Why do parents spank bare bottomed?

My bare bottom spankings were all given to cause maximum humiliation as well as to hurt that little bit more. Having my trousers, shorts, jeans, pyjamas or nappy taken down or off gave me just enough time to realise that my fate had been sealed and that in just a few seconds I would be hauled unceremoniously across usually my daddy's lap and I would be bawling my eyes out, promising to be a good boy and very sorry for what ever I had done wrong while enduring the stinging, burning pain of his huge hand battering down on my small bottom and there was nothing at all that I could do about it. The worst items of clothing to be removed for me were coveralls. My dad would sit me on his lap and take his time undoing the bib and braces, then laying me down in the diaper change position, legs up to pull off the full length garment. He'd be either yelling at me or talking quietly (which was worse) telling me what was about to happen to my bottom and how I wouldn't be sitting down for a week. He'd then turn me over across his knees and pull my pants down, a rub of my bottom while his lecture went on and then the good hiding that I'd been dreading would begin. At the end he'd sit me up and slowly redress me being none too gentle. I might get another couple of whacks to the seat of my coveralls and told to be good or I'd get another one before being sent on my way or to the corner depending on my offense.

My parents spanked bare because they thought embarrassment was part of the punishment.

I could definitely use a spanking like that I’ve ben a very naughty baby. Maybe after the spanking followed by a diaper change and rectal temp.

From my experience the only bare bottom spankings I received were from my Mother. Looking back a number were for misdemeanors my sibling would get away with. I suspect my Mother took some form of pleasure or thrill from the humiliation and embarassment it caused me.

Shame, embarrassment, humiliation - all usually verbally reinforced when I was growing up, especially as I got older. “I can’t believe I have to pull your panties down and spank you like a bad little girl…” “don’t you feel ridiculous right now?” “Isn’t this embarrassing for you at your age?”

Also, obviously it hurts more especially depending on the implement but as others have mentioned too it allows them to see the color of your bottom and whether or not they’re doing any serious damage or harm, which is a good thing.

For me the level of undress or exposure was always correlated with the severity of my offense. There were times where I got spanked over my panties but almost never with pants on.

I think it is because a bare bottom has no protection from the swats which would increase the pain. Parents tend to want the lesson to be “remembered”. I think it also adds to the humiliation of being treated like a child and possibly embarrassment for having their bottom spanked. Some children feel like a baby when turned over a parent’s knee which further enhances their embarrassment.

When I was growing up back in the '60s and '70s, bare bottom spanking was pretty much the way all parents spanked, or so it seemed to me anyway. I think the reason for this was, primarily, that a spanking on the bare skin hurts so much more! I know from personal experience that a solid piece of cherrywood - the material my own Mom's hairbrush was made out of - or a heavy chunk of celluloid - my Aunt Rose's weapon of choice, when applied to a bare bottom HURTS SO, SO, SO MUCH!!!! The burn and sting is simply incredible; and the 'impression' it leaves is also a real 'attention getter'! Even a good, old fashioned hand spanking on your bare behind is something you never forget! Secondly, the humiliation aspect plays a big part in, when I was growing up anyway, the prevalence of bare bottom spanking! The embarrassment of having your behind bared was very effective in its own right! Thirdly, also, to varying degrees and not something that was universally the case; there is no doubt that some/many aduts derived sexual pleasure and erotic satisfaction from having a bare bottom postioned over their knee/lap optimally placed for a good spanking! This was certainly the case for my Aunt Rose who definitely had a spanking fetish! All in all bare bottom spanking was/is more effective and also in some instances afforded the person administering the spanking a lot more pleasure and satisfaction! In the case of the latter, it seems incredible and at best inappropriate and at worse abusive that some parents/adults derived erotic enjoyment from spanking kids from the perspective of current times; but things were very different in the past!

Because it’s more fucking painful!

So you can't put newspaper down your shorts

So you can't put newspaper down your shorts

My uncle told me of the time his dad ordered him to his room for a spanking. He put on a pair of thick corduroy pants and stuff a magazine down his pants. His dad caught on right away and pulled everything down and spanked him with a belt on his bare ass.

I believe that this is done to humiliate and increase pain. But it seems to me that some parents do this for self-satisfaction (I mean, they may like the way the child is ashamed, or it's an open fetish from their childhood and they decide to do it with their baby)

It is more painful to get, and/or give, a bare bottom spanking as others have said. It is a bit humiliating as well. To have your bum exposed as well as ones genitals. It is not something that most are comfortable doing.

Given my particular relationship with my parents, any kind of spanking would have been utterly humiliating, particularly bare bottom. Thank god it never happened.

One so can see how red victims bottom is getting, two humiliation to add to punishment having bottom bared regress the boy or girl back small child, three so can't protect bottom with hiden magazine or book finaly how else can perant judge if bottom is fully red and well spanked.

It was mainly to add humiliation in my case. Pain too, but primarily humiliation.

I also think that, certainly at the times when I grew up in in '60s and early '70s America, there was a prevalent belief and cultural norm that a proper and real spanking WAS a bare bottom one! I'm not saying that that was universally the case, others may have different recollections, but it is how I remember things, especially in the circles and communities in which I grew up in!

My mom always spanked me bare bottom. At times I have to do it myself and at times she will pull it down. It is very embarrassing.

It starts with a lecture making me to understand why I was spanked. Next was to bare my bottom for the spanking.

I always end up with a red bottom as I look at the mirror while rubbing my bottom. At times I have when I am very naughty I was given the cane. It stings and burn like hell. When I look at the mirror after my caning I can see the marks on my bottom (=|=) clearly they never land at the same place and evenly spread out.

I guess mom bare my bottom because she can control the amount of spanking so as not to harm me. Specially caning where the cane lands it would hurt very much if it land at the same place.

Spanking is a punishment not abuse. Mom spanking is a reminder for me not to do it again. I have seen some children with cane marks all over their bottom with bruises and blood on their bottom that is abuse.

Being a timid boy in the early seventies, just having my pants pulled down for a smacked bum would make me to burst into tears. So a little hand smacking was my normal punishment.

When I spank my husband in our role playing games it always ends up with his bottom bare, even if the initial spanks are on his underwear.

Humiliation is, I think, a big part of spanking. Having your outer clothes lifted/removed and your undies tugged down certainly adds to the anticipation and humiliation.

.

Why do parents spank on the bare bottom?

1. Bare bottom makes the punishment hurt more.

2. Bare bottom adds to the humiliation of being punished.

3. Bare bottom puts the spankee in a more submissive position.

1. Bare bottom makes the punishment hurt more.

2. Bare bottom adds to the humiliation of being punished.

3. Bare bottom puts the spankee in a more submissive position.

You're right, these are the three reasons why parents spank their children on their bare buttocks. Certainly, spanking on bare skin hurts more. Baring the buttocks is part of the ritual that subordinates the child. Older children and teenagers are embarrassed by the fact that a parent sees their bare buttocks.

I would add a fourth reason - the parent sees the effects of spanking. When a parent hits their bare buttocks, they see how the skin turns red and can avoid doing great harm to the child.

@Reman

Excellent 4th point. Good parents want to discipline, not abuse, their children. The redness of the bare bottom indicates to the parent when to stop the spanking.

@Reman

Excellent 4th point. Good parents want to discipline, not abuse, their children. The redness of the bare bottom indicates to the parent when to stop the spanking.

This was my mother's constant argument. I was punished physically until the age of 15, always on bare buttocks. When I was a teenager, I asked my mother to keep my underwear on. Spanking my bare bottom seemed embarrassing to me, I felt like a little child. My mother said that she must see my buttocks and the effects of the blows.

Perhaps, Reman, your mother should have put you into a pair of sheer frilly panties for your spanking? That would have prolonged the ritual of your spanking, heightened your humiliation and also allowed her to pull your panties down when she wanted to see how red your bottom was.

.

Why do parents spank on the bare bottom?

1. Bare bottom makes the punishment hurt more.

2. Bare bottom adds to the humiliation of being punished.

3. Bare bottom puts the spankee in a more submissive position.

I can only speak for personal experience, but #3 in Vasby's list speaks to my experience. The one sure way to get spanked in my house was to challenge my aunt's authority and there was always a point when I got spanked, when my butt was bared, when she would say something like, "you're not such a big boy now, are you?"

@Vasbyt Also perhaps

4. One can directly see the redness / possible damage and thus give the intended dose, no more no less?

Perhaps, Reman, your mother should have put you into a pair of sheer frilly panties for your spanking? That would have prolonged the ritual of your spanking, heightened your humiliation and also allowed her to pull your panties down when she wanted to see how red your bottom was.

That wouldn't be my mom's style. My buttocks were bare the whole time of the spanking.

.

@Jacana

@Vasbyt Also perhaps

4. One can directly see the redness / possible damage and thus give the intended dose, no more no less?

Thank you. You are absolutely right to adding the 4th point. Good parents want to discipline and correct, not abuse and beat their children.

There might even be a 5th point or maybe just tied to the submissive aspect as a 3B:

3B. Bare bottom clearly places the parent in the dominant role as the one in control.

There might even be a 5th point or maybe just tied to the submissive aspect as a 3B:

3B. Bare bottom clearly places the parent in the dominant role as the one in control.

There is a lot of truth in this. In addition to practical reasons, showing the bare buttocks by a child is subordination to the authority of the parent. Especially when the child has to expose their buttocks alone before being spanked. It is submission to the authority of the parent and their control.

Shame and humiliation. It was embarrassing to be caught doing something wrong and then having to pull down my pants, be put across my mom's lap, and then get spanked with either a hand or a wooden spoon.

I recall the last time that my mom ever spanked me, I was laughing at her while she was doing it. I'm pretty sure that she knew spanking wasn't working on me anymore.