As I understand the gist of what you are saying these people who act out these daddy daughter diaper type scenarios should stop their internet activities lest they queer things for the rest of us! Adults pretending to be bratty little girls or dressing up as babies isn't my idea of fun but then again one may say who are we to dictate to others. That is the trouble nowadays everyone wants to tell you how to live your life. Lets all take a stand against moral deviancy and go back to the missionary position!! As long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone or limit their freedom I don't see how it's anyone's business but the people directly involved. My advice is avoid tumbler and any of those other sites then you wont be annoyed. Most importantly we should all stand firm against all this nanny knows best rubbish that governments seem determined to inflict upon us.

I have always felt that what goes on privately between consenting adults is totally fine and none of my business, even if it's not to my personal liking. It always amazes me what people will share publicly on the internet and to what extent. And it really IS out there forever, floating around in cyberspace! Your cautionary advice is good in theory, but the kind of person who openly shares such images, quotes, and blogs about the topics you mentioned would never be the kind to "self-censor" in the first place.

I think that this is a subject that has to be faced by the spanking community and treated with the utmost seriousness.No right minded person would ever want censorship to raise its ugly head but in todays society the physical punishment of children/teenagers is simply not accepted and this in my opinion, to the general public, also includes " daddy daughter play acting adults."I understand the comments concerning "what goes on behind closed doors etc. but this is to miss the point in that owing to the type of exposure on various sites it is no longer behind closed doors. You do not require a vivid imagination to imagine in a not too distant future a Government that links child abuse to these sites and by association other spanking sites. I believe Lauren Aspen deserves great credit in bringing this difficult topic to our attention, it should be discussed as a matter of urgency, we will ignore it at our peril.

It seems to me that Ms. Aspen's objections are largely from a "feminist" perspective vis a vis male patriarchal behavior. I gather she's against it and doesn't wish the idea of female submissive behavior, especially in domestic situations to be perpetuated online at sites like this and assorted blogs and tumblr sites. Apparently it betrays the cause of sisterhood and perpetuates stereotypes of patriarchal, HOH type behaviors in real life. And apparently we should "self-censor" so that this type of offensive thought doesn't become more common since it's oppressive and insulting to "female equality". So what? I'm pretty sure this site doesn't exist to promote gender equity. It's a SPANKING site!

I don't know how many blogs/sites are specifically M/f in nature but I DO know there's an awful lot of F/m sites, including domestic discipline, female-led marriage, female-superior relationships where the males are helpless little subbies or even sissies at the mercy of their mistresses who punish/humiliate/torture them in front of their friends and brag about it. I for one, couldn't even imagine volunteering to submit to something like this but apparently there's a lot of guys for whom this is a dream come true. Some of this involves infantilism and forced feminization as well. Apparently, there's also a lot of women who dream of dominating males as well. Good luck to them. I wouldn't dream of advising them to cease and desist (self-censor) this kind of stuff because I disapprove of "gynocracy" or female domination of men. I don't know if this kind of stuff "bleeds over" into real life but I'm not concerned about it because one hardly hears about it although there are many claims of such relationships on blogs/websites dedicated to that particular kink. Different strokes for different folks. If I'm offended by someone else's fetish, I just ignore it. I don't visit their sites/blogs, etc.

BTW, Ms. Aspen, even though I'm in the US, I'm only reaching for my figurative pen, not my gun. It would be a hell of a long shot anyway, since I'm guessing you're in the UK. Frankly, I find that remark insulting. You have your laws, we have ours. At least we HAVE a First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. Can you say the same? And I believe it's your PM who's suggesting simply shutting down all "pornographic" websites from ISP's unless the subscriber specifically opts in?

As as for the comment above, Carto75's position seems to be that, unless it's a "safe" fantasy of anything other than consensual adult spankings, it's likely to be associated with pedophile sites and banned by assorted governments so sites like this should censor or discourage anything that might bring unwanted attention from the authorities. Which puts me in mind of Churchill's comment about feeding the crocodile in the hope that he'll eat you last...

' Laurel Aspen' is an androgynous nom de plume - this was written by a male

Feminist, incidentally, doesn't require inverted commas - nor is it a pejorative

When working in the southern States I've observed how quickly angry people reach for a gun; demonstrable experience, not a stereotypical assumption

I absolutely endorse the comment about the UK (where I live) probably benefitting from something similar to the first amendment, thank goodness we do at least gain some protection from European human rights legislation. Our PM is unspeakable

I see nothing wrong with self-censorship, any more than I do self-discipline - we live in a wider society

I take it you're "Laurel Aspen" then? Frankly, that name doesn't sound androgynous to me. I know of no male ever named "Laurel" although perhaps we are two peoples seperated by a common language?

Your apparently passionate endorsement of feminism and feminist principals and rhetoric may have mislead me. One doesn't run into "male feminists" that often. Like spankos, that seems to be a decidedly minority opinion. Forgive me for mistaking you for a female. "Feminist" in this case does indeed require quotes as does "liberal" as they both are, as far as I'm concerned, perjoratives. Just my opinion, not unlike your characterization of some men's domineering attitudes towards women as "unacceptable" According to whom? Your main concern seems to be that the perpetuation of HOH or DD scenarios will somehow lead to "unacceptable" subjugation of women in real life. This is ludicrous. These are fantasies, just like spanking fantasies, just like female-dominant relationship fantasies, or BDSM fantasies. And, needless to say, your admitted "sexually submissive" play with your better half "at weekends" seems to be more than a little hypocritical. If you think others will think you a pervert for enjoying a little (consensual)spanking play, you're right. They already do. And as far as politicians and theocrats seeking to censor the Internet as part of their "right-wing agenda" to further repess women, they don't NEED an excuse, they're going to do it anyway. For the common good, of course...

If you got your beliefs toward American culture from working (and presumably living) in the South, I can see why you may have that attitude. Southerners are a bit different. I would still however, prefer that to an overweening, arrogant patriarchal (or perhaps matriarchal would be more appropriate) nanny state that presumes to treat its citizens as unruly children who need to be protected from themselves by removing the temptation to misbehave. That's what we have courts, judges and juries for. It's currently against the law, in all fifty states and under Federal law, to shoot someone, or even threaten to shoot someone, except in self-defense or in the defense of others from a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Break the law, go to jail. The people should not fear their government, the government should fear THEM. (MY opinion again). Demonstrable experience? I've owned guns all my adult life, including handguns and even "evil" assault weapons with high capacity magazines and I've never even been arrested, much less convicted of any crime, nor have I ever shot anyone, even in self-defense.

Your belief in "European human rights legislation" to protect you from the excesses of your own government is laughable. The whole European Union idea is simply an excuse to collectivize a number of formerly sovereign nations into one "supergovernment" led by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who care nothing for individual rights, only the rights that the state, in its majesty, grants the proletariat (for their own good, of course). When your betters in Brussels decide you don't "need" to be wasting time better suited for productive behavior of benefit to the greater society, that "human rights legislation" will disappear like a puff of smoke and all "pornographic" sites (like this one) will be circumscribed (and monitored) if not eliminated outright. Welcome to the new world!

"Self censorship" in this context, is nothing more than appeasement of people, who, like the crocodile, you hope will eat you last. "Living in a wider society" doesn't mean giving up your freedom, it just means having some consideration of others. Being shouted down (metaphorically) or restrained, legally or otherwise from having unpopular opinions or engaging in unpopular activities is the essense of bullying. Only it's not called "bullying" when the government does it, it's usually called "public safety" or some other comforting expression. Freedom of speech, or of the press, or of expression means nothing unless it's ALL free. If you can restrict it in the name of "public safety" or "protecting the children" or simply to protect the public order then it's no longer a right, it's a privilege that government may grant or take away at its discretion. Those who give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety...

There is nothing wrong with feminism. Women deserve equal pay, equal rights, equal everything as far as I am concerned. How could an intelligent man even think of using the word "feminist" as a term of contempt? I think we should stick to the subject which is personal liberty and the right to free expression. The author is being judgmental about other peoples fun yet hopes not to be judged on his own personal preferences. I particularly disliked the unnecessary reference to "working with abused children" which is just the sort of sanctimonious drivel the tabloid press regularly vomits up in order to justify yet more censorship. Adults pretending to be little girls are not abusing anyone!! It is surely not to everyone's taste but I am aware that some of my F/M preferences might seem a little weird to others so I personally wouldn't offer judgement. In fact I would strongly say, let them be, they bother no one.

It would appear that, other than the "feminist" thing, it seems that we agree on the other main points, i.e., that censorship, including in some cases self-censorship won't keep us "safe" from those who would deny us our right to self-expression and that encouraging others to tone down or dumb down their points of view so as to not attract attention from Puritans and sanctimonious, demogogic politicians who would circumscribe or even ban outright the means we have to share our opinions (and fantasies) is wrong-headed.

As to the former, you obviously haven't meant some of the feminists I have. Didactic, doctrinaire and shrill to the point of outright obnoxiousness are the kindest things I can think of to characterize their behavior. They're like lawyers, it's the ninety percent of them that give the other ten percent a bad name. Equal rights is one thing, "special" rights is something else. (Just my opinion again. Don't get me started on "liberals"...)

I'm also a 'liberal,' or socialist if you prefer - knock yourself out

All I can say is that I'm not judgmental when it comes to sex play involving spanking or any other role play as long as it doesn't include minors who believe they're doing the right thing by obeying orders. This disgusts me. Other than that, what takes place in the privacy of one's home and is legal and safe, I can say that it's none of my business either. That's until I should find out otherwise.

"I'm also a 'liberal,' or socialist if you prefer - knock yourself out"

Yes, you mentioned that in your article. However the gist of your article wasn't about politics in general, it was more about censorship, self-censorship and concerns about feminism and the possible oppression or women by "the right wing". That's what I addressed. If I were to concern myself with larger liberal (or progressive or socialist) issues, I'd be online 24/7. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so...

Although I understand this author's concerns and wonder at the proliferation of blogs promoting some of these more extreme fetishes, I do not believe it is my personal responsibility to judge the private lives of consenting individuals. We must acknowledge the convenience and freedom of social media as well as our own comfort expressing our views within this international spanking community that we enjoy here in the Library. All of the elements are present; private pops we send to others, fantasies revealed on the forum, salacious secrets in the chat room... We may congratulate ourselves that our secrets are safe, but truly what is the difference? The process is the same. We talk about fiction, but don't, writers write of their experiences & fantasies? How many of our stories, songs and poems contain a nugget of truth?
We are adults and choose what we read or don't read as well as write.
Islandcarol

One thing that the author doesn't seem to get is the reason people with very unusual or kinky tastes reveal their preferences on the internet is to find other people like themselves so they don't feel so alone. He seems to feel that they should stay in the closet to avoid offending the vanilla population.

I feel exactly the opposite, that the more people come out of the closet the more all types of uncommon preferences will be accepted which is a good thing. The larger the minority is the harder it is for the majority to censor them.

Normally I'm only looking at blogs I like and if I'm stumbling over a blog with offensive content I just stop reading. The library has many daddy/daughter-stories and I'm glad that they are here. Even if it's not exactly my cup of tea I do like to read these kind of stories occassionally, just to know, what other people like and to be informed about the many variations of a common kink.
I also like the idea of self-censorship. I myself would never publish anything for what I couldn't stand up. But the moment I'm asking somebody else to practise censorship it's obviously no self-censorship anymore. And who am I to decide what other people should (not) publish? I agree with tiptopper that thanks to the www minorities have much better chances to connect to each other. No need for us to practice anticipatory obedience just to save our own skin (which seems not to be at imminent risk anyway)

I think of myself as a feminist. I value the opinions of my feminist leaders (in my own country, in the UK and United Nations) . I hate that so many women and children are subjected to violent deplorable creepy men. I believe deplorable creeps are just as deplorable to most MEN. When the leaders who I value, call for an injunction against 'pornographic materials which devalue women,specifically depicting women being spanked ' I personally feel the conflict this issue addresses...I have always felt it.

I call bottom. I have the power and I called it. My power IS what makes all the difference. My body, my sex life, my appetite, my choice. There is power in choice. Theres a scene where Madeline Khan is a Roman Empress and she walks up and down the line of her royal guard inspecting their packages selecting a few and sings out no, no, no, no, yes. Repeating, taking ALL she likes dismissing what she doesn't. This is what I want to hold onto in my fantasy spanking fiction site. Like you, I don't care for everything I run across. I simply checkout the next offering. Censoring these offerings disempowers ME.

What happens in the bedroom between consenting adults, is their business… and if they decide to voice that in a blog to me is also their business if you are not interested, don’t read it…. however blogs that have adult content should be ‘password’ protected so children can’t not enter!! .... spanking is a very personal kink!! don't you think

I'm sorry, but I found this article rather pompous and preachy. I don't like anything to do with age play, so I don't look at blogs or read stories about it (unless they happen to be assigned to me to validate). But, I learned the hard way that other things, which I think are perfectly fine, are upsetting, even disgusting, to certain people. It is a fact of life that there will always be someone who misunderstands or just plain wants to criticize, whatever the subject. I believe that everyone should be aware of consequences and should self censor everything they do, especially those things that are put out for public consumption. But, sadly, not everyone has the common sense to do so. I dare say, all of us have made mistakes that have (or will) come back to haunt us, myself included.

And, by the way, I have lived my entire life in the heart of the American South and have yet to see anyone reach for a gun over a dispute - not a single person.

Okay, I guess I'm out of the loop a bit here. What on Earth is "HOH"? The author uses the acronym without first writing out what it stands for.

HOH= Head of Household, as far as I know.... Hope this helps.

I would say that people posting on blogs are still "ïn private" as I assume you cannot be identified from your blog unless you allow it. So what is the difference from blogging about your activities and doing it behind closed doors.
I agree I would not wish to blog about my activities but if others do then it is their business. If a particular bog is offensive, then don't read it

There have been many people who, when put on trial for using the internet to communicate with a minor for a sexual or lewd purpose, have claimed that they thought they were age playing with someone over the age 18 (or 19, or 21, or whatever was old enough in their area).

Do I believe that all of them were mistaken? No.
Do I believe that is easy to mistake age play for something that is illegal in most countries? Yes.
Would I want to take the chance that something I typed was misinterpreted? No.

But that's me.

Now I'll try a wall of text warning.
If anyone wants to see a case where sex fantasies got someone put on trial, it's easy to find one that got a lot of coverage. The fantasies were based around illegal acts, but who hasn't read an NC spanking story? The principle is the same, even if the guy that was put on trial had fantasies that broke many more laws. Hopefully this is enough of a warning that it will keep the easy offended from getting through this wall of text, but in case it's not clear, the person's fantasies were really out there, and if you don't want to see something very offensive then stop reading now. Anyway, search on the key words "Cannibal Cop" and you'll find the story of some disturbed men who emailed and chatted about kidnapping, murdering, and eating girls as part of an erotic fantasy. Even though they never actually did more than talk they ended up arrested, held in jail, put on trial, convicted, then (in most cases) freed on appeal. The effectively lost their lives (their jobs, their friends, their places in the community, while paying a huge legal bill) because someone thought their chats and emails were more than just sick fantasies.

And that's the same way talking about erotic spankings with your 'daughter' could be taken as something involving a minor and suddenly you've got massive legal bills.

The issue of censorship on the internet needs to be taken seriously. I think there are a couple of countries where spanking stories are subject to censorship laws.

It's crazy, of course. There are plenty of stories about murder, but nobody would ever suggest that these should be banned.

Interestingly, spanking children is actually legal in many countries. Parents are well within their rights to force their children to strip and submit to punishments. Thus, it's not surprising that these scenarios are used in adult sex play.

I tend to think that the extremes have made all the rest of our world suspect. Abuse; extreme marks; sadism; bondage; whipping; diapers; and other fetishes seem to have diminished our basically harmless pleasure if you enjoy it. I enjoy mild otk and while I recognize role-play as a aspect of it I do not think spanking is part of this extreme genre yet they lump it together and I may be a bit of a prude about some of this I do wish I had the ability to block whatever I find offensive (note I say what I find offensive as I would not want to make others share my ideas on spanking as like others say be true to thineself) so where does that leave us. I think someday they will have to censor it as it is becoming too extreme for most of the population. Have a great day.
Jim

I found myself agreeing with much of this article. will say right upfront that I am not a fan of father /daughter spanking stories, age play or no.Or mother/son stories either.
It is with good reason that many spanking sites,including the lamented lost Spanking Classics,forbidde ddiscussion of spanking minors or stories involving span kong. Minors.Others permit stories with spanking of minors only if no sex is involved. A wise decision,
As for feminists I generally support their position, except for those who take a dogmatic, narrow position that insists there is no difference between a consensual, mutually accepted relationship involving spanking, and domestic abuse.
Kind of like with the Confederate flagi issue. Those who think the flag on the car. In Dukes of Hazzard is the same as some racist yahoos displaying at their KKK rallies.

The article makes it seem like people who are interested in age play are budding paedos. Surely just because someone gets excited by having an adult dressed up as a baby girl or boy, does not mean they would be remotely interested in real children.
What about people who like stories involving slavery are we to think they would be wanting to own or to become one.
However a good point was made that if you have worked with abused children you may feel differently, but again, if you have worked with trafficked women and children sexy stories about slaves would not appeal.
Is the writer trying to say that a couple who live a DD lifestyle are weird, or perverse, it would fill him and his part time submissive with horror, well maybe your part time actions at week ends would be horrific to other people.
Posting anything on the web can fuel someone elses misguided beliefs, but are they misguided or simply not yet acceptable. After all if the web had been around say 50 or 60 years ago, stories about spanking would probably not raised an eyebrow, but stories involving homo sexual bevaviour would have caused outcry.
Today we can a story covering a homosexual who spanks male children and keep them as slaves.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that censorship is a very dangerous game to play, but it is equally dangerous to have people who show no personal understanding of their responsibilities to their fellow citizens by writing material that causes distress or influences people to be unpleasent or dangerous to others.
I think I will stop now, I am not sure if anything I have said is correct, I certainly do not wish to upset anybody and have no intention of being rude to the writer. It is all very difficult.

I would take the theme of this article as urging prudence in our online behavior. The net has been a wonderful place for fantasy--I read many stories about practices and fetishes in which I might never wish to engage but about which I find myself quite engaged in reading. My own limits are many, but only the most obvious--nothing to do with underage persons, animals, or extreme cruelty--would I wish to see avoided by writers. I've seen enough of this world to know that for every woman who wishes to be dominated by a man, there's a man who wishes to have a woman dominate him, or perhaps each wishes someone of the same sex. Some people wish to regress to childhood, others wish to engage in all kinds of roleplay which may relate only to their fantasies or to experiences they wish to conjure up. It makes sense to avoid getting into activities that are illegal; otherwise, I opt for free expression.

I am also on the free expression side of the argument in that it is much healthier for people to be out in the open. Censorship will not curb desires but it will drive them underground and then they can appear sinister.

I accept that other forces are at play and the pendulum could swing back at some stage towards a more repressed society, or is that supressed? If that happens though then there are many targets and I m not sure age play or DD would be high up the priorities. Yes, the child abuse revelations in recent years have shocked but it would be a long stretch to connect it in any way to age play between consenting adults.

Possibly there could be a crusade at some stage to clean up the internet but they may start with more pressing problems like promotion of terrorist activity.

While the threat of censorship is very real, anyone who doubts this need only read Pandora Blake's excellent blog, I find the idea that adults should self censor for fear of offending others despicable. By censoring ourselves are we not bowing to the very authoritative voices you are trying to avoid before they raise their ugly heads? Instead of quitley hiding for fear of outrage it is the job of those of is who wish to stand for free expression to defend victims of censorship when they appear. I would never and could never ask someone to hide themselves for fear of suffering the backlash along with them.

I personally view this issue in similar fashion to how the late non pc comedian Bernard Manning, rebutted those who criticised his comedy act, "I get up on stage and I do an act, It's not me, just as an actor playing a part in a film isn't the character".

If the people who look at blogs and sites showing images of LEGAL 'ageplay' type activities, then start being offended, my question would be why were they seeking out and viewing such blogs/sites in the first place? Like television if you don't like a programme then don't watch it, or if you view it and it not to your taste, then there is a off switch, similar principles apply to LEGAL online activities.

I will add visual imagery of ageplay does not interest me, so my viewpoint is based on principle, not defence of a personal liking.

A very interesting article and matter to consider.
If love and affection is strong - the husband will know exactly how to treat his wife in a loving way.