to respond to this thread at all? Perhaps being singled out by gender and evaluated literally like varying chunks of meat comes across as less than enticing?

@kdpierre
Has no one here an interest in the advancement of (spanking) science? (Other than the people who accepted my invitation to apply privately via popup message, of course)

I've got to admit I was hoping for some responses from ladies with their views.

@markuk

I, too, was hoping to get views of the ladies... or more specifically, views of the ladies' bottoms.

kdpierre

There is no criticism, evaluation, or judgment in this thread. The question is whether different body types have different pain thresholds.

True, but nor is there any charm. Besides, it's not me that you have to convince. The female non-response is a current fact, but who knows? Maybe all the ladies are merely on Summer holiday and once they return they will all be scrambling to self-report on how large or small their bottoms are and how sensitive that area is?

And, since the OP clearly states that this question is directed at women, the scientific, impartial curiosity of: "The question is whether different body types have different pain thresholds." is not really accurate. Would not the same "size/sensitivity" issue be the same for males? Why were males spared this meat-market scrutiny?

Think of it this way: imagine you are hosting a guys' poker night, and your wife graciously steps in to offer some snacks. The guys turn and say, "hi, Ms. So-and-so, we were just having a discussion on breast size as it pertains to nipple sensitivity. For the record, how big are your breasts? And how sensitive are your nipples?" Now you are sitting there and hear the question........which a moment ago seemed to make perfect sense.....but now it's being directed at your wife right in front of your eyes. Any thoughts?