Sponsored Links
Top Lists and Directories
Dire Caning Technique
I’ve had it up to here with incompetent caning. I was reading a review of a video (from a new producer, no less), and it happened to be illustrated with some stills.
Where on Earth did these people get the idea that cane strokes should be administered diagonally across a girl’s butt, so that not just a tip, but a whole foot of rattan slashes her down her right thigh, wrapping ’round? And why, when the strokes are so obviously going wrong, do they continue along the same lines for the rest of the caning? Is there some bizarre line of thinking that says: one badly aimed stroke is a mistake, 25 are a house style?
(And who told them that cane strokes should be delivered in multiples of 25? The cane isn’t a bleedin’ leather paddle; you can, in fact, get through to a girl with a dozen well-aimed strokes.)
And why is it that the people who don’t have a clue how to use a whippy implement are always making the most brutal videos? Wouldn’t it stand to reason that you should practice light, and then maybe increase the force of strokes when you know what you’re doing? Oh, no, they just want to compensate for lack of technique with sheer brutal force; the model doesn’t just end up with oddly placed marks - her whole right thigh will be torn to ribbons. And then, because the material is so severe, there’s always to be a choir of cheerleaders to hail the producer as a bright, new star on the spanking horizon. Screw technique, screw safe practice of CP: they’ve got pretty girls screaming, so they must be good.
Grrrrrr.
This must be stopped, before it becomes acceptable in the industry to hit spanking models any-bleeding-where you like.
For best practice in freakishly hard yet safe caning, see the work of Pavel Stastny of Lupus. His cane goes exactly where it’s supposed to. It might be harder CP than I really like to see, but it’s competent - in the way so much other stuff isn’t.
Comments
26 Responses to “Dire Caning Technique”
Leave a Reply
Hi Adele
I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, bad technique is not just by male doms in the industry. Without naming names, I have seen some horendous caning from Eastern Europe, where it is obvious that the domees do not have a clue what they are doing. Half the time they do not even look to see where they are going with the tip, and they wrap right round and even go as high as the kidneys.
Fortunately, there are a few producers in the Uk now, who can do it hard and acurate, pobably because they switch.
**waves hand madly** Me! Me! Me! I love to use the cane and I take pride in being - more than just competent - accurate. The bottom is like a canvas to me and should have even, parallel lines across both cheeks, not sloping diagonal welts down and around the right thigh (or left if the caner is a lefty). The hardest caning of my life was from Pavel, who was so astonishingly accurate with 50 full-arm strokes that I was actually wearing hot pants the next day!
I wish all caners who aren’t switches would submit to being on the other end of both a competent and an incompetent caning, so they could see and feel the difference. It might improve their technique or at least give them an incentive to try.
Well said, Adele. I must say from a consumrs point of view it is a real turn off to see random violent caning of the sort you describe. I’d have thought it misses the point of a spanking lifestyle - the shared bond of self control needed to submit to and administer careful punishment.
Bob
Tawsemaker - yep, bad caning is spread equally over both genders, alas…
Niki - I like the idea of making bad tops compare and contrast the effect of a good and a bad caning. Seriously, a well-placed hard caning is challenging enough; nobody needs the additional effect of having their thigh torn up.
Bob - While I’m not sure there’s a *point* to spanking lifestyle, necessarily, whatever it might be - random caning definitely isn’t *it*.
I think Cassie and Katie are about the hardest, but still accurate caners that I have seen in the UK.
I am familiar with some of the producers who are guilty of this, and I’ll admit it offends my sense of aesthetics as well.
However. As you say, they’ve got pretty girls screaming.
I see your rant as containing a bit of the dreaded “your kink is not OK” disease, which we in the kinky community ought to avoid, but too often, don’t.
Y’see, there’s folks with caning fetishes, and then there are just plain old sadists. There’s not a perfect overlap between those two sets of folks, although there’s surely some overlap. And ya gotta admit, those ugly “incompetant” canings look a bit more painful than the usual competant ones. More to the point, a sloppy caning conveys some quantum of “we really are punishing these girls, not coddling their own spanking fetish.”
So what I’m saying is, it’s a style, perhaps not a deliberate one, but one for which there’s a market. And when you condemn it, you’re on the knife edge between “that doesn’t satisfy my caning kink” (I agree) and “it’s not OK to do that or to be turned on by that” (I don’t agree).
I guess I could summarize this by saying I agree with the portion of your post that’s artistic criticism, but I could not disagree more strongly with your “this must be stopped” remark. Just because it’s not your kink doesn’t make it wrong.
Dan, I’m as keen as anyone to protect the principle of “what’s safe & consensual must be OK”, and keen as anyone on edgeplay. I’ve given some thought to how one could straddle that knife edge between healthy spanko libertarianism and protection of models without being cut in a tender spot. (To be honest, I’ve been waiting for the first comment along the lines of “Hey! What’s with the intolerance, Adele?” - so I’ve thought about the distinction.)
I think there’s a crucial difference between two sorts of extreme caning, and, where one is perfectly OK, the other is rather questionable.
First, there’s “style” - the sort of edgy discipline that throws itself in the face of conventions, going for the realistic look and feel, deliberately leaving behind what’s usually seen as good technique - and then there’s plain old sloppiness and lack of any awareness of technique, or, perhaps, lack of caring about safe practices.
The distinction hinges for me on consent of the models. It’s one thing to ask a girl to give herself knowingly to the mercy of a “plain old sadist”, to be aware and accepting of a caning that might hurt in places she wouldn’t normally expect it to.
It’s a completely different thing to proceed to beat the crap out of a girl who expects to be hit competently and precisely, or, perhaps, doesn’t know the caning she’s getting isn’t exactly standard issue - and all this because you’ve no idea how to use a cane, and aren’t interested in learning.
I guess, what I’m saying is, where it’s a deliberate style, or a choice for the sake of believability of a film, and where the model knows what she’s bending over for - sure, go for it. Thrash away.
However, the “it’s my kink so it must be OK” excuse doesn’t fly where the recipient’s consent is questionable.
I’ll still say that the latter practice should be stopped for the sake of the health of the industry.
With respect to Dan’s point, I have a feeling that yer average sadist might be more turned on by a caning that clearly *deliberately* sacrifices good technique for, um, force, edginess, whatever, than one which just shows an unawareness or lack of valuing of good technique. It’s hard to imagine anyone actually *preferring* bad technique per se. Both gloves-off edgy sadism, and controlled ritualistic chastisement, can (and should) involve plenty of awareness and practice of good technique. There can be skilled sadism and unskilled sadism, just as there’s skilled and unskilled over-the-knee hand-spanking.
Another point perhaps worth making is that there are plenty of really crappy caners out there who shoot films squarely in either school or domestic contexts, in which the intent clearly *isn’t* that of horny sadism. Or, rather, their enjoyment of the scene as a participant might be as a horny sadist, but what they’re trying to *portray* is a parent, or headmaster, or whatever - they’re just doing that very badly. Sure, there might be viewers who find the ineptness hot, but the context gives the lie to any claim that the ineptness is in any way deliberate - except in that their lack of interest makes it deliberate.
One of my own gripes seems very different from this one, but I think it’s similar: it’s the tendency of producers, often at the point where they’ve built up a significant insert-collective-noun-here of spankees (often female, for obvious reasons), to start having the spankees play with each other, the ostensible ‘tops’ showing neither any sort of technique nor any sort of conviction. I dare say it’s an inevitable progression: desire for content, and desire for variety of content, results in an ever-larger pool of spankees; then, there comes a point where it’s an obvious progression to have some of the spankees assume top roles. Maybe it’s specifically requested by the viewers, I dunno. But the product is often profoundly lame and fake. This isn’t to say that spankees *can’t* be effective spankers, obviously, but that seems to be the exception.
The similarity between the two is that the importance of i) conviction, and ii) technique, in a scene is undervalued.
I have no desire to watch, give, or receive a sloppy caning. I sure wouldn’t bottom to anyone who didn’t know what he or she was doing (caning or otherwise). I view that slovenliness as a disregard for the safety of the bottom. I don’t see why bottoms in spanko films should have to put themselves at risk unnecessarily. On a fantasy level, perhaps people enjoy the idea of the deranged thrasher, but in reality, for me, that’s over the edge.
Pablo and Adele, you’ve said so many things far better than I could. (And yet I’m still going to add my two cents. :-)) I agree completely that there’s a sharp distinction between edgy-harsh-competent and edgy-harsh-sloppy-dangerous. For me there are two other things involved that deal with education, safety, and ethics.
Are there people out there with edgier and different kinks than mine? Certainly. Do they have a right to practice them, enjoy them, and live their lives? Without question. However, there still have to be some basic ethics in place, which is what I think Adele was touching on when she wrote, “the ‘it’s my kink so it must be OK’ excuse doesn’t fly where the recipient’s consent is questionable.” Basically, if you don’t know what you’re doing, you shouldn’t be doing it. Saying that people can do whatever they like is fine, but we don’t let people say, “I feel like flying a 747 today, let me give it a whirl.” And harsh scenes can be just as endangering. So that’s my plug for education and understanding of what we’re doing before we do it.
The other has to do with how films and pictures portray our kink, which Adele also wrote about a few days ago. I know that the filmmakers are in it to make money, and I know they’re showing fantasies, but I do think they have some responsibility for how they portray harsh scenes. Just as it seems silly to write stilted dialogue that we’d never use in real life, it seems dangerous to give people the idea that any Joe can pick up a cane or paddle or singletail and start whaling away. (Or a hand, for that matter. I once had a “professional” Domme spank my kidneys.) That’s *not* true and is in fact really dangerous. So while I have the utmost respect for those who engage in harsh scenes carefully and intentionally and harshly, I have nothing but contempt for people who recklessly endanger others because they don’t know what the heck they’re doing. And it seems to me that the video industry plays a role in teaching people what’s acceptable–whether they want to or not.
Some of this plays on the connection between video/fantasy and real life. I understand that they’re different, but they’re also pretty closely related–and I guess I’m saying that we can’t ignore those pieces that affect each other.
I want to comment on something Pablo said. A video *usually ff* where the top ends up on the receiving end caters to the *I think* common desire of many viewers to see that bitchy dom get her comeuppance. I for one think such videos are the best.
Slightly baffled by how what you wrote is meant to be a comment on what I said, Bill.
i think that some people are not “aiming at the model” but rather are aiming at the “voyeur viewing audience” whom they target as customers — an audience which gets “bored” with or jaded by the same repetitious images . . and so the makers of the pics always try to expand the barriers . . to push the limits ever further back . . . to expand the degree of “visiual intensity” so to keep the audience they have and to bring in new voyeurs (who then in turn expect even more strictness and severity to visually be presented before their eyes) . . .
it would seem that there is a difference marking models who are into mild entertainment for themselves and those models (a rare breed) who aim at an sudience which always wants and demands “more” . . . these p[robably are two different worlds.
Hmm michael, I want to please the viewers. I’ve agreed to do plenty of things that I don’t really *like* on camera becacuse I knew the members would like it. This includes, but is not limited to: Mouth Soaping, Drop Seat PJs, One cheek spankings, and a number of scenarios that leave me going “yuck. However, all of these things were discussed ahead of time. I knew what to expect, and agreed to it.
I don’t think the issue is so much with doing things that may not entertan the specific model nearly as much as with models having an expectation of tops who know what they are doing and a desire for safety. If someone at a shoot came to me and said, “We want to do a caning video where we wrap you a lot with the cane and it looks really haphazard” I’d probably hear them out. I might even agree to it, if I felt there was a good reason to do it (though I can’t imagine one). However I do not want that to happen to me without warning, when I am expecting something else.
Bailey
I totally agree with Bailey’s points - it’s really all about basic safety and professionalism, which Adele and Tawsemaker are right to fear may be somewhat lacking in certain vids.(I think I know the review to which Adele refers, and in fact, fearing the worst, I didn’t even allow the pictures to download.) Presumably Dan would draw the line somewhere or you’re going to be on a slippery slope towards torture, snuff movies etc.(for which there would also be a market amongst sadists).
From an artistic point of view I feel that these East Europaean producers are trying to out do Lupus, and obviously getting it wrong. It’s the same in any art form when you get a brilliant, and original innovator; you also get poor and second-rate followers. They are people with no real feeling or understanding for the subject, just pound signs in their eyes. I have heard that Lupus are actually moving away from films that are purely caning based - thereby, hopefully, staying one step ahead of their more dodgy competitors.
Perhaps Nikki’s hotpants test should become an accepted Industry Standard for Safe Caning Practice: “All models involved in the making of this film were able to wear hotpants in public the next day” !
Adele, I don’t think we’re likely to ever agree on this, but thanks for coming to grip with my arguments.
You’re drawing a distinction between two cane strokes that land in the same place and make the same mark, saying one is OK if it’s deliberately aimed there and the model expects it to land there but the other is not OK because the caner is a sloppy goon who doesn’t care where the cane lands, and the model is a naif who just knows she’s agreed to be caned and that it’s gonna hurt a lot. To me, that makes no sense. The only thing that matters is whether the model consents, and she can just as easily consent in a general way “you may cane me on my body and it’s going to leave welts and even bloody cuts that hurt like hell” as in a specific way “you may cane me in certain zones only and the welts will be a certain shade of red, but not darker”. Of course, if she’s smart she’ll demand more money for the first kind of consent, but that’s her business.
I haven’t seen any basis for your contention that “the model’s consent is questionable”. I can think of one producer whose canings are ugly side-of-the-leg affairs, but post-production video clips are shown where the models are cheerfully discussing how much it hurt (and drinking vodka happily with the producer). I think it’s perfectly valid for a newbie caning model to consent on a “he’s going to hit me with a cane, I dunno where, wherever he wants I guess, and it’s going to hurt a lot, and then I’m going to get paid a week’s wages and go home” basis. I very much doubt these girls have any idea where the cane is “supposed” to land or what their welts are “supposed” to look like. And yet they have consented in every way that matters.
You and I almost certainly agree that it’s a terrible way to make (bad) caning movies. But I can’t understand your “it must be stopped” sentiment. Sez who? The model is happy, the producer is happy, none of our business.
Finally, you suggested that such movies are bad for the industry. And that’s perhaps true. But I’m very sensitive to issues of free expression, and consequently I utterly reject “soft censorship” arguments by kinky people — arguments that something shouldn’t be said or shown or depicted because it makes the rest of us kinky people look bad. In my experience, these arguments almost always conceal a “your kink is not OK” agenda; they are a way of saying “my kink is peachy, but your kink is frightening the mundanes because no right-thinking person approves of it, so please stop or be more discrete because I don’t want *them* thinking *I’m* like *you*.”
That doesn’t undercut the fundamental truth that if kinky people were careful to produce only the tamest kinky porn, it probably would help lessen the vanilla backlash against kinky people or kinky porn. But so what? The price (self-censorship or, as it’s often called, “industry self-regulation”) is too high to bear. All IMO, of course.
Ugly caning videos aren’t your thing and they aren’t mine. But I don’t think there’s a single principled ground for arguing that “they must be stopped.”
Fanfare, I really don’t draw any lines; I’m an anarchist who believes that each of us owns our own body and is free to dispose of it as we will. Telling someone “you may not consent to being treated in x-y-z fashion” is not something I would ever do.
In the United States, there are BDSM/knifeplay/body modification enthusiasts who routinely consent to having body parts removed. That grosses me out, but it’s perfectly OK with me; it’s their own business and it doesn’t hurt me.
Dan, you’re touching on a lot of issues here, and I’m sorry if I end up ignoring one of them - it won’t be intentional.
I don’t think that we can never agree, because it’s becoming quite obvious that we’re arguing in completely different planes. It looks to me that you, as a consumer and a kinky person, are holding the anti-censorship corner for the spanking industry’s right to film whatever people are happy to film. (I.e. the spankos vs. the censors.)
Me, while I’m happy to go on an anti-censorship march at some point, right now I’m talking about creating a safe, ethical environment for the spanking models to work in; I believe, it will ultimately lead to the sort of libertarian paradise that we the kinky people would like to live in. (I.e. I’m talking about the models vs. the pornmakers angle.)
First of all (and I’m addressing this correction to everybody, actually), in ranting about bad technique, I’m not talking exclusively about Eastern European productions here; coming from that part of the world, I’m the last person wishing to demonise it. There are plenty of appalling caners in the West.
When I talk about sloppy caning being bad for the industry, I don’t mean that somehow it’s going to represent us in the wrong light to the world at large - because, frankly, we’re going to be seen as filthy perverts however accurate our tops are. I don’t care about the world at large. I care about the models. I may not be the most experienced model in the scene, but I’ve learnt a few things about how the shoots work.
An educated, self-aware model knows to specify, while negotiating with a film producer, where she is and isn’t comfortable with being hit. As far as I understand, standard practice in the UK is that a spanking model will be hit _on the bottom_; anything else involves extra negotiation: breasts, back, hands, feet and thighs may all be attractive areas for some people, but some talking needs to happen before any of these can be hit. If firm consent is present, the girl can have her bottom sliced in half if she likes - whatever. Just as long as nobody’s taking advantage of her. I’m just not looking at the girls that are *happy* right now - they are, good for them.
How do I know that in those other cases consent is questionable? That’s because I *talk* to people. You can’t imagine the amount of gossip that’s exchanged on the spanking set. This gossip consists, quite often, of things like “I told that bastard not to touch my thighs, and then he did it again,” “That girl is unhinged, did you see what she did to my *calves*”? This often comes from girls who stand up and walk away mid-shoot, but often you’ll talk to or hear from a girl who’s stayed because she thought that’s what was expected, or because she thought she wouldn’t get any more work if she didn’t finish this particular scene. This could count as consent, I suppose. But it sure makes for some upset girls.
I’m not sure why I’m going to such great lengths about it, because I”m pretty sure none of my readers (nor Dan in particular) wish spanking models any harm. (Duh!) It’s just that we disagree on what constitutes harm, and on the tactics of avoiding harm.
Iris said: “Just as it seems silly to write stilted dialogue that we’d never use in real life, it seems dangerous to give people the idea that any Joe can pick up a cane or paddle or singletail and start whaling away.”
While it seems unlikely that people would use spanking film as educational tapes, I have, unfortunately, been spanked by folks who have. Oh, boy. It can be quite tragic… in a comical sort of way.
Well, my perspective is more industry than consumer, considering that I run adult websites for a living, as well as being a somewhat kinky fellow in my private life. But you’re correct that our perspectives are very different.
If you’re concerned about standards of consent in the caning movie industry, why not just say so? I’m behind you a thousand percent if you’re saying “Producers are caning girls in ways the girls haven’t consented to, this must be stopped!” That’s a crime in most jurisdictions, and it’s also just not something that any man worthy of the name does. Nothing more there to discuss that I can see.
But that’s not how you opened this conversation. Nope, you started by vividly stating an obvious truth: many of these people caning in these videos don’t seem to have a clue how to do it “right” — at least from an aesthetic standpoint. (There’s also a subsidiary safety issue about which we may disagree, as consent trumps safety in my book but perhaps not in yours, I’m unclear.)
But you didn’t mention consent in your original post, you simply described (vividly) the rampant incompetance that inarguably exists. Then you growled, and then you said “it must be stopped” — while expressly saying that you didn’t want it to be “acceptable” to hit models just “anywhere-bleeding-where” with the cane.
This doesn’t sound like an argument about consent to me. No, it sounds like an argument about what kind of caning should be “acceptable”. That’s closer to an argument about what sorts of things models *should* consent to (or be allowed to consent to) than it is to an argument about whether they did or not.
So, to sum up:
1) We agree that sloppy caning is ugly and doesn’t turn us on.
2) We agree that models shouldn’t be caned where they haven’t consented to be caned.
3) You have asserted that sloppy (more precisely, off-the-bottom) caning should not be “acceptable” and “must be stopped”. This seemed to me to be the *primary* assertion of your post, and I still don’t agree with it. Arguments about aesthetics and consent (strongly though I may agree with them) don’t support this proposition.
4) You have in the comments asserted that a better standard of caning practice would make for a safer, better environment for caning models. I support that too. I’m just not willing to condemn folks who disagree with us by saying their practices are “unacceptable” and “must be stopped.” There’s way too much of that in the kink community already.
Hi Adele, I’d just like to chip in here (it’s wonderful there’s a sane place to rant!). How about the top receiving six strokes for every miss-hit? Seriously though, guys please don’t play fast and loose with professionalism and safety. Cane strokes delivered in the tail bone region, (that’s about to 4cm below the top of the cheek divide, find it with your finger-tip if in doubt) are simply dangerous and must be avoided. I admire what you stunt performers do and it is absolutely legit. Notice I don’t use the word “spanking model”. Adele, I work in the film industry, and I’ve just partnered my client with the producer of extreme sports documentaries. We just premiered her first film in this genre. The preparation which goes into stunts just blows me away. I’ve emailed you a standard Screen Actors Guild Stunt Performers Daily Contract to peruse. That, together with a precise list of the actions the stunt requires, form the basis of the agreement between the performer and the producer. For example, were I contracted to flog someone in a remake of Mutiny on the Bounty, it would be covered by such an agreement. The Joint Industry Stunt Committee, Equity and SkillSet.org in the UK are great sources of guidance. Both top and bottom should sign agreements and understand their liabilities. “Precise” should include the number of strokes, position, when and where, with what and by whom administered. Hey, you know this better than me! Although some might argue that no producer of spanking videos would sign a SAG-type contract, unless those who do act in them insist on a form of detailed formal agreement, it could be argued we have only ourselves to blame when something goes sadly wrong , there is no redress, and in the UK, the tabloid press get their hots on it. Anyone who would take exception to this please study the limitations of liabilities clauses for fencing and martial arts stunts. Stunt performers in main-stream productions are often expected to endure considerable levels of discomfort and sustain minor, not career limiting injuries.
Dan, as a you are self-professed anarchist, permit me a tongue in cheek question: In an anarchic state, to which branch of a non-existent legislature would you suggest a stunt performer turn to sue for breach of contract?
I realize that because some see spanking films as being on the margins of legality, that the same margins might be used to unscrupulously manipulate and exploit vulnerable actors and actresses to consent to something they do not understand. That is simply insupportable. Dan puts it much better, ‘I very much doubt these girls have any idea where the cane is “supposed” to land or what their welts are “supposed” to look like. And yet they have consented in every way that matters.’ I think this really supports Adele’s thought that, “the recipient’s consent is questionable.” Some might argue more strongly, that leaving “the girls” without “any idea” almost sounds like negligence. Regardless of whether it’s a small-budget super-8 movie or something more ambitious, I’ll leave this point with: Consent = Contract + Detailed description of a stunt, which has been carefully explained with all concomitant dangers and consequences to the stunt performer. That’s the minimum we insist on in movie making.
To lighten up a bit, even with practiced hands miss-hits happen. I’d never criticize anyone for that. It’s happened to me both as top and bottom.. After delivering quite a challenging, and right up to the last stroke, a nigh on perfect caning, a friend, who caned me said, “It nearly always seems to happen that my final cane stroke goes higher than I like … I don’t know why. Perhaps I’m giving it that little bit of extra ‘oomph!’ and it just drifts.” Incidentally, that caning was partly in response to ascertain the depth of my apologetic feelings for a single tail miss-hit I’d cut into my friend’s thigh a few hours earlier – even more galling as I’d whipped the same friend so accurately the previous night.
PS. And if my client will allow me, I’m angling to try sky-diving later this year!
Blimey, Redhead. How long did it take you to type this?
There’s no way I’m going to tackle replying this thread at this hour of the night, but thanks for the comments, folks.
A great point about stunt performers, Redhead, as that’s how we’re defined in the Lupus contract. I prefer that term - kaskadérka - to “spanking model” because “model” implies something less active to me. Modelling is what I’m doing when I’m camping it up in stills, pretending to be in pain from a pretend spanking.
Dan, I agree that a lot of girls don’t have any idea where a cane should land, what the marks should look like or that there is any standard of accuracy. But as Redhead says, that doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be TOLD. Even naifs have a right to know that there are standards and degrees of proficiency. And they have the same right to expect that a top knows what he/she is doing as those of us who play in our private lives. A top who doesn’t care about wrapped strokes and doesn’t bother to learn anything about technique is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. If the girl he’s caning doesn’t care either, then there’s no problem. I’d prefer to see an accurate caning, of course, but if the top, bottom and viewer are all happy, great.
I also agree that “consent trumps safety,” but it has to be *informed* consent (see Bailey’s excellent points). What informedly consenting adults do in privacy is their own business, no matter how shocking, disgusting or dangerous it might seem to the rest of us. If it doesn’t affect me, it’s none of my business.
That said, I agree that there are some worrying trends in the film industry and that those in a position to reach so many people with visual images *ought to* lead by example. But I also firmly believe that the artist has no moral responsibility. So I’m a bit conflicted there. In an ideal world, all cane enthusiasts would have the same idea about what a “proper” caning is and should look like. But it will never be an ideal world.
If some people like wild, unaimed, inaccurate canings, more power to them. They have no shortage of films that cater to those needs. Personally, I find the top who can land a cane stroke to within an inch or two of where it’s aimed every time far more intimidating and worthy of respect. This is someone who’s *practised,* not just some out-of-control angry lout who grabs the nearest implement and whales away, as his aim is simply to cause pain or damage. Controlled punishment/abuse/sadism will always earn my respect and my fear. Think of those martial arts masters who administer judicial canings in places like Singapore.
I couldnt agree more with the articles on ‘incompetant’ caning methods. Often, the cane is held incorrectly as if the person administering the caning is blind deaf and dumb. Definitely the directors or producers of these films should not be in the industry at all. I must applaud one lady in particular who stands out from all others, and that is Cassie, from Cassiecanes. Her technique is blistering and I have never seen such accuracy. Lets have less of the incompetants and more like her.
Cheers vinspank
I wonder what happens to the ones that get bad stripes on their ass after the first go. Not much chance of getting work if you start with a striped ass.
The start needs a clear ass, and I know that that can need weeks after a bad caning.
Well, not many girls participate in shoots more than every couple of weeks, anyway. The ones who do know to avoid the sort of productions that can leave them badly marked.
The problem isn’t getting work per se, it’s the need to take care of yourself and your skin.