Pure and simple

Am I a bit narrow in my outlook? Should I be more open to the new and the different? Lots of questions about the concept of the spanking purist since reading Spanking Pixie on the subject this morning - and I'm pretty certain that I am one, for better or worse.

Pixie asks for a definition of the spanking purist.  She says: "Is it one that only enjoys OTK hand spankings?  Some have told me that is the proper and ONLY way to deliver a spanking."  Then she goes on to ask if the definition could also take in implements and, if so, which ones.

Could a 'spanking' clip work if it only featured non-spank punishments? Soaping, cornertime, lines or whatever. 

Personally, I’m 'pure'. Nothing against the bondage and whipping lot, but they do nothing for me. The tingle time only arrives if the scenario - in realtime or inside-my-head time - is domestic (or perhaps scholastic) and it has to involve corporal punishment that fits logically with that scenario.

Implements yes, yes, yes. But domestic ones - hairbrush, slipper, cane. Leave the stock whip to India Jones.

Some non-spanking punishment is fun, but there has to be spanking. Without it, I'm being handed a burger without meat.

My 'purity' does worry me a bit when I'm writing though. When you write fiction you want to please readers, that's the point. So, does my blinkered narrowness exclude and disappoint some of my readers?

I've thought about it. I've read novels written for a spanko audience that have content that takes in other BDSM interests, but they don't work for me. I flick on a few pages and the flow of the story is, for me, spoiled.

So I've remained 'pure', as it were. I'm writing the stories that I'd like to read - hopefully there are lots of other purists out there.

Perhaps it's time for us students of spankology to do what mathematicians did and form sub-sets. Pure maths and applied maths. Pure Spank and Applied Spank, or whatever?