Spanking Is Complicated For Most People

Long post with my thoughts on spanking relationships.

Warning: No spanking pictures.

I make no claim that what we enjoy is right for anyone else. My point is that the lack of honest communication and the desire to be submissive may not get you what you want.

Spanking Is Complicated For Most People and that’s because they make it that way. They feel they have to be submissive, so they can’t say what they really want.

I read this and wonder about it.

Yes, it really does hurt. But, as odd as this may sound, the pain is a secondary consideration. What we treasure more are feelings of connectedness, peace, and openness that follow.

Connectedness is a feeling of belonging to or having an affinity with a particular person or group. I suppose belonging to could be a submissive state of mind. And an affinity with a particular person or group could mean you are damn glad to have someone to spank you. All this seems to be overthinking it to me. I like to spank, I like to be spanked. It turns me on. No other rational is needed.

The only thing I have ever said about spanking that may be universally true is that once two people admit they share an interest in spanking that will be the last time they will fully agree on anything related to spanking.

The list of reasons for spanking goes on for novel-length. Atonement for misdeeds, connecting to another, submission, fun, etc. In our case, it’s directly connected to sexual pleasure. Sure, there is a sting, but it’s not perceived as pain to us. The sting goes from our backside to our brain for a little processing and to our front side. When I think of all the other reasons someone that likes to be spanked might have, it’s a wonder that Bacall and I found each other so compatible. We sure as hell did not have a list of spanking traits we wanted in the other when we met.
Disappointment in a spanking.  Yes, sure, it happens for all sorts of reasons. Too hard. Too gentle. Preoccupied. Not in the mood. Didn’t happen. Shouldn’t have happened. Delayed. Not the implement I was hoping for. Already been spanked and don’t need another one. Would rather snuggle. Uncomfortable position. Headache. Sore back. Sore bottom. Busy now. Too hot. Too cold. Too stingy, I wanted thud. Too thuddy, I wanted sting. Wrong room. Too long. Too short. Too high. Too low. Too far out on my hip. Feeling sick. Feeling tired. Wanted scolding. Scolding was distracting. Rationale is bogus. Didn’t get a rationale. Just don’t want to get spanked right now. Why can’t we do this later?
My thought, yeah do it later, take a rain check. Neither of us feels submissive to the other so taking a spanking to be submissive to the other’s desires is foreign to us. We always check with the other to see if they are in the mood. If things are not going as we want, we tell the other right away.

So I got a note from a guy. His wife has agreed to spank him, maybe not as long or as hard as he would like, but he is working with her to “improve” the spankings. He would like to be submissive to her, to give himself to her. But, she will have none of that.

I can relate to her feelings. I have had more than a few women that wanted to be submissive to me. I am not bragging, I am saying how desperate they were. All of them were successful in their own right. An RN with two doctorates, a CPA, etc.  I have never wanted any part in controlling another’s life. It’s all I can do to control my own life. 

So I can understand wives who signed up for traditional marriage, with traditional sexual boundaries who find after the vows have been exchanged that their husband has a few more vows – that he wants to be spanked and have her control him.

And it course works the other way, wives reveal they want to be spanked, controlled after marriage. Witness all the DD blogs.

We can ask for a spanking. That takes nothing away from it for us.


Consider that in marriages where punishments spankings are given, don’t you find it odd that only the submissive one ever needs to be punished? The dominant one never makes a mistake. Fucking incredible to me.

Most paddlings given to me by other women have been a disappointment to me. I explain in detail how I want it and they tell me they understand. And then bam right out of the gate they head in a different direction and I have to stop the scene. I make sure they understand that licks only go on the meaty section and the first lick is on my side. Scene ends.
Same with implements, there are dozens of types. We happen to have landed on wood. I was always about wood, no doubt from school. She came to wood by way of leather. There are damn few wood paddles that work for us. When we made them, we tested them on each other to see how they worked. I would get on the intercom and call her down to the workshop for a test. We communicated.
A belt Bacall bought for herself. It turned out to be more than she bargained for.
One of my jeans belt that I use on Bacall
Some paddles were tossed right away, others would be cut a little to see if that would improve them. When we got one we liked, she would finish it.
I can look a paddle and say it looks like it would work, but the proof is in feeling it.
All this to say, it’s an exceedingly narrow channel to find a suitable mate and another channel to find the right implement. As I am sure you already know.
After years and dozens of toys, these are our go-to favs
Her Toys
My Toys

The More Important Election

I touched on several of these points last Saturday. The Journal makes a better case for the changes coming if the Dems win the Senate.

The party conventions are focused on the race for the White House, but there’s precious little mention of what is arguably the more important contest: The fight for the U.S. Senate. Whoever holds that majority will determine whether change next year is centrist or radical.

This assumes Democrats hold the House, which is likely short of a Republican comeback for the ages. Republicans now hold a 53-47 Senate majority, but their hold is precarious. They’re defending as many as eight seats that are competitive, while they look set to gain back only the Alabama seat held by Democrat Doug Jones. A House, Senate and White House sweep would set Democrats up for the policy transformation that Joe Biden recently said he wants.

This would not be your father’s Democratic Senate, or even Barack Obama’s. A Democratic majority would elevate left-wing progressives like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Sheldon Whitehouse to positions of power. Normally they’d be constrained by the need to compromise with the minority to get 60 votes to pass legislation. This is what has frustrated both parties for decades, notably Republicans as recently as two years ago on entitlement, health-care and tort reform when they also held all of Congress and the White House.

Democrats have all but announced that, even with a narrow majority of 51 or 52, the 60-vote legislative filibuster is going the way of bourbon and branchwater. “The filibuster is gone,” former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Politico last week. “It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when it’s going to go. . . . Next year at this time, it will be gone.”

Harry should know. In 2013 he killed the filibuster rule for judicial nominees on a partisan vote. Barack Obama recently called the filibuster a relic of Jim Crow, though he wanted to use it to stop Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court confirmation. No less a former Senate Old Bull than Mr. Biden has signaled he’d be happy to see it go to grease the skids for his agenda.

The pressure from the left will be too intense to resist. Simply watch current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who for years has advertised himself as a moderate liberal. Last week he told the press that he’s no longer an “angry centrist.” He said he’s moved left with the times and thus can’t take anything “off the table” in the majority.

Mr. Schumer is anticipating a potential primary challenge in 2022 from progressive New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who could raise all the money she needs to take him on. That threat means Mr. Schumer wouldn’t dare buck his backbenchers who want to kill the filibuster. It also means that in the majority he’ll be along for the ride of whatever Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats want.

What would that be? Mr. Schumer said this includes addressing “income and wealth inequality, climate [change], racial justice, [and] health care” and “improving our democracy.” Democrats can pass a tax increase with a mere 51 votes under current budget rules, but killing the filibuster opens the door to all sorts of long dormant progressive priorities.

That includes statehood, plus two Senate seats each, for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. House Democrats have passed the most far-reaching labor legislation in decades. Right-to-work laws could be banned in the states and secret union elections replaced with “card check” that allows open pressure on workers.

Election mandates imposing ballot harvesting and mail-in voting on states would be likely. Democrats could also expand the size of the federal appellate courts and even the Supreme Court with a mere 51 votes. The only restraint would be public opinion, but Democrats (unlike Republicans) would have a cheerleading press corps behind them.

All of this is more likely than many Republicans think. Senate races have become increasingly nationalized as ticket-splitting ebbs, so President Trump’s undertow could sweep away even moderates like Susan Collins of Maine or Cory Gardner of Colorado. Oh, and in 2022 the GOP will have to defend at least 20 Senate seats—many in swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—while Democrats protect 12 mostly safe strongholds. Voters, take note.

A word about Trump. I have never given Trump full-throated support. I did not like him on The Apprentice and still don’t care for his behavior. I will vote for a barking dog over any liberal, so I will vote for Trump again.

Here’s what the Journal’s Editorial Board had to say about him.

When Donald Trump won the Presidency four years ago, half of America gnashed its teeth or cried and even supporters who cheered weren’t sure what to expect. Four years later our verdict is that he has been better on policy than we feared but worse on personal behavior than we hoped. Whether Americans re-elect him depends on how they assess that political balance sheet.

We realize that even considering the Trump Presidency in these conventional terms is offensive to some readers. Don’t we get that he’s a would-be authoritarian, a Russian plant, or at least so deeply flawed as a human being that he can’t be trusted with power? Yet our democracy survives, and the Constitution’s checks and balances are intact. Americans who heard him ask for a second term Thursday night were trying to make sense of what has been a raucous and disruptive Presidency.


Which brings us to character. Americans knew when they voted for Mr. Trump that he wouldn’t adhere to convention, but they also hoped his manners would rise to the respect due the office. They too often haven’t. He is needlessly polarizing, luxuriates in petty feuds, and trashes aides who served him well as they walk out the door. He seems not to care if what he says is true, which has squandered his ability to persuade in a crisis.


His narcissism is his own worst enemy, which the public has seen to its worst effect in the pandemic. Mr. Trump brawled with governors and the press and bragged relentlessly about his success when Americans wanted candid realism. His Administration’s anti-Covid record is better than Mr. Trump has made it sound.

Yet it’s impossible to assess Mr. Trump’s behavior outside the context of the often unhinged opposition. We will never know how his Presidency might have gone without the Russia collusion accusations. But we do know the FBI, and the Obama Administration, knew early on that there was no evidence for the claims. They nonetheless fed the media stories to cripple him.

Before Election Day in 2016, we wrote that the biggest gamble of a Trump Presidency wasn’t the fantasy that he was a Mussolini from Manhattan. It was that he’d face a hostile press and bureaucracy that his inexperience and erratic management would be unable to navigate. So it has often been, and in 2018 the resulting tumult cost Republicans control of the House.

Americans now know Mr. Trump isn’t going to change, but then he isn’t running only against himself. He has a chance to win another four years if voters conclude that his disruption is less risky than the Biden-Sanders Democratic agenda.


The Only Truly Effective Riot Control


Things Which Will Probably Be Done Under a Dem Admistration


If Mr. Biden wins by his current polling margin, a Democratic sweep of Congress is likely and that makes a lot possible.

1) More justices will be added to the US Supreme Court to ensure all decisions will be pleasing to progressives.

2) Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, being reliably progressive, will be made states adding four Democratic Senators.

3) The filibuster will be abolished. The filibuster was long used by Democrats to block all civil rights legislation. Now it will be retired to ensure Republicans can not interfere with any legislation. The Republicans may as well stay home.

4) Of course, taxes will go up.


5) All sources of carbon fuel will be limited in deference to green energy.  That means higher gasoline and home heating prices. More rolling blackouts as supply is restrained. Energy will be managed as efficiently as the Post Office.

6) Health care will become universal, but less available.

7) Children will continue to be shot in cities across America. 

8) Homelessness will increase.

9) Charter schools will be heavily restricted.

10) The right to work will be curtailed.


First Class mail volume is down 35% since 2008. That’s huge. It makes sense to me that less mail requires fewer sorting machines. So that’s something that’s ginned up.

Overtime has been curtailed. When you are accustomed to a paycheck of a given size and it’s now less without overtime, anyone might be peeved. Somewhere in the mix are the 13 postal unions that are the cause of work slowdowns.


Generally, the word barbarian is used to refer to the Germanic tribesman, the resident of inner unconquered Germania. These were the people who invaded Rome during its weaker later years, toppled the Western Empire, burned and looted and pillaged and killed everything in their wake, and brought anarchy. Essentially, they were savages, base-level humans who had not yet been tempered and refined by the civilization which they were ignorant enough to destroy.

Hmmmm. Here we go again.


On the lighter side

Sound Is Important To Us

Sound is important to us. The crack that a wood paddle makes when it hits the sweet spot is musical to us. There is a lamp in our bedroom that very faintly resonates when a particular paddle hits the target just right. Bacall can not hear it, but I can. She always gets a bit giddy when the paddle cracks crisply either on her or when she paddles me.

Kelly Payne sure has paddled a lot of men. I would bet she makes the paddle crack.

A sequence from Nu-West days of Ed Lee putting the wood to a gal. I know the paddle will make a rifle shot crack on the denim.

Yes, They Are That Extreme


A liberal journalist has declared she would still “vote for Joe Biden if he boiled babies and ate them” because “taking back the White House is that important.”

Katha Pollitt, a long-time essayist and columnist for The Nation, a left-wing publication, made the radical statement in her disturbing May 20 article, “We should Take Women’s Accusations Seriously. But Tara Reade’s Fall Short.“

According to Pollitt, reelecting President Trump “will replace what remains of our democracy” with “unchecked rule” by “religious fanatics” and “gun nuts, and know-nothings” — and she would rather have a baby-eating homicidal maniac in charge than a “religious nut” who supports the Second Amendment.


I suppose I should say something about Kamala. It’s not news to me. I figured she had the slot long ago. No one, no one, he could pick was going to curry any favor with me. In the last month or so I have abandoned almost all hope of Trump being re-elected. My guess is that Kamala will take the short route to President. But, what the hell do I know?

Biden probably won’t enjoy much of a boost from a running mate primarily chosen to appeal to the older black voters who would have turned out for him anyway. He has certainly alienated progressives. 

How do you say Kamala? It’s comma-la, an Indian name. Her mother was an Indian immigrant. The senator’s given name, Kamala Devi—Goddess Kamala—is a synonym for Lakshmi, the Hindu deity of wealth and fortune. The word Kamala literally means “she of the lotus,” the flower on which Lakshmi is said to repose in the Hindu heavens. 

Kamala’s Roots My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town) and to my maternal grandmother Miss Iris (née Iris Finegan, farmer and educator, from Aenon Town and Inverness, ancestry unknown to me). The Harris name comes from my paternal grandfather Joseph Alexander Harris, land-owner and agricultural ‘produce’ exporter (mostly pimento or all-spice), who died in 1939 one year after I was born and is buried in the church yard of the magnificent Anglican Church which Hamilton Brown built in Brown’s Town (and where, as a child, I learned the catechism, was baptized and confirmed, and served as an acolyte).

Here’s something Willy said about Top Cop Kamala:

Her past shows she will do ANYTHING to get what she wants. Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown addressed his past extramarital relationship with U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris saying he may have boosted the presidential hopeful’s career. During their “affair’ Mr. Brown said, “Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two-state commissions when I was [California] Assembly, the speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco.”

But unlike the other people he helped, such as U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Kamala was different. “The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I ‘so much as jaywalked’ while she was D.A.,” Brown wrote. “That’s politics for ya.”


I have already seen many folks say she is not Black. Well, she is not Lilly White either. She is a mulatto like most folks we term Black. Under the laws of the Confederate states, anyone with a drop of black blood was Black. If the Dems of the 1800s would say she is Black, it follows that the Dem’s of today should think the same. 

Oh geez, then there is the deal of her family being slave owners.

Surprise, Surprise, Kamala Supports SEIU For Campaign $$$

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris made their first appearances as a campaign ticket on Wednesday, and Americans still know little about the running mate who may be President sooner rather than later. One way to fill in the gap is to inspect Ms. Harris’s record as California’s Attorney General, and one revealing episode is the way she used her power to blow up a deal to rescue struggling Catholic hospitals.

The saga started in 2014 when for-profit Prime Healthcare Services made an $843 million bid for six insolvent hospitals operated by the Catholic Daughters of Charity Health System. The hospitals had been bleeding cash for years due to inflexible labor contracts and miserly Medicaid payments.

Prime Healthcare was the only bidder that agreed to assume Daughters’ $300 million liability for worker pensions, and it scored high on the bidding criteria that included financial wherewithal and service quality. Nurses, physicians and the public supported the deal.

But the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which represented 2,000 hospital workers at Daughters, opposed Prime’s takeover because the company refused to sign a neutrality agreement that would let them organize all of Prime’s hospitals. Only four of Prime’s 15 hospitals in California at the time were unionized.

California’s Attorney General must approve nonprofit hospital acquisitions, and Ms. Harris attached dozens of poison pills to the deal. They included requiring 24-hour nursing, surgery, anesthesia, laboratory, radiology and pharmacies for five years and mandating that hospitals offer an additional 12 to 18 “essential services” such as orthopedics for 10 years. These conditions were unprecedented.

Prime walked away from the deal and sued Ms. Harris for violating its due-process rights. According to the lawsuit, Daughters’ executives had told Prime that Ms. Harris would block the sale “or require financially crippling approval conditions” if Prime did not reach an agreement with the union. The lawsuit alleges that in return the union promised to support her with $25 million in political contributions.

Ms. Harris denied the accusations, and a federal judge in 2017 ruled that she had “qualified immunity”—the doctrine that shields public officials from liability for violations of constitutional liberties. This is ironic since Ms. Harris earlier this summer introduced a resolution in the Senate to abolish qualified immunity for police officers.


Perhaps the best written about Kamala this week was by Kimberly Strassel.

Joe Biden sure knows how to pick ’em. The Democratic nominee had the opportunity to name a competent female running mate, one who would excite his base and reassure undecided voters. He instead chose California Sen. Kamala Harris, the definition of political mediocrity.

Don’t take Donald Trump’s word for it. Take the left’s—at least a few months ago, when it had no stake in creating a legend. The media and Democrats this week can’t roll out enough praise for the veep pick: She’s brilliant, savvy, seasoned, vetted, smooth, forceful, appealing, authentic, powerful, a fighter. This is the same woman the media and Democrats rightly skewered in 2019 for running one of the most bungled and disorganized presidential campaigns this cycle.

Ms. Harris didn’t even make it to the first contest, dropping out—broke and with embarrassing poll numbers—two months before the Iowa caucuses. The only other “top tier” candidate to implode as quickly or spectacularly was Beto O’Rourke. 

Many Americans will also remember her leading role in the character assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, matched only in political theater by Cory “Spartacus” Booker. 


5 Things to Know About Biden’s VP Pick, Kamala Harris – Her Skeletons Have Skeletons