Community
I am away this week so this might (or might not be) the last post until Sunday. I also have the added complication of car trouble with both cars off the road.
I did watch Spank Me Harder, a UK Channel 5 documentary on BDSM sex workers who are into what they do. It was not particularly erotic watching and although the filmmakers did their best, I didn’t think they conveyed any real insights as it was very much outsiders looking in. But at least it was told in the women’s own eyes and in a non-judgemental way. The biggest break through was that the programme explored M/F and to a lesser extent F/F dominance/submission. If you check it out be aware that some scenes were quite graphic.
Vanilla Spanking has a series of pictures (perhaps taken from Richard Windsor) on the Play Men Are Like Street Cars.
Images this week are from: Devlin, AAA, Musings, the Spanking Emporium and Spanking Blog.
Filed under: spanking, web round-up, Weekly Round-up | 4 Comments
-
Spanking, spanking stories and spanking articles for adults
This blog is intended for adults only. Spanking and other sexual activities represented here are intended for adults. Nothing here should be interpreted as advocating any non-consensual spanking activity or the spanking of minors.
All characters appearing in short stories on this blog are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
This blog aims to explore themes of erotic discipline, female submission and spanking. It features stories, anecdotes and observations by DJB and others.
Spanking Stories
More Books...
A Voice in the Corner 
Re. your parenthesis ‘(perhaps taken from Richard Windsor)’:
NOT TRUE!
Over the years Richard Windsor has successfully drawn attention to the fact that many other sites ‘harvest’ material from his and republish it without acknowledgement. That does not mean that this is done by every site which presents similar or the same pictures. Richard and I are both researchers. Sometimes (or even often) we both discover the same material, but our discoveries are independent of one another, and when from time to time the same images appear on both his site and mine, anyone taking the trouble to check will be able to see that they are usually different files – and indeed that the material is being used in markedly different ways.
Richard is not alone in being treated as a convenient quarry: my site is also the source for a lot of mainstream spanking material that circulates around the web. In the past, Richard has found this behavior profoundly annoying. I’m in two minds about it. The pictures don’t belong to me and I’m glad that dissemination gives them more chance to be seen by people who might be interested in them; but I’m less happy that this often results in the original context of the material being stripped away or even misreported. Context is important as a matter of respect to the people who actually created the material in the first place: credit where credit is due. And respect might also be due to the people, often Richard or me, who originally discovered it and brought it into the purview of enthusiasts.
To give a case in point, I wasn’t particularly bothered when, on September 21, a French site republished a Rasputin picture I discovered and published on June 12 (see link). I was rather more bothered that it was presented with a completely wrong indication of what the image is, showing that (at best) the site owner had taken it without bothering to read the accompanying article. I was actively irritated when your site then credited the French site with the discovery of the picture. They didn’t discover it, I did: they just found it on another spanking site, mine.
OK, these things happen, and I can’t do anything about it, so it’s pointless to fret and anyway some good comes of it too. But I do think you should be more careful about casually and unnecessarily offering incorrect suppositions in passing parentheses like your ‘perhaps taken from Richard Windsor’.
Its late and I just got in (and I have only skim read your comment) I will revisit this.
First I said ‘perhaps taken from Richard Windsor’ (ie or perhaps not) since I have seen some of these images there… I might just not have said this and he (or others) might have written a long comment about how pissed off they are.
I generally don’t credit pictures or material on Community for this reason and instead usually say ‘found on.’ Ie where I have seen it. I saw Rasputin on the site you mentioned and mentioned it in turn.
I have (and usually can not have) little idea where the genisis of everything online comes from. You find stuff and present it … great, as do others do.
I have found images on many sites (including Ebay and other places where they have subsequently (or perhaps previously) been found by others and published as finds.
Where practicable I link back to where I found them.
I will try to be careful, as you say, but I know several sites that claim ownership of images that are not theirs (not your claim) and many that claim such and I must presume is correct.
I had no intention of offending you or anyone – indeed I have frequently featured your work heavily as a site worth visiting. And will continue to do so. No doubt this will inevitable result in miscommunication and misunderstandings from time to time.
Again my apologies.
Thanks for your reply. I’ll add, for the sake of clarification, that although I was irritated over the misattribution of the Rasputin discovery, I didn’t and don’t think you were at fault in the matter: you *might* have spotted that the find had appeared elsewhere before, but it would be unreasonable to *expect* that.
But it *is* reasonable to expect you not to speculate about an issue when you know it’s something that has caused severe annoyance, in this case, to Richard Windsor. If there were an issue, it would be *his* issue to raise. As it is, you instead get a long comment from me about ‘how pissed off I am’, on the basis that I’m innocent!
Ah well, we humans are all awfully good at making mistakes, so I appreciate and accept your apology.
All the best