Furniture (Part 2)

To my mind, categorising the furniture of CP in terms what purpose it serves is more interesting.  For example it may be used because it presents the target area in a way that makes it easier to apply the punishment.  Compared to my previous system of classification, any particular example can be ranked as to how much it serves any of a number of purposes – some of these might be:

• Retention – How significantly the furniture serves in preventing the subject getting away
• Presentation - How significantly the furniture serves in giving the punisher an advantageous position to address the target area
• Comfort - How significantly the furniture serves in allowing the subject to stay in position for longer periods of time
• Discomfort – How significantly the furniture serves in adding to the pain of the primary punishment
• Exposure/humiliation – How significantly the furniture serves in enhancing the experience by shaming the subject
• Anonymity – How significantly the furniture serves in preventing the subject being able to see who is carrying out the punishment
• Unpredictability – How effectively the furniture makes it difficult for the subject to know when the next impact is going to happen
• Vertical immobility – How significantly the furniture serves in preventing the subject from moving the target area in the same direction as the punishment is being applied at the point of impact (in order to marginally lessen the impact)
• General immobility – How significantly the furniture serves in preventing the subject from moving the target area in other ways to impede the punishment
• Restraining interference - How significantly the furniture serves in preventing the subject impeding the punishment (e.g. by putting their hands in the way)
• Ritualisation – To what extent is the furniture employed to simply add drama to the event
• Instability – How significantly the furniture makes the subject feel more precarious, at risk, and vulnerable

It may seem odd that some things appear contradictory and especially that “comfort” for the subject might be an issue even worth considering.   It’s best to look at some examples.  I'm going to start today with the simplest types of furniture - human, or none at all.

Here's the truly classic school punishment pose - not quite touching her toes but bending over with no furniture as such and as such, so apparently none of the things identified above being affected?  Actually they are because it is inherently uncomfortable, especially if made to touch the toes properly. it's humiliating and forces the subject to take responsibility themselves for being in the right position.  They may feel unstable and concerned by having been told to expect extra if they move, it presents the target very effectively for a cane, slipper, belt or paddle.

Moving to human furniture, we start with the classic OTK position nicely demonstrated by Michael Masterson and Jessica.  The bottom is, of course, nicely presented (although this example is unusual as a cane would not generally work so well like this - the short cane used here seems to be doing an excellent job), she may not be very firmly restrained a things stand but the pressure from the hand on her back could be increased as necessary so she's not going anywhere and has limited mobility.  When OTK is delivered but eh subject having both hands and feet off the floor like this, then it does increase the instability sensation.  As it is at this moment, she could impeded the punishment with her hands or by kicking her legs in which case some adjustment might be needed.  While the punishment isn't actually in progress, for example during a lengthy lecture before it starts, it can be quite a physically comfortable position so there is no need to rush to start the beating itself.

This is a lovely way to show how adaptable human furniture can be.  Perhaps the subject is not quite as used to having her bottom spanked as Jessica in the previous image and has put up rather more of a struggle,  Clamping her legs will have very effectively ended that.  She has absolutely no prospect of escape,  Also because she is now only across one leg, she is slightly further forward and needs to keep a hand on the floor to steady herself.  This can go on for as long as he sees fit and if he decides to take her panties down as well as her shorts she still won't be able to do a thing about it.

Human furniture can do more than just OTK as well.  Here we see a subject significantly immobilised even though she's still standing,   It looks to have already been quite a heavy spanking and yet possibly not near to being over, but the subject can hardly move at all and is also rather limited in seeing when the next smack is about to land - in this case I suspect that is less important as they seem to be coming hard and fast.   Nor is the subject in a position to try to put a hand in the way - they are pretty well powerless.  I suspect that in real life domestic situations involving a spontaneous spanking, this may have been an even more common style than OTK, but of course that also means it's less ritualised.

In the next part I'll look at some accidental furniture examples.