Several years back we met Rollin Hand for lunch at his golf club near Sisters, Oregon. He talked about how he much prefers his later writings over his early tales about boy meets girl, boy spanks girl. I said I still liked his original stories. I think he was disappointed in my tastes. This is the conclusion of one of his stories. It has no elements of punishment, no coercion, no rape of minors.
He slowly lifted her skirt. “Yes, I think you were naughty. I think a spanking would be just what you need,” he said, playing along.
“Ohhh,” she said, lifting slightly so her skirt would slide up more easily. “You won’t take my panties down will you?” The panties in question were a skimpy white lacy creation that breathtakingly revealed most of Lisa’s plump and shapely bottom.
James understood that to be an invitation to do that very thing. When she felt his fingers in the waistband, she lifted up once more. James slowly peeled the flimsy panties down, unveiling a pair of jouncy bottom globes that were now arched up provocatively for his attention. Lisa purred as his hand roamed across the expanse of her saucy behind, stroking and patting. Then he raised his hand and brought it down with a light slap. Then he gave her a few more. She wriggled and looked over her shoulder.
“That’s not a real spanking. Do it like you mean it. Spank your naughty girl properly.”
James decided she was serious and launched into a series of firm swats that alternated between cheeks. Right-left, right-left. He peppered her bottom with brisk spanks that quickly raised a pink flush on her soft white skin.
Lisa reacted with low moans and wriggles. “Yes, oh, yes,” she said urging James on. James took that as a signal to up the intensity. He smacked her lush fanny with authoritative, crisp spanks that flattened the wobbling globes and caused this delicious jiggling. He felt himself getting hard. Surely Lisa felt it too.
“Oh! Ouch! It’s starting to burn. But it feels good too. A good sting.”
The splats of James’ palm on Lisa’s bare bottom filled the little apartment, echoing sharply off the walls. James hoped the neighbors wouldn’t hear. That could be embarrassing.
She was now raising her hips to meet his descending hand. Smack! Splat! Crack! The spanks were slower now and timed to her up and down movement. In addition, he was pausing to rub between swats. Lisa moaned again and ground her hips against James’ groin. James found the sweet and slick wetness between her legs. She pushed back, impaling herself on his fingers.
I can’t take this any longer, James decided. He flipped her over so she was face up. He kissed her and began to unbutton her blouse. Her fingers flew as well, practically tearing off his clothes. They made it to the bedroom and James placed her on her back. “Let me do something for you,” he said, bringing his lips to the triangle between her legs. It wasn’t as if he didn’t know a thing or two about pleasing a woman. Lisa thought she’d come out of her skull with pleasure when his tongue found her spot.
When he entered her for the first time she practically exploded. It was a furious coupling that climaxed in a white blaze of rapid jerking, of bodies slamming together with abandon. But the next times were good too in a different way—more tenderness, a slower building to climax rather than racing toward it. She especially liked it when he did her from the rear. It gave him a chance to squeeze, pat and fondle her succulent ass cheeks, still warm from that stimulating spanking. It was heavenly.
In the old days, conservatism and liberalism were sort of bookends; the former reflecting human nature, the latter a naive confidence that with enough money and kindness we could change human nature. Not now. Liberalism is dead, progressivism killed it and the hard left of the 1960s is in control. It is intolerant and has nursed an entire new generation on the campuses who are abjectly ignorant but strangely arrogant in such vacuity.
“There is always a well known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong,” H.L. Mencken observed
I have asked what it would take to abate global warming. I have answered that it would be far more than increased taxes and spending. It would take something extreme. Something so extreme that we would resist its implementation. Well, folks, the coronavirus is giving us a look at something that reduces pollution and slows warming. How do you like it so far?
Give this article a few minutes of your time and see how nature has responded to only two months of restricted human activity.
As people stay home, Earth turns wilder and cleaner
You know we don’t engage in punishment or discipline spankings. They are purely erotic for us from start to finish. We have always wondered why so many favor punishment. The majority of spankers and spankees are into punishment spankings. I saw this on the blog Pam Spanks Her Husband.
Although I don’t enjoy these punishment spankings during the event and try to avoid one for some time afterward, they are the ones I find most erotic. Afterward, with a sore bottom for at least two days, I get excited replaying how strict Pam was and imaging myself over her lap getting my just desserts again.
If I’m warned in advance of a looming spanking, the nervous anticipation builds, a mix of excitement and dread. But if she wasn’t super strict and giving me ‘real’ spankings, that same level of excitement wouldn’t be there. It’s my wife’s strictness that makes it arousing.
I think that explains how punishment spankings are still erotic as well as any explanation I have heard. It’s the thought of being controlled.
For the OTK fans, here are 10 web images for you
Our lives are little affected by the virus/lockdown. It may ruin some people and businesses. Most people have less than $1,000 tucked away. It seems a lot of businesses also have slim safety margins.
We will pass out our $2,400 to folks we encounter that can really use it.
This morning I am listening to a Youtube playlist while cleaning the floors. It started with Jerry Jeff Walker and continued with various Texas musicians like Ray Wylie Hubbard and THEN The Rolling Stones at Austin City Limits doing Bob Wills Is Still The King. Never heard them do that. Not bad.
I am cooking a new chicken stir fry for lunch. It uses fish sauce and oyster sauce. I have used the former before, but not the latter. I was again reminded to wash my hands twice after chopping red chiles before taking a wiz.
Spankings continue. For me at least, not so much for Bacall. Her mind is just not there. I told her the other day she is just going to have to bend over in her jeans and take some stingy paddle pops. I need to hear the sound of the paddle cracking on jeans.
How about you? What’s going on with you?
I have had a video clip saved for over a year. I do not recall where I found it. I did not know how to share it with you. WordPress does not allow mp4 format. This morning it finally dawned on me that I have an unused Twitter account and they allow clips.
I showed it to one OBB reader and I have used part of his review of the clip to describe it. The clip is one of my all-time favorites. Definitely not punishment as she explicitly asks for it. My kind of playmate.
So here is OBB’s venture into the Twitter world.
It’s the first clip – She Says Spank Me. Consider the others as a bonus.
I will think about the folks in helicopters in a different way now.
First a thoughtful article. Yeah, it’s a long read, but you have the time. Then a collection of images making fun of libtards. Enjoy both.
Joe Biden and the Slow Death of Liberalism
Democrats are again choosing a moribund ideology bereft of new ideas.
In nominating Joe Biden, Democrats aren’t choosing a “moderate.” They’re choosing liberalism over revolution. “Joe and I have a very different voting record,” Bernie Sanders said after Super Tuesday. That is demonstrably true. Their records differ in substantial ways. He went on: “Joe and I have a very different vision for the future of this country.” That is not quite right. The idea that Mr. Biden has a “vision for the future” is preposterous. He has a vision for the past, and even that is cloudy.
I don’t criticize him for it. I am a conservative. “Vision,” in my understanding, is for prophets, not statesmen. But Mr. Biden is no conservative. He is a liberal, and liberalism needs vision.
Mr. Sanders is a radical, not a liberal. The liberal worldview seeks a more equitable and open polity by means of piecemeal political reform. The radical outlook envisions a new world, not an incrementally better one. He wants to remake the U.S. economy and banish all forms of inequality.
With Mr. Biden’s ascension and Mr. Sanders’s decision this week to suspend his campaign, Democrats are again choosing liberalism. The important thing to understand about modern American liberalism, though, is that it is a spent force. It is out of ideas. It is visionary, but it no longer sees much of anything. That Mr. Biden has been reduced to protesting the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak, safely tucked away in his basement, nicely symbolizes liberalism’s impotence.
The liberal politician can offer a collection of ideas, but those ideas are old ones repackaged. He can offer a vision, but it is the same vision liberal politicians were offering 20 or 40 years ago. Accepting the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination, Bill Clinton ridiculed President George H.W. Bush’s disdain for “the vision thing.” Mr. Clinton quoted Proverbs 29:18: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” The goals he enunciated in that speech were more or less the same goals every other Democratic nominee has endorsed since the middle of the 20th century: a fair shot for working Americans, new investments in schools, expansion of access to health care. Mr. Biden could give that speech today and few would suspect him of plagiarism.
The modern American liberal is the product of what’s commonly called liberal democracy—the social and political order obtaining in North America and postwar Europe. Liberal democracies value divided governmental institutions, a regulated market economy, a generous welfare state, personal autonomy and the expansion of political rights to formerly excluded classes. Conservatives and liberals alike are “liberals” in this broader sense, but American liberals believe more fervently than conservatives in the power of governmental means to achieve human betterment, and liberals tend to scorn habit and tradition as impediments to righteous goals.
The goals of today’s liberalism are minor and uninspiring. It has little else to do than tinker with the welfare state, ban things deemed dangerous or unhealthy and oppose conservatives. That has been the case for half a century. American liberalism’s last great triumphs came during the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Food Stamp Act of 1964 and the Social Security Amendments of 1965, which created Medicaid and Medicare. Since then it has accomplished no original reforms, only refined or expanded old ones.
It’s true that liberals have won two major victories on personal autonomy: abortion rights in 1973 and same-sex marriage in 2015. But both came about as a result of court decisions. Neither could have passed the U.S. Congress.
The best evidence that liberals are out of ideas is that they are busy regressing on the ones they had. An obvious example: Liberals since John Stuart Mill have espoused freedom of speech almost as a matter of religious faith, but one now finds astonishingly few people on the left prepared to defend it in a principled way, and quite a few urging governments and corporations to censor unpopular views. Most liberals no longer see much of a problem with campus speech codes. And liberals often seem to believe that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech applies to everything but political speech. Artistic expression, pornography, violent videos, yes; a movie critical of Hillary Clinton—which the government sought to censor in the Citizens United case—no.
Or consider the expansion of the franchise. From the Reform Bills in Britain in the 19th century to the suffragette movement in the early 20th century to the civil-rights movement in the 1950s and ’60s, liberals cared passionately about extending full political rights to groups that lacked them. But everybody has the vote now. Stories of large-scale voter intimidation are not credible. Some favor enfranchising felons and aliens, including those in the country illegally, but these causes cannot sustain a political movement.
Opportunistic complaints about the Electoral College aside, liberals began long ago to distrust universal suffrage. They are generally happy to entrust unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and elites, domestic and transnational, with vast authority, and they are content to let federal courts decide almost any question, in defiance of legislation and popular will, provided the decision falls on the liberal side.
Some liberals now openly long for the days when moderately corrupt party bosses decided congressional and presidential nominations. The past three years have produced innumerable books by liberal authors attesting to an ongoing assault on “democracy,” but these books mainly lament democracy’s failure to yield liberal results; they do not defend democratic principles themselves. Other recent works advance unabashedly antidemocratic arguments, such as Jason Brennan’s “Against Democracy” (2016) and David Van Reybrouck’s “Against Elections” (2016).
One may see liberals’ fixation on “diversity and inclusion” as a kind of replacement for universal suffrage. It’s a poor one. The “diverse” people liberals demand to be “included”—racial minorities, gays, people of indeterminate sex—already have full rights and privileges as citizens.
Nor does the modern American liberal believe fully in the greatest of all liberal principles—equality. Affirmative action, political correctness, identity politics—each affirms the belief that some citizens have rights that others don’t.
The point here is not to disparage liberalism. It is to point out that liberalism in America achieved the last of its great aims a half-century ago. Since then, liberal successes have steadily diminished in importance. The Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972 empowered state and federal governments to alleviate pollution. In 1979 Jimmy Carter signed legislation creating the Education Department, but its function has never been clear. In 1996 Bill Clinton signed a monumental welfare-reform law, but its purpose was to curb liberalism’s excesses, not to further its aims. Then there was the Affordable Care Act of 2010, a nonradical version of a radical idea that managed to make an expensive and confusing system even more expensive and confusing.
Whatever the merits of these laws, none compares, in sheer transformative effect, with the great reforms of the first half of the last century: the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, the Social Security Act of 1935.
It’s not the fault of America’s Democrats that they’ve run out of ideas. Liberal democracies and center-left parties across Europe have reached a similar stasis. But stasis is itself the problem, because liberalism is a restless philosophy. It must always be doing something. To rest, or to express satisfaction with the state of things, is to become conservative. Hence liberals’ tenacious belief that “fascism” still threatens the republic, and that racism still blights it.
The effort of finding new things to do—of identifying societal injustices and formulating workable remedies—meets with vanishing success. Among this year’s Democratic presidential campaigns, the only two significant new ideas—Medicare for All and the Green New Deal—were generated by radical progressives, and even the names of these proposals were adapted from historical antecedents. The only other memorable ideas—reparations for slavery and the wealth tax—were flirtations with racial militancy and Marxian collectivism, respectively. New liberal ideas were nowhere to be found.
That liberals have found climate change such an attractive issue is a sign of this enervation. There is nothing inherently liberal about taxing carbon emitters or subsidizing solar energy, even if it may be humane or necessary. It’s hard to take liberals’ interest in climate seriously, since if they actually believed what they claim about the planet’s coming inundation, they would support the immediate expansion of zero-emission nuclear power. Very few of them do, for reasons that are negligible next to the threat of extinction. Climate change is chiefly something to fulminate against.
It is a measure of liberalism’s lethargy that Democratic primary voters in 2020 have fixated so exclusively on Donald Trump’s badness. Mr. Trump has inspired liberals in a way that nothing else has in many years. But soon he will be gone, and what then?
A sizable portion of the Democratic electorate, especially its younger members, has wearied of this state of affairs. They want something more to do than tinker and emote. Who can blame them? I happen to think Mr. Sanders’s fanciful policies would ruin the economy he assumes would pay for them, but he is surely right to believe that additional tweaking of the health-care and welfare systems will improve little in American life. He offers sweeping programs of action—an all-encompassing vision—rather than four more years of gestures and incremental fixes.
But Democrats aren’t ready for revolution. They appear determined to choose a placeholder candidate, a man who offers no new ideas and talks mainly about the past. Mr. Biden offers the backward-looking vision of an exhausted liberalism.
Mr. Swaim is an editorial page writer at the Journal.