Tuesday 7 February 2012

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!

7 comments:

  1. Great post! I think you are on to something. I must retweet it in case anyone missed it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Penelope, you never cease to amaze. One moment you're wearing your half-shirt with your belly button showing, the next your presenting a thoughtful analysis of how the words we use to describe our world shape our perceptions of what we are describing.

    Your description of the prototypical position reminded me of the platonic ideal vs. reality.

    If Plato's cave has a corner, I'm sure you'll be standing in it, pants and knickers at half mast (even if I can only see your shadow.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hehe! Thank you both.

    *blows bratty raspberry from corner of cave*

    Stupid, strict Plato :( *pout*

    ReplyDelete
  4. Love your insights on this. I feel the same about the OTK-on-a-chair position. I recognize it as the prototypical spanking position, and that corresponds to my earliest memories of my fascination with spanking.

    I think that prototypes and archetypes are most important in inspiring my kink. To say that "Everything I know about spanking, I learned as a child," is an overstatement, yet still an inherent truth to some degree. If the kink is "spanking," and it most certainly is, then that powerful word is made more potent by its more precise definition and realization. It was defined for me in childhood. Any depiction or realization that resonates with my quintessence of "spanking" is more arousing or satisfying. However, I know that many of my prototypical elements are not archetypes. A model can be designed from personal experience or from broader past collective experience.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the great comment, TFD! I agree that an individual's concept(s) of kink can be formed, informed and re-formed by more than direct personal experience - I guess this was a point I was stumbling towards in my post.

    Incidentally, I note from your blog that you are a disciplinarian: I must confess that I can't help imagining myself over your knee, having a fascinating discussion with you on the more theoretical aspects of discipline...

    ...whilst being simultaneously educated in the finer points of the practical side!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great post. And that girl has quite a bottom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Shaun :)

      And yes, it is a very nice bottom. Just begs to be spanked, doesn't it?

      Delete