Spanking Mashin

Spanking Mashin
If playback doesn't begin shortly, try restarting your device.
Videos you watch may be added to the TV's watch history and influence TV recommendations. To avoid this, cancel and sign in to YouTube on your computer.
An error occurred while retrieving sharing information. Please try again later.
0:03 / 4:00 • Watch full video Live
Watch ads now so you can enjoy fewer interruptions

The utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was one of the first writers to contemplate the possibility that corporal punishment might be administered by a machine rather than by a human being. In The Rationale of Punishment he wrote:
"Of all these different modes of punishment, whipping is the most frequently in use; but in whipping not even the qualities of the instrument are ascertained by written law: while the quantity of force to be employed in its application is altogether intrusted to the caprice of the executioner. He may make the punishment as trifling or as severe as he pleases. He may derive from this power a source of revenue, so that the offender will be punished, not in proportion to his offence, but to his poverty. If he has been unfortunate, and not able to secure his plunder, or honest, and has voluntarily given it up, and thus has nothing left to make a sop for Cerberus, he suffers the rigour -- perhaps more than the rigour -- of the law. Good fortune and perseverance, in dishonesty, would have enabled him to buy indulgence.
"The following contrivance would, in a measure, obviate this inconvenience:-- A machine might be made, which should put in motion certain elastic rods of cane or whalebone, the number and size of which might be determined by the law: the body of the delinquent might be subjected to the strokes of these rods, and the force and rapidity with which they should be applied, might be prescribed by the Judge: thus everything which is arbitrary might be removed. A public officer, of more responsible character than the common executioner, might preside over the infliction of the punishment; and when there were many delinquents to be punished, his time might be saved, and the terror of the scene heightened, without increasing the actual suffering, by increasing the number of the machines, and subjecting all the offenders to punishment at the same time."
It is quite remarkable how popular this idea has proved among humorists, cartoonists and apparently some perfectly serious designers and inventors. Although few such machines have actually been built, the notion has recurred frequently over the centuries in a variety of media. Here are several examples of how it has been imagined. They are presented in roughly chronological order.

This caning machine appeared in a Russian book and looks as if it might be of Russian origin. Note the queue of offenders awaiting punishment. Each in turn is held down on a bench, over a cushion which raises up his bared buttocks. This design, which looks quite practicable, may be from the 19th century. (Russia had judicial whipping for peasants until the beginning of the 20th century.)

Here from Germany is a fantasy of automated mass spanking on a truly industrial scale. It comes from Die Körperstrafen bei allen Völkern ("Corporal punishment amongst all peoples"), by Dr Richard Wrede (1898), who attributes it to a magazine, "Fliegenden Blättern", of 1856. It does not look to me as if it could have worked very effectively.
Another 19th-century example of mass-production punishment, source unknown.

Twin cartoons from Cole's Funny Picture Book No 1 , published in Melbourne by E.W. Cole. These came with a long humorous text, full of surreal fantasy, the gist of which is that the first "Patent Whipping Machine for Flogging Naughty Boys in School", operated by hand, proved ineffective, whereas its steam-powered replacement produced the desired tearful response on the part of the culprits. (Thanks to Glen Ralph of the Wilmar Library for discovering the origin of this; his detailed research is written up in Notes and Curieux No 6 , Wilmar Library, Lockleys, Sep 2003.)

In this ingenious but surely rather impractical German design, the culprits are carried round and round the contraption for repeated doses of pain from the whizzing wheel of canes. The drawing appeared in Hansen, Stock und Peitsche im 19. Jahrhundert ("The cane and the whip in the 19th century"), Dresden, 1899.

This cartoon by P.V. Bradshaw from the Boys Own Paper in 1902 imagines a machine, the "Automatic Castigator", whose main purpose seems to be to save the lazy headmaster the trouble of getting up out of his chair. The inset drawing warns of the danger of getting caught up in it himself: "Awful result of a new headmaster examining the machine and touching a wrong button". The controls include "Regulator for intensity of strokes". This machine also talks: "I'm sorry to see you here again so soon, my boy. Much as it will pain me, and you, I shall have no alternative but to administer a thrashing..."

Frame from a comic strip, "Little Nemo in Slumberland", by Winsor McCay, in the New York Herald , 7 February 1909. The story is set in a school, where the principal has installed the new "Patent Automatic Corrector, Electric Manipulator and Spanking Administrator".
"The Mother's Kitchen Help and Ready Reckoner", including a machine labelled "Chastiser".

Here is one of many British boys' school stories in which a CP machine appears, this time wielding birches, probably from the interwar period.

Another illustration from an English boys' school story. Not having the story itself to hand, I am not sure who the sinister hooded figures are supposed to be. Note the transition from birch in the previous example to cane here.
Unlike many of the machines in our collection, this "Lifting and spanking machine" really existed. It was designed for Masonic lodges and college fraternities and such like to use in their initiation ceremonies, and is advertised here for $32.50 in the 1930 "Fraternal Supply Catalog" of Messrs DeMoulin Bros & Co. of Illinois. See more from this catalogue here .
This is in a picture agency's library but I have not been able to find out where it originally came from or what it is precisely. From the clothes of the boy being disciplined, it might be 1930s or 1940s but that is only a guess. The machine appears real, but it is hard to see from this picture quite how it works. One can make out what appears to be a small wooden paddle.
This machine for paddling soldiers who fail to shoot properly was featured in the US edition of Popular Mechanics during World War II.

Here is Mr Wilber Herring's self-operated kicking machine in North Carolina. The sign says "Have you ever said 'I want to kick myself'? Here's your chance".
This is said to be from a science-fiction comic strip called "Richie Rich".

The Bergen (Norway)-based installation artist Ruth Tulle made this spanking machine in 2001. It was an exact replica of one that had been built by her father, the Rev. Jens Koefoed-Jespersen, in 1967 for punishing his 12 children in their Danish home. For the full story, see Ruth Tulle's website , and on this page are more views of the machine in the Bergen Kunsthalle. Her cover page did include a number of very brief films of the machine in operation (hold your mouse over the small frames to see the films) but they seem not to be working.
Not so much a spanking machine as a kicking machine, in a 1960s British kids' comic.
From a similar source and in rather similar vein, here is a slippering machine.

The "Assemble-it-yourself Wacky Back-Whacker" was a toy for kids. The makers, Aurora, produced a vast range of plastic models in kit form, some of them serious real things like cars and planes but also, as in this case, jocular fantasies.
Inventor Otto Tuchenhagen, with 80 patents already to his name, submitted this design to the German Patent Office, and it was written up at length in a perfectly serious magazine (title and date not yet to hand). He thought the reintroduction of judicial CP for young delinquents would save the taxpayer a lot of money on reformatories and prisons. His machine, of which he proposed installing 2,000 examples all over West Germany (as it then was), would deliver a judicial caning in a humane and consistent manner.
The offender would be sentenced by the court to a suitable number of strokes. The sentence would be encoded on a magnetic card. The offender strips to his underpants, enters the caning room alone, and inserts the card in the machine. He receives the strokes in his own time, pressing down on the handle when he feels ready to take the next one. The cane will operate only when he is standing on the platform and holding on to the handle with both hands, thus ensuring that he is in the correct position to receive his punishment. An echo sounder on the column holding the cane checks that the miscreant has not cheated by putting padding such as a newspaper down the back of his pants.
All is done automatically: no one else is present in the room, so there is no risk of any cruelty or humiliation. Once the ordeal is over, the magnetic card now records that the penalty has been administered; the offender takes his card back to the court and is discharged.
Unaccountably, the authorities failed to take up Herr Tuchenhagen's scheme.

Here is a Spanking Bike -- an exercise bike converted to a spanking machine by a biking group in California. "The faster you pedal, the harder you get spanked. We were amazed at how many kids got on this thing, you'd figure they got enough ass whooping at home." Unfortunately this picture does not show how the machine works in detail ....
... However, the following video clip is either of the same machine or something more or less identical, and gives a clearer impression of the mechanism:

This video clip is not currently available.
This video clip shows the inventor of a paddling machine testing his prototype on himself. The design is based on paddles that operate by gravity, which does not look to me as if it provides sufficient force to inflict a proper punishment.

This video clip is not currently available.

US Patent No 6293874 is entitled "User-operated amusement apparatus for kicking the user's buttocks", by inventor Joe W. Armstrong of Tennessee. The patent application explains that one of the machine's advantages, compared with some other designs, is that it does not require the resetting of the apparatus or repositioning of the user between blows. For a full description, see this US Patents Office page . The design is virtually identical to that of Mr Wilber Herring in North Carolina (see 1950s, above).

In the Tan Kah Kee Young Inventors' Award 2003, this very smart caning machine for schools won a commendation award for its inventor, Tan Song Koy of Yuying Secondary School. The entries in this annual competition are entirely serious and useful gadgets. This one was up against a cockroach catcher and an improved helmet for cyclists, among other things. Its aim is "to deliver even and consistent caning strikes to all offenders".
Song Koy had witnessed the punishment of six boys at his school, and felt it was "unfair when his friend, being the first to be caned, received the hardest strikes ... The discipline master (DM) was tired by the time he caned the last offenders, therefore his strike is lighter in comparison". (This is, in part, the argument put forward by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century in the quote at the beginning of this article.)
The offender stands on the yellow platform with his front against the red pad, and bends over the pillar, grasping the red handles low down on the other side. In so doing, he presents the tautened seat of his pants to the cane, which is on a spring and which strikes when a catch is released, unfortunately not clearly shown in the pictures. The machine folds up when not in use, and has two wheels at the base enabling it to be pulled easily from one classroom to the next.
There is no word on whether the machine was ever put to actual use, but anecdotal reports from the school where it was designed and built are of traditional canings by a human DM. I am pretty sure that in practice it would be very difficult to get a machine to replicate the accuracy, power and timing (and especially that crucial flick of the wrist at the last moment) of a skilled discipline master, such as is employed by many secondary schools in Singapore. An easier way, perhaps, to solve the problem identified by Song Koy would be not to punish six students all at one go, but instead to give the DM a 10-minute break between canings.
Copyright © C. Farrell 2000-2015
Page updated July 2016

www.corpun.com :
Features : CP machines 1

© 2022 Dark Designs AB | Powered by Outstandingthemes

I randomly ran across this in a photo on FetLife some time a couple of weeks ago and impulse purchased one, they’re available from https://spankermachine.com .
This post will cover a first impression and some basic testing that I’ve done so far.
Out of the box there are some disappointments, the mounting hardware is definitely NOT stainless steel as claimed on their website. The upright is clearly a die-cast zinc alloy (much of the gravity of the package comes from this part), the arm is zinc plated steel, and the bracket is cast aluminium. Nothing actually *wrong* with those material choices, but I object to them claiming otherwise. The deathdapter it came with was wrong, it had a US plug on it not an Australian plug, not really a big deal because I’ll probably just replace the whole power supply in any case. The power adapter itself is a little chintzy, feels flimsy on the outside, the internals look OK-ish but I’ve not done a megger test on it yet. The main body of the machine is all plastic.
The design is rock simple, basically you have a torsion spring wound in the top section which the “actuator” is attached to, in the bottom there is a gearmotor which drives a dog which engages with the actuator end of the spring to draw it back, the “power” control, basically adjusts a slot which causes the actuator end of the spring to slip down over the tip of the dog releasing the spring tension and driving the actuator forwards.
It seems that the “new” version (website indicates that the “new version is 30% more powerful”), may be of a different design to the one featured in the SPKM-MAK-3 video on their website (presumably the “original”). From what I can tell from the video it looks like the original actively drove the actuator, because after each stroke it seems to “hunt” for it’s zero (this is visible by the slow motion forward movement after each stroke prior to drawing back for the next), I may be wrong though as I’ve not taken video of the unit I have so I can’t tell for sure that it’s not just an artifact in the video.
The upshots of the rock simple design are; it’s unlikely to have a mechanical failure (unless you break the spring, though there might also be some risk of “wearing out” the power control), and that makes it an awesome candidate for modifications. More on that later.
Given its size it’s pretty punchy, not quite what I was hoping for (I was really looking for something that could deliver on “six of the best” with a cane), but with the right choice of implement and orientation it does the job pretty effectively.
Paddles and such seem work best with the actuator arm operating in a horizontal plane (machine upright or upside down), canes and similar seem to work best with the arm operating vertically, (i.e. such that the cane is coming downwards). To my surprise the most “punchy” implements I tried with it were a ~4mm plastic coated fibreglass garden stake type thing which I think was bought from Daiso, a stock standard 30cm wooden ruler (the hole in the end of the wooden ruler for hanging it adds significant extra effect) and a riding crop. In a nutshell, if you want a severe session, plan to go long rather than hard.
The mounting is not as solid as I’d like, but given the objectives of the device manufacturer that’s not terribly surprising. This will also be something I will be looking at improving (and adding some features around) in the future (pile of parts en route from Banggood currently).
Does the job pretty well, though you need to be a bit careful with your choice of implement. A little on the expensive side. I’d provisionally recommend it so long as you’re not looking for heavy hitting. I may buy a second unit in future so I can use them “in stereo”, though then I’ll have to start buying duplicates of all my implements…
This website contains content unsuitable for persons under 18 years of age. Are you 18+ years old?

Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:40:38 GMT, sassyc...@my-deja.com wrote: >And now, How do build a spanking machine? >Well you take a fan that is on a stand ,like an oscillating fan and you >remove the grill and fan blade. Next you take part of a belt, strap and >attach it to the part that held the blades , I use duct tape. It's not >perfect ,you have to play around with equaling out the weight, but if >you can it's not bad. It may not have enough force for most people and >it is not perfect but when in need.:)
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:49:16 -0500 (EST), robinh...@webtv.net (Robin Hoodwink) wrote:
Hmmmm…. With a gut belly laugh and a wide smirk.
Sounds like we definitely need some refinement her Cathy.
First I think we should change the motor type to a 3 ½ horse power washing machine engine. The weight of the engine should solve our vibration problems…. Unless some of you do enjoy that specific feeling… or maybe we should make it an add-on option????
Next we must add on a speed control…. Soft spanks in the beginning to the finale to 500 RPM whackitee whackitee whacks. I think a tachometer would also be a nice add-on and we could jack up the price and really make a killing from the people in Assville.
Now, I am a great aficionado in the use of duct tape, but the stress forces here are not within my mechanical engineering tolerances manual. I suggest ½" stainless steal rivets.
Now as for the leather belt thing. I think a variety of attachments should be made available, cane, brush, tawse, strop, crop …etc. Boy, now we could really jack the price up!
Now lets start working on the portable model:
Hmmmmm…. 12HP Kohler engine, throttle control……….
OK, here is how you build a spanking machine!
How fast do you want it to spank? I think once a second is pretty fast. Once a second is 60 times a minute. The problem with any spanking implement tied directly to a motor is that a
Pretty Linkin Porn
Night Mistress Mansion
Perfect Teen Blowjob

Spanking Mashin

Report Page