The Philosophy of 'Who Gets the Spanking?' Part 1 of 2

[KajiraGames]

The Philosophy of 'Who Gets the Spanking?' Part 1 of 2
by KajiraGames (FM/FFFFF)

Feel free to skip the 'Technical Blurb' sections if you just want the story.

DILEMMA 1: When Avril was young, she once had the bad luck to be standing at the entrance to the girls' shower-block at her boarding school, at the worst possible time. To her left were the shower cubicles, where her friend Barbara was enjoying an illicit wank, stroking her clit with her eyes closed contentedly. To her right were the changing rooms where more of her friends - Connie, Dawn and Eve - were puffing away on smuggled cigarettes.

Just then Miss Fox, a much-feared teacher, entered the facility, walked past Avril and began to turn to the right. Avril's three friends were in imminent danger of a bare-bottom spanking with a gym shoe. This was the penalty for either smoking or self-abuse, and Miss Fox was known to lay it on hard until the unfortunate victim was yelling blue murder and promising not to repeat the offence. There was no time to warn anyone of her approach.

There was only one way Avril could save her three friends' rear ends - by diverting Miss Fox towards the shower stalls, and Barbara. Avril liked Barbara, and it was just not done to snitch on another girl. But if she said "Oh Miss Fox, there's a girl touching herself down there!", only one bare bottom would be reddened instead of three. What should she do?

THE ALTERNATIVES: Let's assume Avril is not like you and me, and wanted to see as FEW of her friends spanked as possible. If she spoke, she would have to hear Barbara's screech as she was caught with her panties down, and then her cries as the gymshoe whacked her bare cheeks again and again. After which, Avril would have to withstand Barbara's accusation that her blazing behind was all Avril's fault. Connie, Dawn and Eve might not even be grateful - they might only listen to the part where Avril snitched, a gross crime among her peers.

If she did nothing, well Miss Fox was heading towards her three friends anyway. At most, she could be accused of negligence in doing nothing to stop the triple spanking that would result. But it burned her conscience to imagine three girls bent over, bunched panties at various heights, while Miss Fox went down the line making them howl. Three red, sore bottoms when there could have only been one.

TECHNICAL BLURB: Utilitarians like Bentham and Mill would say Barbara has to sacrifice her bare behind, for 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. "Sorry Avril, you have to snitch" they would say, "to maximize overall happiness, i.e. achieve the highest number of unspanked bottoms." This consequentialist approach would be opposed by those whose view of moral choice is categorical, i.e. there are some things you don't do, whatever the consequences. "You just don't snitch, Avril", Kant would say. "That's a categorical imperative. So Corrine, Dawn and Eve must take their panties down".

OUTCOME: Avril diverted Miss Fox towards Barbara and listened with trembling lower lip as the poor girl suffered her fate. She tried to comfort her groaning friend afterwards, explaining the situation. "That's all very well" complained Barbara, "but it wasn't YOUR butt that was sacrificed. And Foxy warned me - if I'm caught again, I'll get a bare-bottom caning." The very idea caused all five girls to clutch their behinds defensively.


DILEMMA 2: The following week, unbelievably, the exact same situation occurred again. Except that this time, if Miss Fox was diverted toward the left, she would haul Barbara off to face the ultimate penalty - six thin welts across her bare cheeks.

THE ALTERNATIVES: Last time, Avril easily calculated what was the greater good. But did three slipperings add up to one caning in quantity of suffering? She tried to think of what SHE would rather have - a whacking with that gym shoe three times as long as normal? Surely that would reduce her to blubbering and tears by the end. Or would she rather touch her toes, panties down, and scream as the cane blazed across her tender cheeks six times? But hold on - nobody would have to endure a triple slippering - it would be taken by three different girls. Was a 'spanking shared' worth fewer tears?

TECHNICAL BLURB: To take a utilitarian view this time, Avril would have to engage in a cost-benefit analysis. Number of spankings multiplied by how much it hurts, and so on. Or she could abandon this approach and let the categorial imperative of not snitching be the deciding factor.

OUTCOME: Avril suddenly realised that she could call Miss Fox a nosey old bitch, to her face, and all four of her friends would be warned of the teacher's presence by Avril's own yelps of pain. She opened her mouth, but the sight of Miss Fox's gymshoe under her arm made Avril's voice freeze up in fear. No sound would come out. So Miss Fox continued into the changing rooms. Soon the facility was full of the yelps and pleadings of three bare-bottomed girls being whacked ferociously.