More kinky thinks

I was set off on a think by another post of Spanky’s – itself inspired by a (six year old!) post by Bonnie about spanking positions – in which he writes interestingly about OTK spankings given on a chair. (His discussion of ‘high’ and ‘low’ ass is particularly fun!)

This position, as it happens, is my absolute favourite for receiving a spanking, and I posted a comment to that effect under Spanky’s post. (As, obviously, Spanky and his readers needed that vital piece of information). All well and good. But then, throughout the day, my unconscious kept poking me, in that sly, muttering way it does, asking “But why is it your favourite? Why? Hmm?”

Because it’s really nice… because it’s humiliating… because it just feels… oh, leave me alone!

And then that evening it hit me. As well as just plain feeling great, physically and emotionally, the OTK-on-a-chair position is my favourite because it corresponds exactly to what I inherently recognise as the prototypical spanking position.

Prototypical? Yep. Because, if you subscribe to the theory that we comprehend the world by means of experiential categorisation and metaphorical conceptualisation* (a system again grounded in experience), you see that we categorise (and therefore understand) things in terms of prototypes: a prototypical bird has feathers, a beak, eats worms, etc; a prototypical car is made of metal and has four wheels, and so on. The theory of course allows for flexibility and variation (thus distinguishing it from objectivist accounts of definition), with non-prototypical things understood both on their own terms and through their relation to prototypes. (‘Variations on a theme’, if you like). So, for example, we Westerners can understand a mud hut as being a house because it is sufficiently close to our Western concept of a prototypical house in e.g. physical terms (a living space sheltered from the elements by walls and a roof) and ‘interactional’ terms (people own houses/mud huts; they sleep in them, eat in them, etc). A more sexy example of similarity through interactional commonalities (specifically, ‘purposive’ commonalities) is provided by spanking implements. These come in all shapes, sizes and designs, but they all fit into the category of ‘spanking implement’ because they’re all used to spank!

I should mention that definitions and categorisations can of course vary from person to person as well as between cultures. Other peoples’ spanking experiences will be different to my own, so they will have different conceptualisations of spanking-related things.

Anyway..! This is all just my way of explaining how a spanking, over the knee, with the spanker sitting on a wooden chair, is what I most fundamentally recognise as a spanking. I imagine that this is the case because I saw lots of pictures and comics of just that when I was a child (kid characters always used to get spanked in British comics), so that way of doing it became my default concept of ‘spanking’ through repetition (and, I suppose, vicarious experience). And I suspect this means that, when such a spanking is given to poor little me now, in addition to the physical and emotional pleasure it provides it also satisfies something deep in my psyche; a kinky little something that grins: “Oh yes, that’s a real spanking! Ooh!”

The lovely photo above, featuring a very naughty brat getting just the sort of spanking I mean, is from My Spanking Roommate. Judging from that sassy expression, she needs plenty more swats yet!

*One of my favourite books, Metaphors We Live By (George Lakoff and Mark Johnson), gives a fascinating account of these theories. If you haven’t read it, I thoroughly recommend you do!