Plenty To Spank

Such generous curves she’s got:

[photo removed — see comments]

From Kink Magnet.

  1. D commented on April 11th, 2010:

    Now this is what I come to Spanking Blog to see.

  2. Melissa commented on April 11th, 2010:

    I like this – it’s nice to see a lady built like me getting a spanking!

  3. Marie (Kate James) commented on April 11th, 2010:

    This is a photo of me that belongs to me and me alone. Not onky Eep you not have my permission to take/use my photos, but yu do not have the spanker in this photos permission. Remove it immediately.

    Marie/Kate James

  4. Marie (Kate James) commented on April 11th, 2010:

    This is a photo of me and you DO NOT have my permission to post it here; nor do you have the permission of my spanker in this photo to post this here. Remove it immediately.

  5. SpankBoss commented on April 11th, 2010:

    Always nice to hear from pleasant people.

  6. Angry Woman commented on April 11th, 2010:

    “I put a picture on the internet and I am not enraged that said picture has been relocated without intending any harm whatsoever! My furiousness knows no bounds!”

    Too bad I didn’t get to see it! it was clearly deserved.

  7. SpankBoss commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Fortunately the picture still exists at the link I provided, so you can still see it if you want. That’s what’s so freaky about Marie’s anger — all I did was reblog the picture with link credit according to internet norms, it’s not like I stole it and put it on the internet in the first place.

  8. SpankBoss commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Here’s another link where you can see it:

    That’s what’s so bizarre about the accusation that I “took/used” the picture — it’s all over the internet, I just shared it.

  9. Tony Elka commented on April 12th, 2010:

    I don’t blame Marie or her play partner one bit for being angry. Blogs are infamous for just putting up whatever they feel like, with no regard whatsoever for privacy or copyright issues.

  10. Marie commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Whoever this woman is at tumblr has STOLEN MY photo WITHOUT my permission and YOU have reposted without my permission or any regard to where this photo came from.

    Yes, I have a right to be angry, and so does the other person in this, and believe me, everyone I know will know that you reposted this without crediting.

  11. Marie commented on April 12th, 2010:

    As a side note: I am contacting timblr support to have that persons account shut down.

    Perhaps before you go accusing me of being angry, you should think about why someone might be upset that her personal photo collection was stolen and reposted on other people’s websites.

  12. SpankBoss commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Marie, if your photo collection was stolen, you have a right to be angry about that. But I didn’t do it. Nor did I know about it. Nor were you even remotely polite about letting me know. I’m not the bad guy here.

    I credited the photo with the best information I had — which was a link to where I found it. For about ten years now, that has been the traditional blogging etiquette. Contrary to Tony’s point, this is not “no regard whatsoever for privacy or copyright issues” — it is due regard, it is culturally appropriate regard, it is the normal and accepted practice within the community that I am operating in. It is the amount of regard that is expected by my friends and peers and the people whose opinion I care about. It is, and long has been, appropriate. True, it doesn’t always comport with the letter of copyright law, but that’s been widely and notoriously understood to have been left in the dust by changing technological and cultural norms — even the freaking New York Times ethics columnist has admitted as much.

    There are zillions of people who put up their pictures on the internet. They want these pictures to be seen and shared, for their own reasons. In the blogging world, widespread sharing and dissemination — with link credit, but not with prior permission — is the expected cultural norm. In seven years of running this blog, I can count on my fingers the number of times someone has complained about this — compared to hundreds of delighted comments from people who were thrilled to see their picture on a high-traffic blog and to get traffic and attention via the link credits.

    Now, in the rare case where a photo has got loose on the internet that was never intended to be, it’s perfectly appropriate for an aggrieved party to go around and request its removal. I’m always happy to honor those requests. But, y’know, I appreciate it when they are polite. You could have said “Oh dear, that’s me in the picture, and it was never supposed to get out onto the internet. Would you take it down, please?” Same result, much better courtesy, and no misdirected anger.

  13. SpankBoss commented on April 12th, 2010:

    By the way, in contacting Tumblr support, you might want to bear in mind that they aren’t legally free to take down user-uploaded content (much less, shut down somebody’s account, which they almost certainly will not do in a case like this) based on an unsupported angry email from somebody claiming to be the model in a picture. You’ll understand that anybody could write such emails, and in a large commercial operation, they have no way of knowing what’s real or what’s not.

    Thus, before they can help you, they will almost certainly require you to file a DCMA “notice and take down” request, which will require you to attest and certify that you personally are the copyright holder. Your privacy interest — and that of the other person in the picture — are cultural expectations, not enforceable legal interests.

    And here’s the thing: since you’re the model in the photo, you’re almost certainly not the copyright holder, not unless the photographer assigned the copyright to you after the fact. (There are some exceptions to this — you might be the photographer if you were using a delay camera, the photographs might have been “work for hire” by an employee of yours, stuff like that — but generally, copyright reposes in the person who took the picture.) I mention all this because if you file a DCMA notice falsely claiming to be the copyright holder, you’re opening yourself up to a bunch of ugly legal liability you probably do not want.

  14. Marie commented on April 12th, 2010:

    I lose all respect and politeness when I see someone reblog a photo who’s origins they are completely unaware of. And yes, you are RESPONSIBLE for that. Don’t try and shift blame. You linked to someone who stole my picture in the first place, as it hadn’t occured to you she didn’t have permission? There was no link on her posting, so you should have questioned it. Your previous post talks about an unattibuted photo that you didn’t post – mine was unattributed as well.

    Sadly, there’s nothing I can do here except hope that you don’t do it again to someone else, or me. But that’s pretty slim probably since you seem to think your way of doing things is appropriate. However, if I ever see another photo of mine on your blog, I will contact your webhost.

  15. Marie commented on April 12th, 2010:

    You appreciate when people are polite? Funny. I appreciate it when people ASK PERMISSION to use my content. Which, I would most happily give if given the opportunity to say yes.

    But, I lose all respect and politeness when I see someone reblog a photo whose origins they are completely unaware of. And yes, you are RESPONSIBLE for that. Don’t try and shift blame. You linked to someone who stole my picture in the first place, as it hadn’t occurred to you she didn’t have permission? There was no link on her posting, so you should have questioned it. Your previous post talks about an unattributed photo that you didn’t post – mine was unattributed as well but you posted happily.

    Sadly, there’s nothing I can do here except hope that you don’t do it again to someone else, or me. But that’s pretty slim probably since you seem to think your way of doing things is appropriate. However, if I ever see another photo of mine on your blog, I *will* contact your webhost.

  16. SpankBoss commented on April 12th, 2010:

    I’m not trying to shift blame, I’m not convinced there’s any blame to be shifted. You obviously don’t understand the cultural norms in question. You’re trying to condemn other people based on a set of ethics which is not shared by them, and you’re trying to do it in a community that for the most part considers your set antiquated and quaint. It’s as if you were yelling at me for asking some girl to marry me but failing to consult her father first. 150 years ago, that would have made me an “asshole” as you called me on Twitter; today, it does not.

    If you ever do have occasion to contact my web host, they’ll do the same thing Tumblr will do: demand that you sign a legal document claiming to be the copyright holder (usually the photographer) of the image in question. If, as I suspect, you’re not in a position to do that, you’ll be a whole lot better off just asking nicely.

  17. SpankBoss commented on April 12th, 2010:

    For readers who are following along, here’s a Twitter link to give you the full flavor of the opprobrium Marie has been sending my way:

  18. Sofie commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Omg…! That’s one impolite woman!
    SpankBoss didn’t know better, and he removed the picture at Marie’s request!

    You’ve done the right thing SpankBoss

  19. SpankBoss commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Thanks, Sofie.

    Not to beat a dead horse here, but what I find bizarre about this is that I can’t figure out what the actual offense is that’s gotten her so angry. For all her talk of “stole” and “theft”, I don’t think she’s actually asserting that someone physically stole a camera or a bunch of files and put the pictures on the internet against her will; she’s got a couple of moribund blogs, one of which used to have a lot of pictures and still has dead flickr links, so I am fairly sure (not 100% certain, just a “very strongly suspect”) that she put these pictures on the internet herself in the first instance.

    Although somebody has a copyright claim, it’s probably not her; copyright law protects the person who creates an image, not the person who appears in it.

    And the privacy business is a red herring, too, because she says she would have “most happily” given permission if asked — something that could not be the case if she didn’t want the pics on the internet at all.

    Nope, it seems as if her anger stems purely from not having been asked first, which is fair if and only if there was some way for the person who she’s mad at (me) to have been aware that she had that unusual expectation. She seems to think I should have assumed that, but she’s just wrong — that’s not how the blogging community in general or the spanking blog community in particular operates. Those expectations on her part are, literally speaking, rare and peculiar, and she seems not to understand that.

  20. Marie commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Actually, tumblr has removed the content after I proved they were my photos. And the holder of the copyright IS me as MY camera was set to timed most of the time, or a friend was using it, a friend who gladly handed over the photos, and copyright to me at the time. You can see the entire set on my original blog posting of these photos at where I was blogging at the time they were taken…BY ME!

    I’m careful with copyrights. I’ve done a lot of video work. I don’t steal. Only those who have something to hide or cover up would spew the nonsense you are.

  21. Marie commented on April 12th, 2010:

    And as for “privacy” – yes I wanted to share them. On my blog, on my websites, in MY profiles, where *I* choose and decide how they are seen. You and no other user has the right to post them, no matter what you may “think” is appropriate.

  22. SpankBoss commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Well, that settles that, then.

  23. SpankBoss commented on April 12th, 2010:

  24. scChrisB commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Thanks for taking down my picture. I am the spanker in that shot, and I appreciate you respecting my wishes to not have my face on your site. No offense.

  25. clascifreak commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Should someone grab a bucket of water…..oh flame wars…sometimes people are just not going to come to an understanding on something both parties view as very reasonable on their side of the argument. I can kind of understand both sides, but again, sometimes people simply aren’t going to come to an understanding. Is this really important enough to waste precious moments of your life on…
    ..just offering a third-party view
    …and now I will back away slowly so as not to offend anyone and be engulfed in the flames

  26. Craig commented on April 12th, 2010:

    I saw the picture before you removed it. For those that did not see it, I was going to reproduce it and give you the copyright, but I am having trouble finding a confused, pissed off, fat assed, rude young lady. Oh well …

  27. Dylan commented on April 12th, 2010:

    I’ve been following this blog for some years now, and feel I must comment that from my experience, what SpankBoss did was completely the normal, and this Marie lady sounds like a major league ass hole. In response to clascifreak’s comment on flame wars, I just found a hilarious song a few days ago called We Didn’t Start the Flame War, which I’m sure you will all appreciate. It can easily be found by searching the song title on YouTube.

  28. Tony Elka commented on April 12th, 2010:

    clascifreak, I think a bucket of gasoline would be more appropriate. “SpankBoss” screwed up and when called on it, decided to be a jerk about it. Yes, he’s removed a photo that he had no right to publish online, but I have yet to see an apology, and his snarky comments about “opprobrium” really pissed me off. This is classic blame the victim stuff and frankly, I’m disgusted.

  29. SpankBoss commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Tony, I find your comment here rather funny — I’ve been much less of a jerk than Marie on this one. You, like her, simply have not comprehended that the world is different than it was ten years ago, and the accepted customs for handling this sort of thing have changed. It’s normal and accepted to share things between blogs without prior permission; demanding prior permission has become the bizarre and unusual position. You don’t have to like that — and as a producer of spanking content, I understand why you probably don’t like that — but nonetheless, the culturally-accepted practices have changed.

    So this is not about screwing up, it’s about a clash of cultures. I’m defending the culture I live and work in, as vigorously and politely as I know how. It’s a complete mystery to me how you turn that into “jerk”, and I can only imagine it’s your hostility to the culture I’m defending that makes you do so.

  30. scChrisB commented on April 12th, 2010:

    Those pictures were simply taken by friends that were having fun together. Realtime, real life. I think that SpankBoss did the right thing removing them promptly when requested, but I also feel that this thread has continued to no real purpose. The back and forth is under control of the owner of this blog, and I think it should just disappear. Just like the picture of my face which no longer exists here, or on whatever the heck that blog site is called that it was originally found.
    Thank you, and all my best to one and all,

  31. Aslyn commented on April 13th, 2010:

    Good call, SpankBoss. I do find it a little amusing that Marie has spent her time here behaving like a child having a tantrum more than a professional spanking model having a true concern for her personal collection. But given how she’s often complained on her blog that she has some difficulty finding work within the profession, I’m surprised she’s not more appreciative of the promotion your blog offered her.

    And you were so very complimentary about the images, too. Somehow that one got ignored.

  32. Dan Duffy commented on April 13th, 2010:

    Nice call there, Aslyn. Lost in all the crossfire were the two original comments regarding the picture, both or which were complimentary. It would have been nice if the model in question had at least said “thanks” before breaking all the cyber furniture in the room.

  33. SpankBoss commented on April 13th, 2010:

    Dan, Aslyn, I confess that’s the most bizarre thing about this. The vast majority of the people in the blogging world (and on the broader internet) who put up photos do so because they want positive attention and/or traffic. (Even the commercial content providers want free traffic, except for a few holdovers from the ads-in-the-backs-of-magazines era, like Shadow Lane.) And thus, 99 times out of a hundred (or, more like, 999 times out of a thousand) the reaction in a situation like this is positive; the person whose content is blogged recognizes that as the compliment it is, and is pleased by it.

    Of course, when the chain of attribution is broken as it was here, they are likely to email and/or comment to get it fixed. The normal response I’d have expected would have been some version of “Hey, I’m the woman in that photo, I’m glad you like it! It’s part of a set at [URL] if your readers want to see more…”

    Generally speaking, you put a picture up on the internet to get positive attention. (Folks, that’s the only reason, at root, to put a picture of yourself on the internet.) It’s a reasonable expectation that people will link to your picture when they re-blog it; but it’s not a reasonable expectation that they won’t re-blog it. That’s what the modern internet does (and it doesn’t ask permission first because that would be crazy — for 99.99% of bloggers, permission to reblog with credit is inherent in the act of initial publication, and is thus considered implicit.)

    The normal and expected reaction when somebody re-blogs your picture without attribution (or, as here, with attribution that proves defective because the chain of attribution back to the original source is broken along the way) is “Hey, give me my link credit!” (at whatever degree of politeness you like, and some huffiness is at least understandable), not “Hey, take that down!” “Hey, take that down!” is a form of crazy talk in a case where you, yourself, still have the picture up; it’s a matter of your actions not making internal consistent sense.

  34. zem commented on April 13th, 2010:

    The pictures you post on the net (tra la)
    Are bound to get copied a bit
    Now this may be making you fret (tra la)
    But note the reaction you get (tra la)
    When you answer by throwing a fit
    When you answer by throwing a fit

    And that’s why politeness is still your best bet
    When policing the photos you post on the net
    Tra la la la la
    Tra la la la laaa
    The photos you post on the net
    Tra la la la la
    Tra la la la laaa
    Tra la la la laaa

    [Also, this is priceless: ]

  35. scChris commented on April 13th, 2010:

    Gentlemen, drop it. Really. Dan, I think we know eachother in real life. Real life. It was my face in those photos. Zem, tra la. Spankboss… Why don’t you just delete a very negative thread?

  36. SpankBoss commented on April 13th, 2010:

    Chris, I’m not aware of knowing you in real life, and I don’t recognize your face, but that’s neither here nor there — I don’t have any beef with you.

    That said, I don’t really understand what your face has to do with anything. The photo’s on the internet, it’s been linked in this thread by the woman you were spanking, there’s not remotely any kind of privacy issue at stake here because the picture is irredeemably public. As a matter of courtesy, I’d remove just about any picture where the subject asked, as I did here, but I’ll admit to not understanding why it matters so much, when it’s available one link away.

    As for deleting the thread, why would I? The post is broken due to lack of content, and my readers deserve to know why that is. What they find is a couple of of very rude people trying to work out their control issues on me and browbeat me into accepting their view of moral and proper internet behavior — something that’s not likely to succeed (understatement). These issues are important to me — they matter deeply, and I have put quite a lot of effort into defending my point of view, as politely and nicely as I know how. Why would I want to delete all that work?

  37. curious commented on April 13th, 2010:

    Seems to me, that all this fuss may be a lame attempt to get more people to visit her blog.

  38. SpankBoss commented on April 14th, 2010:

    I doubt that, curious. There just isn’t enough traffic at stake for that to make sense.

    I do note with interest that after I started linking to some of the tweets where she was calling me unpleasant names, she set her Twitter account to private.

  39. Dan Duffy commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Hey Chris. An unfortunate way to run into an old friend. In spite of the curfuffle, it’s good to see you. I hope all is well with you. You’re a classy guy.

    Dan, the “Dan” that Chris knows

  40. D commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Here’s in support of you, SpankBoss, not to delete this thread. The motives of the embarrassed nastygram-senders are obvious, in asking this.

  41. scChris commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Hey, D, I am not embarrassed about anything. I did not know SpankBoss was Dan, for I was refering to Dan Duffy. I would have no idea if I knew you or not, since your face does not appear on this site that I can see. For D’s information, and to all those who enjoy life through the internet and the real life adventures in real time of real people, I am in no way embarrassed about being who I am regarding being a spanko, nor am I a ‘nasty-gram’ sender. I just don’t see the point of name calling and linking to peoples twitter accounts. I guess I am a gentlemen, and the thought of pursuing something that I am not even involved in, as zem and many others on this thread have done would, never cross my mind. You can say you are just supportting SpankBoss. I would rather hope that’s it, instead of the other option that you are home on the internet wishing you could actually do what the people in the photos that you scour the internet for are doing and adding your commentary to the real life of others. My suggestion, and it is really well intentioned, is that you turn off the computer and interact with some flesh and blood. Maybe try to live your spanking fantasies in real life. That’s what I am going to do.

  42. zem commented on April 14th, 2010:

    scChris: since you singled me out by name in your last post (for the simple crime of being the penultimate poster in the thread?), i’ll respond: as spankboss said, it’s *important* to a lot of us that “very rude people trying to work out their control issues” be called out on their behaviour. you seem to have misread the thrust of this thread completely; no one is mocking you or saying you should be embarrassed for being a spanko ([liz lemon]really? you think people would do that on this blog?[/liz lemon]), and no one is even really fighting for the right to have the photos up here (you’ll note they are removed). speaking of uninvolved people, you don’t really have anything to do with any of this. we are calling marie out on her tantrum, and rightly so. seeing that level of rudeness on a blog i frequent makes me feel like you would if someone let their dog relieve itself in your front yard and then expected you to apologise for having an offensive garden gnome, and well, meeting flaming with mockery is a tradition dating all the way back to the good old days of usenet.

    also, how you segued into the whole “real life of others” bit is, frankly, beyond me. you wouldn’t happen to be a pop psychologist in your spare time, would you?

  43. scChris commented on April 14th, 2010:

    No, Zem, I am not a pop psychologist. I felt you were referring to me, because I asked that the thread be deleted. Therefore, yes I singled you out. I guess I was mistaken, but I am the only one that did ask for that, so perhaps you can see why I made my error.. The reason I am involved, is because it was my face. I wanted it removed, and I am glad that it was. People unrelated to this entire thread informed me that a picture of myself was on this blog. Yes, if it is anywhere on the internet, it might as well be everywhere, but I would think that you could understand why one might not want their picture on a highly trafficked blog. Before I could request the picture be removed, Marie had. Perhaps not in the same manner I would go about it, but the desired result was the same, minus this thread. The reason I segued is that I would think that people might have better things to do. Like live life, but apparently they are too busy tracking what people are saying on twitter. So, have your mocking flame throwing fun. I am glad to see old played out traditions carried on. Personally, I would rather see the high road taken. I don’t think I have misread the thrust of this thread, I have a different perception of it and I was much more personally effected by it than yourself. Carry on with your mockery.

  44. scChris commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Zem, I thought you were D for a moment. My apologies, you are the tralala guy, not the nasty gram gent. My bad.

  45. scChris commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Anyway, I need to take my own advice and drop it. So drop it I shall.

  46. SpankBoss commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Chris, my apologies for misunderstanding which “Dan” you were talking to.

    As for the rest, although the nasty-gram comment was not mine, I took it to be aimed at Marie/Kate and Tony Elka, not you. Chris, until you started talking down to my commenters with remarks about turning off the computer and “real life”, I didn’t have a single fault to find with your courtesy, even though we were (and are) in disagreement. But attacking people you do not know with snidely patronizing insinuations about their personal lives? That’s pretty rude and unpleasant.

    I do have to say that I laughed out loud when I read your “I just don’t see the point of name calling and linking to peoples twitter accounts.” The rich irony there is that the links were directly to tweets in which lemonyhead was … wait for it … name calling. In one, in particular, she called me an asshole.

    I don’t see the point of name calling either. But when it’s done to me, I’ll stand up for myself.

    I also believe that making the Twitter account private says quite a bit. It’s the “control issues” thing again. There are people who misunderstand the public nature of the internet in a fundamental way, believing — mistakenly — that they can control who sees and mentions and links to and interacts with the stuff they put on the internet. Like King Canute ordering back the tides, they attempt to control all these things, and grow angry when they inevitably fail. I used to consider this a form of minor insanity — and it still feels like that to me — but in reality I think it’s a form of persistent non-comprehension; such people do not understand in their gut and bones what the internet is for and how it works.

  47. SpankBoss commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Oh, and I’d like to throw in a word of defense for zem and the other commenters who’ve spoken up for me in this thread. I appreciate you all! Far from “pursuing something they are not involved in”, they are readers and fans and members of this (very loose) community. Their input in a public dispute that affects them is welcome.

  48. scChrisB commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Why is it so hard for me to just let things go? I was never good at that. Why does it matter if she set her twitter to private? Is it a control issue, or a privacy issue? You are more knowledgeable then myself on the internet and it’s uses and the legalities of its usage. I should not of spoken down or insinuated anything about peoples personal lives. That is true. I apologize. I should not of done that here. I am involved only because it was a photo of me, and the fact that the girl is a friend. A good person. Believe as you will. I also feel the communication could of been handled with diplomacy, and it was not. But let me ask, do any of us have a right to a personal life anymore? When does the internet cross the line into privacy issues? Or, if artists and producers don’t want certain content copied here or elsewhere, when do they have the right to raise issue with that? These are interesting questions. It is not just about control. You can not do whatever you want. That is a control thing, as well; People who desire to do whatever they want, and not with their own material. I am not saying that it is not creative to create art out of art. I am saying, however, without the work of others this blog would not exist. I am sure many people are grateful to have their pictures or links or clips or what have you, here and elsewhere. In this instance it was not the case. You feel you are making a statement to your loose knit community by allowing a thread like this. That’s your decision. I don’t really see the point, however. Nothing was really resolved here. I will keep my pop psychology to myself.

  49. SpankBoss commented on April 14th, 2010:

    There’s a lot of rhetorical questions in that, and it would be tedious and repetitive for me to engage the most of them. But the ones aiming at privacy are interesting for a reason I haven’t touched on yet.

    The internet is a wonderful tool for getting attention — from your friends, from your cultural tribe, from the world at large. People love attention, they thrive on it, and they perform for it. In the internet context, that means they put on a show. They blog, they post art and photography, they make moves, they comment, they tweet, they posture and preen and display and sing and dance and tell dirty jokes. That’s all great and wonderful, and it’s a big part of why most of us find the internet endlessly entertaining.

    But here’s the rub. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t put your show on the open internet in order to harvest positive attention, but then demand to pick and choose who looks at your show. You can’t say “I posted that for my friends only” — or you can say it, but in so saying, you self-identify as a fool.

    If you want privacy, keep the photos on your hard drive, or on a password-protected site that’s not part of the open internet. Keep your tweets private if you don’t want them linked to and remarked upon. Keep your blog friends-locked. In the internet age, privacy means “don’t put it out there.”

    If you do put it out there, it’s out there. Seems stupidly obvious, but there are people who don’t understand the implications. Sure, there are various “rights” (moral and legal) that may limit what people can do in theory; but in practice, if you put your show on the internet in order to get attention, it’s inevitable that people are going to repost, republish, remix, remark upon, and in all ways make your show a part of their internet culture. You can’t stop it. You look foolish if you try, like the little kid in the back seat whining “Mom, make Sally stop LOOOKING at meeeee!”

    Fortunately, most of the people who put things on the internet understand this at a gut level. They want attention, they hope it’s good attention, and when it is, they are grateful. The bad attention, they ignore as best they can. What they don’t do is yell at the people who give them the attention they asked for when they started performing on the internet. Because that — most people understand — is crazy and bizarre and pointless.

  50. badkitty commented on April 14th, 2010:

    LOL. Wow. Some women.

  51. rubysue commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Just for the helluvit I’m going to make a comment about spanking. Remember spanking? For all the talk about “real life” on here – I can guarantee you that at least one of these posters gave an awesome spanking on Monday. And I’m STILL sore, damnit! :-)

  52. scChris commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Rubysue, tell Dan I said you could use another one!

  53. scChris commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Dan Duffy, that is.

  54. Dan Duffy commented on April 14th, 2010:

    Thanks for the kudos, RubySue. You left out “well deserved”. Not to worry Chris. I’ll see her again this weekend. Unless she moves to Siberia. Maybe we’ll take a picture? Kidding. :-)

  55. ContessaCandee commented on September 22nd, 2011:

    wowee!! i have been lurking this blog forever…this posting must have come during one of my spells of denial (trying to be ‘normal’). how did i miss this? anyway Boss Dan it only serves to reinforce how much respect i have for your integrity.

Leave A Comment

Maximum Comment Length: 2500 characters (about five paragraphs)

A Popular Spanking Blog Post:

Brutally Forced Self-Spanking

Nyssa Nevers cam show self-spanking
"...forced to spank herself until she can't help crying..."