I just tried to reply to a comment posted by Razor, in the comments section of the free-spanking.com post. It was my first attempt to reply to a comment and it told me to type the word that I saw below, problem was, there was no word to type. I have disabled this feature, so if you have had problems posting comments, it should be fixed now. No membership needed, no e-mail address needs to be provided, you should now just be able to comment.
Comments:Thank you Mr. M,
A quick question when you have time...which of Ed's movies is that picture from just below this thread? I'm not very familiar with his movies. The realism of that pic makes me wonder if the movie is as good.
Honestly I do not know. A lot of the early stuff was pictures only, but with the color and quality of that picture I am assuming that there is a video to go with it. If you go to the nu-west site and click any of the e-mail links, you may be able to get an answer from them.
As to whether the movie is any good, gee, I hate to say. I WILL say that in my other post when I said some of the early spankings look fake, this is probably THE one I was most thinking of. The spanker is wielding this great big frat paddle, taking sweeping backswings, and if she's not pulling her punches so the paddle barely hits bottom, then my eyes are deceiving me. A lot of the time it looks to me like it's not making contact at all. Debbie's bottom never gets red during the scene; again, I have no idea how it got so red for the stills. (Maybe she took a few "full swats" for the stills, just to get the color.)
One thing I'd forgotten is that, somehow, even with the "pulled" swats, Debbie DID get MARKS on her bottom. Not overall redness, but splotchy bruises. So she was getting hit SOME of the time. I just don't think it was ALL of the time.
However, if you have 49.95 to spare, maybe you should buy the DVD so you can judge for yourself, rather than rely on my jaded judgment.
While I do think it's fair to judge any creative work by contemporary standards, or to attempt to judge it by timeless standards, I think it's also necessary to try to judge by the standards of the time the work was created. And I don't know what the standards were in the mid 1970s when (I think) the early Debbie spankings were filmed. It's entirely possible that spanking erotica then was like soft-core porn is now. In soft core porn, we EXPECT to see the simulation of sex without any actual sex. It's possible that the expectations of a mid-70s spanking fan were to see a simulation of spanking without any actual spanking. A spanking video from our times might seem harsh or brutal to them; they might not have WANTED or expected to see that much realism. I don't know. And because I don't know, whatever I say should not be taken as valid criticism of those scenes. I may be (by analogy) criticizing Hamlet for being too long or the original King Kong for having crude special effects, when to contemporary audiences those works were both marvels just the way they were.
The scene under discussion plays out the way I imagined a paddling would before I'd ever actually seen one. Dozens of hard swats with an immense paddle on the bare. If the swats HAD been full force, Debbie'd have been crippled. It would have been irresponsible to shoot that scene, as shown, with "real" swats. It was a fantasy of a spanking. So, again, maybe it must be judged by that standard.