Sister humiliation

[spankingrequest]

Hello!

I have looked everywhere for this story I saw years ago, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. I've posted in forums and googled over and over again. So I am hoping that one of the experts here could give me a hand and write it up for me.

Basically, an older sister tries to trick her brothers into getting spanked. This backfires and her father decides to let the younger brothers spank her. While she is naked, after being stripped by the brothers. In front of the older guy she has a crush on. And then she gets spanked by her crush with her dad, pledge paddle.

-Humiliation is key to this story; e.g., she gets spanked in plenty of humiliating positions, maybe the brothers give the sister a bath after her spanking?
-I'm up for anything storywise except babying/diapering
-Ages don't matter to me.

Thanks so much!

 

[LindsayRae]

-Ages don't matter to me.

It does at Lit though. If you found that story here, they were all 18+. If not, we wouldn't be able to help you, and no one could (even if they wanted to) write it for you here.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Can we please just assume everybody read the rules and that "I don't care about age" means she can be 18 or she can be 29 and it won't hurt my feelings? I mean unless we're pity bumping which isn't a habit we have here on the story board.

I think it's an interesting story to be honest except the premise strains creduility about. There aren't a lot of 16 year olds getting spanked (as long as your subtle the rule about ages on Lit is one that can be bent. It's a wierd rule but there are lots of charachters in the incest stories that are clearly 15-17 based on any logic other than nobody mentioned the age directly.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

Can we please just assume everybody read the rules and that "I don't care about age" means she can be 18 or she can be 29 and it won't hurt my feelings? I mean unless we're pity bumping which isn't a habit we have here on the story board.

I think it's an interesting story to be honest except the premise strains creduility about. There aren't a lot of 16 year olds getting spanked (as long as your subtle the rule about ages on Lit is one that can be bent. It's a wierd rule but there are lots of charachters in the incest stories that are clearly 15-17 based on any logic other than nobody mentioned the age directly.

perception.

 

[lovecraft68]

perception.

Not just perception, desire despite lits rule the readers want the characters younger, whether due to age kink or just realism they want that age bracket.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

Not just perception, desire despite lits rule the readers want the characters younger, whether due to age kink or just realism they want that age bracket.

the writer can engineer the circumstances. it's still about perception.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It is about perception. No argument here it's not like the stupid no animals rule that I despise so much. At least here you usually have to dress it up and having the charachters "act mature" helps a lot. I outright reject that every girl on a high school cheerleading squad is eighteen. As I recall varsity was the same for the cheer leaders as it was for the football players. If you were sufficiently talented you could skip JV all together and be in at 15. But that seems to follow the "if one is eighteen the others are all granted that age by proxy". You can have a thirty year old with a distinguished career and a teddy bear and you can (and I have) gotten rejected.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

It is about perception. No argument here it's not like the stupid no animals rule that I despise so much. At least here you usually have to dress it up and having the charachters "act mature" helps a lot. I outright reject that every girl on a high school cheerleading squad is eighteen. As I recall varsity was the same for the cheer leaders as it was for the football players. If you were sufficiently talented you could skip JV all together and be in at 15. But that seems to follow the "if one is eighteen the others are all granted that age by proxy". You can have a thirty year old with a distinguished career and a teddy bear and you can (and I have) gotten rejected.

there are other outlets.

 

[Sean Renaud]

there are other outlets.

If you're talking about the stupid rule that doesn't make it less stupid.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

If you're talking about the stupid rule that doesn't make it less stupid.

it's a rule, follow it or don't. there are other sites.

 

[LindsayRae]

it's a rule, follow it or don't. there are other sites.

Amen to that.

And it goes for any rule here and any person.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Again. That doesn't make the rule any less stupid.

It would be different if they didn't build an ENORMOUS back door into it. You defeat the purpose of saying "ladies can't have sex with dogs" if you're going to toss in that Warg only exists in Lord of the Rings and thus doesn't count. Same for horse, what's the point in saying "no horses, but Unicorns aren't horses, and neither a Pegasi. You see those wings and that horn? That makes them magical and all your problems go away. Their problem isn't with being inteligent enough to consent (which would be a not stupid rule) their problem isn't with it being animal, not really or they wouldn't advertise the backdoor. It's like saying thou shall not steal. . .without your Batman costume. Either stealing is bad and wrong or it isn't. Dressing up as Batman shouldn't allow you to break the law. Like I said stupid. And I do follow it. I write the story and then go google up mythical monsters.

It also raises all sorts of other problems. Is Scooby a dog? How bout Brian Griffin? Both are capable of speech and other things dogs can't do, and in both of their cartoons these are special cases (Scooby doesn't even know he's a dog and is always confused when someone gets mad at him for beign where dogs don't belong.) and even "in verse" are clearly something other than dogs. A rule (that isn't stupid) should be clear and concise. The age rule is clear and concise. Noone under 18. The fact that you can dance around it nonwithstanding.

The only time the age rule gets confusing is with that pesky charachter/actor issue and I don't think I've ever seen anybody test that particular rule as it's too complicated and as long as you were quiet the mods probably wouldn't know the difference.

 

[lovecraft68]

the writer can engineer the circumstances. it's still about perception.

Of course it is, and people perceive what they want. However the author can bring about that perception as well.

an author, I want to say "youbadboy" uses the term "budding breasts" how many years does that take off of your allegedly of age character.

There's a very easy way around the rule however, the readers catch it the "bots" are clueless.

And although I abide by it I will chime in with Sean that the rule is stupid. compared to the rape stories and poorly masked bestiality in the non human section, this rule is pretty lame.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

Again. That doesn't make the rule any less stupid.

It would be different if they didn't build an ENORMOUS back door into it. You defeat the purpose of saying "ladies can't have sex with dogs" if you're going to toss in that Warg only exists in Lord of the Rings and thus doesn't count. Same for horse, what's the point in saying "no horses, but Unicorns aren't horses, and neither a Pegasi. You see those wings and that horn? That makes them magical and all your problems go away. Their problem isn't with being inteligent enough to consent (which would be a not stupid rule) their problem isn't with it being animal, not really or they wouldn't advertise the backdoor. It's like saying thou shall not steal. . .without your Batman costume. Either stealing is bad and wrong or it isn't. Dressing up as Batman shouldn't allow you to break the law. Like I said stupid. And I do follow it. I write the story and then go google up mythical monsters.

It also raises all sorts of other problems. Is Scooby a dog? How bout Brian Griffin? Both are capable of speech and other things dogs can't do, and in both of their cartoons these are special cases (Scooby doesn't even know he's a dog and is always confused when someone gets mad at him for beign where dogs don't belong.) and even "in verse" are clearly something other than dogs. A rule (that isn't stupid) should be clear and concise. The age rule is clear and concise. Noone under 18. The fact that you can dance around it nonwithstanding.

The only time the age rule gets confusing is with that pesky charachter/actor issue and I don't think I've ever seen anybody test that particular rule as it's too complicated and as long as you were quiet the mods probably wouldn't know the difference.

IT'S THE ROOLS!

 

[lovecraft68]

Again. That doesn't make the rule any less stupid.

It would be different if they didn't build an ENORMOUS back door into it. You defeat the purpose of saying "ladies can't have sex with dogs" if you're going to toss in that Warg only exists in Lord of the Rings and thus doesn't count. Same for horse, what's the point in saying "no horses, but Unicorns aren't horses, and neither a Pegasi. You see those wings and that horn? That makes them magical and all your problems go away. Their problem isn't with being inteligent enough to consent (which would be a not stupid rule) their problem isn't with it being animal, not really or they wouldn't advertise the backdoor. It's like saying thou shall not steal. . .without your Batman costume. Either stealing is bad and wrong or it isn't. Dressing up as Batman shouldn't allow you to break the law. Like I said stupid. And I do follow it. I write the story and then go google up mythical monsters.

It also raises all sorts of other problems. Is Scooby a dog? How bout Brian Griffin? Both are capable of speech and other things dogs can't do, and in both of their cartoons these are special cases (Scooby doesn't even know he's a dog and is always confused when someone gets mad at him for beign where dogs don't belong.) and even "in verse" are clearly something other than dogs. A rule (that isn't stupid) should be clear and concise. The age rule is clear and concise. Noone under 18. The fact that you can dance around it nonwithstanding.

The only time the age rule gets confusing is with that pesky charachter/actor issue and I don't think I've ever seen anybody test that particular rule as it's too complicated and as long as you were quiet the mods probably wouldn't know the difference.

Yes!!! Thank You so much!!

I have made this point over and over again! Now sit back and wait for the non human defenders to run in and say No we don;t have a beastie kink we don't

Fuck them they don't. Blowing a horse is bestiality but put a horn on it, and now its a Unicorn and it's okay. Please

 

[lovecraft68]

IT'S THE ROOLS!

And made to be broken.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

And made to be broken.

bent, manipulated ... a hint of decorum, eh?

 

[lovecraft68]

bent, manipulated ... a hint of decorum, eh?

Well I never said that I broke them. Just a general remark (whistles innocently)

 

[LindsayRae]

...an author, I want to say "youbadboy" uses the term "budding breasts" how many years does that take off of your allegedly of age character...

If someone were to inform Laurel she would ax those stories in a heartbeat. Any new submissions are not allowed to have such words/hints and will be denied.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If someone were to inform Laurel she would ax those stories in a heartbeat. Any new submissions are not allowed to have such words/hints and will be denied.

Yeah they have gotten a lot stricter about that. Course I know plenty of adult women who are flat. Can't use her in a story because every little girl grows up to be to Pamela Anderson.

At least the rule isn't stupid and takes steps to keep it from being circumvented.

 

[LindsayRae]

There's a difference between saying a grown woman is "flat" or has small breasts and saying "she was curious about her budding breasts". Adults are not "budding" in that sense.

 

[lovecraft68]

If someone were to inform Laurel she would ax those stories in a heartbeat. Any new submissions are not allowed to have such words/hints and will be denied.

A person would catch that, but I am not so sure about a "bot"

Anyway personally I have no desire to write underage. There have been a coupel of times in my long SWB series when I used a little word plat to get the reader to understand some of the things that happened to the sister were before 18, but nothing blatant.

If you want to write or read about 14 year olds you have issues.

Sometimes things are unintentional. I wrote a scene where I had the sister wearing a night shirt with scooby doo on it. I'm just thinking she's the cutesy type and would wear that.

Just before I submitted it my wife is like, "You know you made her sound 14 right? Why not give her pigtails too?" so I changed it. Honestly it never occurred to me. It should have, but didn;t. I guess since I'm not obsessed with it, I don;t focus on every little thing.

 

[lovecraft68]

Yeah they have gotten a lot stricter about that. Course I know plenty of adult women who are flat. Can't use her in a story because every little girl grows up to be to Pamela Anderson.

At least the rule isn't stupid and takes steps to keep it from being circumvented.

And much looser on the beastie shit because it is hot right now.

The rape thing remains the ultimate grey area. Non consent is a 50/50 shot sometimes with accepted/rejected scenarios.

 

[LindsayRae]

If you want to write or read about 14 year olds you have issues.

I agree.

 

[lovecraft68]

I agree.

Sadly ASSTR and some other sites are loaded with that age and younger. More frightening is that many of the stories are rape stories including gang rapes.

I really think anyone who reads or writes that should be registered as a sex offender because it is a matter of time.

Imagine finding that shit on your next door neighbors PC? Those stories and the people who read them are why both my daughters(21/18) have spent years training in Kenpo.