0 comment(s) so far. Please add yours!
TL;DR
I’ve started The Spankscuary Webring, a hand-built neighbourhood connecting independent spanking-related websites, blogs, story archives, art and history projects, forums, and other interesting corners of the web.
If you have a site that might belong in the ring, you’re invited to join. There’s no technical expertise required on your end; send me the name and address of the site and I can help with the rest.
Visit Spankscuary / Join the Webring
Innovating Backwards OR Why I Built a Webring in 2026

For people who demand more than the short version: I’ve started The Spankscuary Webring, a hand-built neighbourhood connecting independent spanking-related websites, blogs, story archives, art and history projects, forums, and other interesting corners of the web. Sites with substantial spanking-related content are welcome to join. No technical expertise required: send me the site name and address, and I can help with the rest.
As for what the hell a webring is, and why I’ve built one in 2026: yes, I’ve built a webring. I used GitHub1Thanks Max! and everything. This is not an accident. And not just me. Webrings are making a comeback.
For readers under 30, and probably some older ones too, webring may mean almost nothing. Webring? Not a sex toy, but still fun. It comes from an older web, when sites routinely pointed outward and readers were encouraged to wander.
The idea is wonderfully simple: independently maintained websites link themselves in a circle, each displaying a small navigation box with Previous, Random, and Next. Keep clicking Next and eventually the path comes back around. It’s très democratic. Nobody gives up a website, moves onto a common platform, or becomes somebody else’s “content.” Each little web house remains its own, with the ring providing a path between them.
Sooo, introducing The Spankscuary Webring: a hand-built neighbourhood for spanking stories, art, history, humour, and community. Right now, a very small neighborhood, with plenty of room to grow.
Before Google Became the Map
One of the most consistently visited pages on Mija’s Room is the links page, which is interesting because a links page is basically an exit ramp. People arrive on my site and deliberately look for ways to leave. According to most contemporary ideas about engagement, that should be terrible web design. I think it’s the point.
When I teach students how to write for the web, I tell them to look at Wikipedia and link heavily. A hyperlink is a kind of digital citation: it says that an idea has a history, a person has context, information came from somewhere, and there is somewhere else to go for more.
The early web understood that instinctively. A good site didn’t try to become the whole internet; it pointed outward, and other sites pointed back. Before Google became the default map, much online discovery happened through those human-made paths: links pages, blogrolls, friends’ recommendations, one site leading to three more because someone had taken the time to collect places worth visiting.
Some links pages went much further. Wintermute’s enormous annotated links page, for example, didn’t just collect URLs. He added descriptions, recommendations, warnings, memories, and context, turning the page into a kind of map of the spanking web he knew. It wasn’t merely an index but an act of curation: I know this place. Here’s what I found there. Here’s why it might be worth a visit.
A hyperlink is a citation; an annotated links page is a recommendation; a webring turns those recommendations into a path readers can wander.
Google. It’s Always Google.
I blame Google for breaking the internet. Or at least for breaking my favorite pieces of it.
To be fair, Google solved a real problem by becoming astonishingly good at finding things. Once search became the default map of the web, many of the little paths people had built for one another began to look unnecessary. We didn’t stop making links pages, directories, blogrolls, and webrings because they stopped working. We stopped because Google could do much of the same work better, faster, and without requiring us to maintain anything ourselves.
The same pattern showed up elsewhere. In 2001, Google bought Deja News, a searchable Web archive and gateway into Usenet, and folded it into Google Groups. Usenet was a decentralized network that belonged to no company; Google Groups was a Google product. But Google increasingly presented old Usenet newsgroups and its own Web-based groups through the same service and interface, muddying the distinction between them. That created cultural confusion as well as technical confusion. Usenet communities had their own conventions, developed over many years: read the FAQ, lurk before posting, don’t top post, quote only what was needed, trim signatures, and learn the culture of a group before barging into it. People arriving through Google Groups often had no idea where they even were. Through no fault of their own, they could enter what looked like an ordinary Web discussion group not realizing they had stepped into a much older community with its own customs and memory.
Something similar happened with RSS. Blogging developed around an open standard that let readers subscribe directly to sites, but Google Reader became such a popular and convenient way to read those feeds that when Google shut it down in 2013, many ordinary users behaved as though RSS itself had disappeared. Google didn’t invent Usenet or RSS, and it didn’t own either one. It made itself an extraordinarily convenient layer between people and decentralized systems that already worked, until many of us stopped seeing the system underneath the layer.
Google and Facebook also helped establish another expectation: technology should be free and effortless.2“surveillance capitalism.” We became accustomed to services maintaining everything for us. Software increasingly became something rented rather than bought. Files disappeared into clouds. Applications promised that nobody needed to know where anything actually lived. Much of the structure underneath everyday computing became invisible, and because the service was “free,” it became easy not to think very hard about who actually owned the system or what would happen when its interests changed.
Eventually one wants to shout:
IT’S A COOKBOOK!!
Digital Natives, Apparently
One of the greatest pieces of internet nonsense we told ourselves early in the 21st century was that younger people were “digital natives,” as though being surrounded by digital technology were the same thing as understanding it.
At 81, my father has no interest in social media. When his neighbors tried to persuade him to join Nextdoor, his response was essentially, “Just come knock. There’s coffee.” He’s never had a Facebook account, but he’s used Excel since its DOS days and can make it do things many of my twenty-year-old students wouldn’t know how to begin.
The students I teach aren’t stupid. They’ve grown up with systems designed to hide much of how computers work. I can spend weeks getting them accustomed to consistently naming research PDFs, and I’ve had to explain shared folders, word wrap, and that word processors have a setting for double spacing. These aren’t advanced technical skills. They’re habits of digital housekeeping that software increasingly makes unnecessary.
Paul often says he learned to code and debug because computer magazines printed entire game programs, literally pages of code to type in. If everything went in correctly, there was a game at the end. Except it never all went in correctly. Sometimes the mistake was his; sometimes it was in the magazine. But he wanted to play, so he had to find the problem and fix it. In 1984, playing a computer game meant having one’s hands literally all over the code.
That kind of hands-on computing involved plenty of friction, much of it annoying. Nobody needs to return to tiny hard drives, collapsed file trees, dial-up modems, or being scolded on Usenet because a signature file wasted bandwidth. But some of the work we eliminated along with that friction also taught us how systems worked, how to maintain our own part of them, and how to fix things when they broke.
Some of it wasn’t merely friction. Some of it was participation.
Webrings work because every site maintains its tiny piece of the common path without surrendering ownership to a larger system. (Don’t make the ring a horseshoe.)
So if there’s an independent spanking-related site, blog, archive, art project, history project, forum, or other odd little corner of the web out there, come join us. I’m not interested in resurrecting obsolete technology simply because it’s old. I’m interested in what some of those old structures made possible: independent places, human recommendations, paths outward, and a little more responsibility for the web we actually want to inhabit.
- 1Thanks Max! ↩︎
- 2




