It really interests me that punishments on the hand make it at all into adult CP-related websites and literature. There is so much written about the reasons why corporal punishment applied to the buttocks becomes associated with sexual stimulation (for both the punisher and punishee) but little of those can explain why either party should find the idea of hitting someone on the palm of their hands could have a relationship with sexual arousal. Obviously the dominant-submissive power relationship is still there but why else does it have a role in CP fantasy?
I think there are two things going on - first is the ever-present schoolgirl fantasy and second is a liking for realism. Even 'though (I hope) people don't want to go out and inflict corporal punishment on a non-consensual basis against an under-age girl, the primary fantasy for many in the scene is based on adults consenting to scenarios based on just such a theme. And, if we value realism, then in the last few years of corporal punishment being administered in British schools it was far more likely, if a girl was to be punished that way at all, that it would be by means of a cane or belt (tawse) across the hands (as seen, for example, in the very realistic BBC school drama Grange Hill in the episode where Cathy was given the cane by the headmistress).
I thought that particular scene was quite severe - not just because of the pain a cane causes on the palm, but making her go through the ordeal with her mother present and watching.Actually using a cane across the palms is not without some risk of injury and many would argue that such canings and strappings were more severe in terms of pain levels than the same punishment applied to the backside. Add to that the undoubted difficulty of managing to hold your arm out straight in front of you as you see the belt or cane coming down and it may not be the easiest role to play but it undoubtedly has its place.
2 comments:
Having received both kinds of caning, one strok in each case, I can assure you being caned on the hand is excruciatingly pain ful. On the one occasion I was caned on the hand, my palm was numb and swolen for several hours and very sore for several days afterwards.
I for one wouldn't wish to do that to anybody.
Interesting article James - fascinating philosophy already !
Caning hands is cruel, caning (bare) bottoms is kind and necessary ! That is what my mother told me and my younger sister at an early age in the early 1960s. We never gotten the strap, just the whippy cane (!!!) And I gotten interested in her reasoning for ever more over the decades...I'm now age 60.
As a strict, loving mother myself (1980s) I would never have spanked my daughters on their hands -totally inappropriate & dangerous - but I sure applied the thin, rattan switch to their bare backsides a bunch - that was their only childhood punishment. Yeah it was harsh but fair. And harmless. No time-outs or naughty steps gotten used back then ! And I had gotten the exact same bare-bum punishment from my mother in the 1960s ..."your backside needs a switching, Brenda ".
We Christians/Church attendees in the South used to say that God had provided a special place for parental punishment aka the misbehaving botty ...and in its tender bare state over mom or dad's knee already. No half-measures. No spanking through clothes ! The Church advocated a good strapping, padding or whooping given to the bare backside as a normal part of family life. For sister and me in Atlanta in the 1960s, it sure was normal part of growing up. Our mother gotten a very thin, flexible whippy rattan cane (the switch)- & we gotten it in the living room, bent over the sofa, with our knickers pulled down to our knees, on our sensitive bare white buttocks every time over the years. Darn nasty on my bare young, alabaster-white ass. Absolutely right too. I deserved it James !
A well-padded, soft chubby bum, covered in sensitive skin is suitable for a mother's chastisement...provided all clothes/protective coverings aka panties (!) are pulled down. That is my rule ! The cane on bare botty skin is harmless but salutary. It stung to high Heaven.
And yes, for my own girls, I always pulled their panties down without exception, so they would "fear the cane & feel it" on the tender bare. Sure gotten the job done back in the days of yore (they are now in their 30s). I called it Spanking With Love - hardworking, kind, Mommy was boss, Period.
But caning hands is barbaric. Caning bare bottoms is harmless. I sure knew that as a child on the receiving end of mother's wrath ! Maximum sting, maximum safety. PC moms do not get it. But there mercifully very few PC moms in Georgia back in the day, James.
Bare bottom discipline is also part of the Christian faith and embedded in our family & social mores & values. It's a Southern "thang" James. It sure worked for me (as a daughter & mother) and for my girls !
Kind regards
Brenda xx
Post a Comment