THIS IS AN ADULTS ONLY SITE

IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE EXIT NOW!

Spanked Lady features spanking and corporal punishment pictures and videos. Inside you will find spanking descriptions, spanking reviews, and extremely explicit spanking photos and spanking videos of very high resolution. No one under the age of 18 is permitted to enter this site. If you are under the age of 18, are offended by adult content dealing with spanking, or content of this type is not allowed in your community or country, you must exit this site now

Nothing here is staged. There are no models, loose women, children or teens just classy attractive ladies getting a real spanking and sometimes severe ass whippings! They have agreed to this internet exposure despite the embarrassment to demonstrate the depth of their submissiveness.

In our view a lady is, by definition, submissive. She naturally wants to be put in her place, and there is no better way to do that than a good sound spanking. The wife promised in her wedding vows that she really wants to love, honor and obey. Anyway, deep down what woman really doesn't want to be required to be daddy's little girl and get a good sound spanking whether she likes it pr not at the time.

We are now adding other attractive like minded couples to our site. If you agree with the philosophy expressed above, here's your chance to come out of the closet, get real and let the rest of us watch while you sort out your pretty woman. When you soundly spank your wife or girlfriend allow us to videotape the real event for posting on this site. Mention it to her and contact us . You might be surprised at your gal's response. The fear, excitement and stinging humiliation of a publicly viewed spanking might get your lady either very much in line or better yet, a firm spanking for the cameras. Sorry, we are not interested in singles, actors or staged events, only real practicing lifestyle couples.

Click on the links below to view the Free Samples. Here you will find scenes from videos made of couples who have taken us up on the offer All chronicle real events as they occurred. The complete video documentaries available for download in our members area are perfect for anyone who loves seeing a lovely sophisticated woman undergo the stinging humiliation of having her skirt raised and her panties taken down for a good old fashioned bare ass spanking. They were videotaped using state of the art, high end, 2/3 inch chip, broadcast television equipment and provide an astonishing visual.

This site is created for the spanking connoisseur who appreciates hi resolution images. It is best when viewed with monitor display resolution of 1600x1200 pixels.

Descriptions of Spanking Videos:

We were surprised and fascinated when the Mr. of the weather girl at a small midwest town television station contacted us regarding our offer to videotape his lassie getting a sound spanking. He said she really had it coming and that she likes the exposure. We never found out if she really had it coming. but she certainly did get plenty of exposure not to mention a good hard stinging ass whipping with his heavy leather belt. Notice how embarrassed she is just before she gets hit and how humiliated she seems after a 20 minute spanking. In a true to life documentary of a woman, definitely her own person but submissive to her husband because of her training is a masterpiece. We interview and follow our lady for two days since she was sentenced to not just one but two spankings for her naughtiness. This video chronicles her first execution of sentence, a thorough thirty minute paddling and severe ass whipping with her husband's doubled up belt. Then you are given access to the second thrilling installment of the formal sentence imposed on this lovely lady. Vowing before our cameras earlier that day to behave herself in future, she hopes never to be spanked again. Listening to her cry and beg we believe she is sincere. Plaintively struggling to get away and enduring her beating as best she can, the loyal and righteous Christian woman must trust her husband to know when she has been sufficiently chastised.

As anyone can see from the solemn expression on her face, Another lady shown here knows she's really in for it. When hubby asks her if she knows why she has been ordered to appear before cameras and lights, the sober concerned Mrs. is ready with "I'm here to be punished". Asked how she expects to be punished, madam ashamedly replies "Your going to spank me". As one can easily see from the scenes below, she really does get a good spanking and with a heavy leather belt too........In another episode of humilation before getting a spanking this classy lady is allowed to choose her punishment for a number of recent indiscretions. After some thought, She admits abruptly, "I deserve a spanking". As one can see from the scenes depicted inside, she gets more humiliation than she bargained for, not to mention a bright red butt spanking...

In footage, a must see for anyone who loves watching the Mrs. being thoroughly put in her place after refusing to put her nose in the corner when ordered to do so, madam is manhandled, paddled, whipped with a heavy leather belt and finally subjected to a stinging hand spanking. This pretty young wife won't argue the next time she's required to press the corner with her nose. Then, asserting that she is unafraid of her husband's strap, an arrogant lady of the house pretends to be unimpressed by the domestic discipline she is about to receive. By the looks of the all out beating madam gets. This pretty but now contrite gal won't be sitting around on that cute fanny for a while.....

Asked to describe a spanking hubby said, "Asked how she feels about being a women under the strap, my proud intelligent lady admits, "I feel fine". "I'm proud", she says through sarcastically gritted teeth and stiffened lips." We hope so cause she is black and blue after this session with a heavy leather belt. The spanking is severe as one can see from the contortions on her face while getting this very well deserved licking.

A final movie documents the real life confrontation of a couple attempting to leave home for opening night at the theatre. When hubby realizes that his Mrs. has had so much Champaign that she is too tipsy to go out, he decides that what malady really needs more than a night on the town is a good sound spanking. She's mortified by the indignity and the sting of a spanking with his belt. Don't miss her comedownance..

Spanking Top 100

Editorials and Stories

Never Hit a Child

"Hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any circumstances except literal physical
self-defense, should be hit."

Murray A. Straus

Hitting is wrong. To hit someone is a violent thing to do. Violence is a thing one person does to make another person hurt. With children we do not want to do things that hurt or harm them. We want to be firm and consistent, yet kind and gentle... not harsh. We want to be tender, merciful and compassionate

There is no situation that changes the act of hitting someone from a wrong thing into a right thing. There is no excuse that magically turns hurting someone on purpose into a kind or merciful thing. This is confusing, though, isn't it? A law can say that it is all right to do something that is normally wrong in order to stop a wrong thing. Still, hitting someone is almost never a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. Defending ourselves from physical attack (one of few examples) might be less wrong than the physical attack itself. But the law sets a limit for this rare sort of situation. The law limits a physical defense that involves hitting someone to interrupting only or ending only the attack upon the physical safety of a person.

The laws that also allow the physical punishment of children do not magically make hitting a child a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. They only allow it. They state that parental physical aggression is not illegal. But hitting children is not tender or compassionate treatment. Hitting children is not better than treating them in ways that do not hurt. It does not model the way we want our children to act. Some day our society will be kinder, gentler and less violent when we all stop hitting children. To stop hitting children will mean, by the very extermination of the practice, that we are less violent.

Of course, most of us do not say to our children, "hitting is right" or "hitting is a good thing to do." We do not really believe that it is a good thing to hit people. Most of us deny that we are 'in favor' of hitting children. However, most of us behave as if it is a good thing to do. Most of us are in favor of spanking and physical punishment. And the law attempts to make a physical attack on a child's body a thing that is all right to do.

The way a spanking looks and feels must be confusing for children. How can they tell what it means? Parents are their example of what is right and good. Parents' behavior is their example of what love looks and feels like. Hitting a child seems to say that it is all right to hit people... even loved ones. When a person wants to control others, it must be okay to hit them, spanking seems to say. For children whose parents tell them that hitting is wrong, hitting might also seem to say that it is all right to do something that is wrong. It certainly does not show or say to the child what behavior is wanted.

There is no obligation or duty to hit children. No one of us can show that anything bad happens if we do not hit children. No one can show that children become less well behaved if we do not hit them. When people think of not hitting children, however, they often feel afraid and uncertain. What do they fear?nbsp; Are they just uncomfortable with the unknown or the untried? Do they just doubt what they have not yet experienced? They do not really know that anything bad will happen. It is enough for them, it seems, that they believe that something bad will happen. Since people usually do not really think about many of their beliefs, it is hard to use reason to help them to be unafraid. But there is no evidence that a child whose parents model appropriate behavior, clearly and unambiguously love and nurture that child, diligently encourage and positively reinforce desired behavior, using reason and persuasion while consistently communicating and enforcing limits, and demonstrating a rational process for problem solving, will not "turn out" as well, if not better, than any child held up as the supposed example of the benefit of spanking her or him.

So we have no duty, contract or promise to hit. There is no other social, legal or moral rule that makes us spank our children. We can, however, certainly count upon our friends and family to say that there is a need for a 'good spanking'. They will tell us that spanking people during their childhood is the cure for society's ills. They carry tradition and myth, as humans always have, but that does not mean that they know the truth.

Social, legal and moral ties bind us to feed, clothe and shelter our dependent children. We should teach them to behave well in public and to contribute according to their capacity. We should help them to find happiness doing these things. If we do our job well, they become willing and able to give their best to society. There is no need to hit children in order to do our social, legal and moral duty. For example, accepting the responsibilities for a dependent adult might become our social and moral duty. But, we would have no legal right to hit that adult in order to do this duty. As fully human as any adult of our species, children, therefore, should be entitled to the same special care and protection any adult enjoys.

Nothing good forces us to act aggressively toward our minor children. Yet, there seems to be some mistaken, unfounded 'sense of duty' to do it. We believe that this 'sense' may be the result of a self-conscious feeling that other parents in our family or social group know better than we what we should do. As children, we saw our parents and other adults do things that we remember as right and good. Spanking children is one of those things that we memorized. We copy that behavior with our own children. We think, therefore, that we are surely being a good and proper parent. We are following tradition. However, tradition and morality are separate standards.

Hitting children does not make it easier for us to do our social, legal or moral duty as parents. Hitting them may only offer us a sort of shortcut when speed is a higher priority. But it is ironic that hitting them may actually make it easier, instead, for our children to realize dreadful outcomes; the literal opposites of our goals. The result of spanking is our children's fear and resentment of us. Research indicates that several, serious negative side effects may be associated with its use. So, parents' satisfaction with spanking could be related to some other need, independent of the child.

Murray Straus is author of Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families. He wrote, "The most basic step in eliminating corporal punishment is for parent educators, psychologists, and pediatricians to make a simple and unambiguous statement..." That is the statement I have quoted at the top of this page. I agree with it. I like the statement. Most people think that it is too strong. Some have felt that the phrase "except literal physical self-defense" seems to give permission to spanking parents. Professor Straus also suggests that we say, without qualification, "A child should never be hit." I believe that after the briefer proscription, though, one must prepare to respond to the certain question, "Well, what about the circumstance: self-defense?" But, self-defense is not at all common among the routine responses to our children's behavior. Defense of self indeed!

Professor Straus explained to me that he too could recognize that there is a certain danger in adding "except for self-defense." He thought that it was, in part, his training in criminology that led to his writing it the way he did. He explained that many people misunderstand the legal concept of self defense and think that retaliation is self defense. Of course, self defense becomes a legal justification for assault only if the person is in danger of serious injury or death and cannot get away. He said, "If a child hits a parent, the parent can and should restrain the child if it continues, but she or he should never hit back." In his own opinion, the parents should make a big deal out of any instance of a child hitting. It should be treated as a moral outrage and something to never be done again. He said, "Hitting back is not self defense." Legally, an adult who is attacked and hits back may also be guilty of assault.

It concerns me that the quotation risks deafening listeners so that they hear nothing that follows it. I live and write, and 'mingle' among the people of Arkansas, USA. It is a spank-happy place where it is "open season" on children--in their homes as well as in their schools. Our children stand a one-in-ten chance of being hit by an adult at school, so Arkansas ranks second only to Mississippi as the "worst" among the ten worst school-paddling states.

Still, "never hit" is the phrase to which most of the provoked readers respond. Realistically, the people I engage all want to know "What if you're attacked or assaulted by a juvenile delinquent?" I believe that there has to be an exception. There almost always is. Perhaps 'except' is permissive. This exception, of course, is always some extreme, bizarre and unlikely occurrence. In such a crisis, however, people do what they are going to do for no certain reason. Anticipation rarely has anything to do with the outcome.nbsp; Besides, most parents really are not parenting armed juveniles. How realistic is it to expect to have to hit your child to save your life or protect yourself from serious physical threat -- literal physical self-defense?

LITERAL, PHYSICAL, SELF-DEFENSE ... The exception only barely warrants noting. So, my inconsistency is that I also agree with the "too soft" critics. I have been around a lot of violence, threats of serious harm to my family, our property and myself. I do not hit any children. I worked in child welfare (child protective services, foster care, adoptions, interstate transfers) in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area; that is, Maricopa County. I worked the pediatric outpatient clinic at the indigent care hospital in Phoenix and conducted interviews with child abusers (some suicidal and homicidal). I worked nearly ten years in the pediatric department and the ER of a large hospital here in Little Rock.

I am not through with living so it would be disingenuous to make a statement so absolute that I could not realistically expect to live by it. But I can state, unambiguously, that hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any circumstances should be hit.

Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW

NeverHitAChild.ORG

Little Rock, AR

Reference: Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families, Lexington Books, 1994, Murray A. Straus with Denise A. Donnelly, ISBN 0-02-931730-4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never Violence

a story told by Astrid Lindgren
[Author of Pippi Longstocking]

"Above all, I believe that there should never be any violence." In 1978, Astrid Lindgren received the German Book Trade Peace Prize for her literary contributions. In acceptance, she told the following story.

"When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastor's wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didn't believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spanking - the first of his life. And she told him that he would have to go outside and find a switch for her to hit him with. The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, "Mama, I couldn't find a switch, but here's a rock that you can throw at me."

All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the child's point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone. And the mother took the boy onto her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because violence begins in the nursery - one can raise children into violence."

I think that too often we fail to feel situations "from the child's point of view," and that failure leads us to teach our children other than what we think we're teaching them.

According to recent newspaper reports, the British Government is planning to adopt in March 2000 legislation that would forbid parents from beating their children with implements and on the head, but otherwise would allow smacking and slapping them irrespective of age. This information urges me to write you this letter because hitting children has serious political consequences, although these consequences are rarely recognized. At the dawn of the new millennium, probably no one will claim that we should maltreat or humiliate our children. But almost everybody still seems to recommend spanking as an effective and harmless means of raising them. The widely represented idea that you can "teach children the difference between right and wrong" by spanking them is as old as our culture but is nevertheless highly misleading, as new research proves. Hitting children is always a humiliation and a practice near to slavery. It is also educationally ineffective because it induces fear – and nobody can learn appropriate behavior in a state of fear.

However, children learn from example. Thus, when we spank them, we teach them exactly what we don't want to teach: we teach them violence, ignorance and hypocrisy.

They learn quickly to do the same as we once did: first to submit to the more powerful person, to obey out of fear, and to hide the pain of being humiliated. Then, about twenty years later, they cover their own weakness with violence, are unable to act peacefully, and maintain that smacking children is the right thing to do. They resist all logical arguments against spanking by calling them "coddling", and go on to spank their own children (or to hurt themselves) without a second's thought, and without the slightest remorse. Their effort not to feel the suffering of their own childhood hinders them from recognizing that spanking children of any age is a humiliation. A new law that would clearly forbid parents to spank their children in any way would open their eyes.

If you ask adults why they were spanked in childhood they will say something like this: "I was a naughty boy or girl and drove my parents crazy. They were really overloaded by my misbehavior. These people rarely recall any concrete incidents. Nor do they recall any constructive lessons learned from the spankings because they were too scared to learn them. But now, against all logic, they expect to teach their three-year-olds lessons by hitting them. Unfortunately, many politicians also share this illusion. Though they do reject slavery in theory, they don't realize that children must absolutely be protected by law.

Our parents and grandparents are not to blame for having passed on to us misleading messages because, at that time, they had no better information at their disposal. But today we do. We can't claim innocence when the next generation blames us for having rejected information that was readily available to us and so easily understood. Parents of today can no longer claim the unlimited freedom to be ignorant, nor can responsible governments. They cannot ignore the most recent scientific discoveries. Damage to the brain structure of beaten children is no longer a matter of conjecture, but can be clearly seen on the screens of researchers' computers. Damage to the brain structure of beaten children is no longer a matter of conjecture, but can be clearly seen on the screens of researchers' computers. Child psychiatrist Dr. Bruce D. Perry, a leading researcher in the field of neuroscience, has conclusively shown the destructive effects of fear.

Violence to children produces a violent and ill society. True authority dismisses humiliation. Its discipline is based on listening and talking, on trust, respect and protection of the weaker. It gives children the assistance they need to become responsible adults who will not turn to vengeful actions such as wars and dictatorships. They will simply return to others what they once received and what they learned by example: protection and respect.

Alice Miller, Virago Press, London, February 2000

Discipline and Punishment

Men can lead perfectly honorable lives based on observing norms of behavior they have learned from others and that are promoted by, others - by their families or communities, or by their professions or the religions or philosophies they adhere to. But there is always a question of how men will behave in a situation beyond the direct influence of those institutions. Some individuals revert to behavior that is unworthy of their usual standards when they believe they can get away with it. Others, however, have deeper resources that enable them to remain consistent with their publicly scrutinized behavior. They have internalized values; their self-disciplined behavior doesn't depend on anyone's reminding them what the rules are.

Perhaps there is no more confused subject in childcare than the issues that swirl around discipline and punishment. In relation to character development, the word "discipline" has acquired several different meanings. As used most broadly, it connotes training, which corrects, molds, strengthens, or perfects - in other words, character formation itself, particularly as it is guided from without by a parent or mentor. ("Discipline" and "disciple" have the same root.) The word is also a synonym for punishment or chastisement - he was disciplined by being denied permission to play outside. Still another usage points to the control gained by enforcing obedience, the control implied, for example, in the phrase, "military discipline." Finally, the term can refer to rules or systems of rules that are meant to affect conduct. Except when used with the prefix "self," all of these meanings point to something that is imposed on a boy from outside and that relies heavily on rules of conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance Notice