Foolishness since 2007

Foolishness since 2007
Foolishness since 2007

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Ear Worms

We've all had songs playing in the background in our head. It's usually a song we don't like but we just can't get rid of it. This morning while I was shaving I was reminiscing about the days when one or more young ladies would be at the house and we would all be in panties and the paddles would be popping someone's bottom all through the day. I felt it was a great freedom to be able to have my kink accepted. These thoughts floated in my wee mind for a time. 

An hour or so later, I chatted with a woman online who shares some of our interests like paddles and panties. She mentioned she had been reading our blog recently and was amused by my post about wearing a girdle while being paddled.

After our chat, I went outside to do some chores and  I merged these two thoughts and imagined she and her husband would be with us and we would all be wearing panties. I wondered if she would encourage me to put on a girdle and if she would take the initiative to paddle me in it.

Funny how the idle mind works.

Monday, June 18, 2018

Non Consensual Spanking - Where are the feminists?

I am on my soapbox today.

Where are the feminists? They don't seem to be on spanking sites. The women I am going to write about will probably not see this. They are devout bottoms and want nothing to do with even thinking about spanking men. 

OBB is all about consensual spanking. Neither of us will be dominated by anyone or seeks to dominate anyone. Most F/M blogs are about the female being in charge. Most M/F blogs are about the man being in charge. Got it. That's an agreement between two people. 

It's when the activities, real or fantasy, depict non-consensual behavior that we feel the responsible action is to speak out.

Men seem to be outed hourly for unwanted suggestive words, for inappropriate touching, or coercive sex, etc. So I am puzzled by popular spanking blogs that regularly offer stories of fictional nonconsensual spankings of underage females. This baffles me when the blogger is female. It's a head-scratcher to me that female reader's of these stories are enthusiastic in their response to the stories. It is the readers that concern me more than a single blogger. Where are the feminists?

Tales of being caned by the headmaster and the like are tiresome to me. Using the power of a position to bare always delectable bottoms seems to me to be akin to rape. 

Is this what they would want for their own daughter?
Is this what they want their sons to do?
All of us need to set appropriate examples.

Why do women enjoy such stories? Do female readers of these stories see themselves as something to be conquered and tamed? Do they sincerely want men to be like the characters in the stories?

There is a dichotomy between such fiction and how women say they want to be treated. It seems that “please abuse me” is in a lot of women's dreams. It has to be confusing to men with no moral compass. Publishing such stories is like tossing gasoline on a smoldering fire. It's despicable.

This is a hot button for us. We are both involved with both men and women who are physically abused. And yes, spanking/beatings of kids are a part of it. We are unalterably opposed to the depiction of abuse to minors.

This morning I read a profile of a male spanker that is looking for a casual spanking experience. His favorite roleplay scenes are principal/student and daddy/daughter. He is a retired HS principal.

Saturday, June 9, 2018

Today's word is APHORISM

Aphorism is a statement of truth or opinion expressed in a concise and witty manner.
♦ When wearing a bikini, women reveal 90% of their body. Men are so polite they only look at the covered parts.       
♦ Relationships are a lot like algebra. Have you ever looked at your X and wondered Y?
♦ You know that tingly little feeling you get when you love someone? That's common sense leaving your body   
♦ My therapist says I have a preoccupation with vengeance. We'll see about that!                     
♦ I always wondered what the job application is like at Hooters. Do they just give you a bra and say, "Here, fill this out?"        
♦ I can’t understand why women are OK that JC Penny has an older women’s clothing line named, " Sag Harbor ."

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Smiling Spankees

Some want punishment, some want pain, some want the wife in charge and some of just want to have fun.

 Same girls as above. Did they paddle each other?

Our college was fun, but they are over the top

Oh please, please stop

Would love to have this one in color. Anyone?

Saturday, June 2, 2018

We Must Improve Our Trust

American institutions—and therefore democracy itself—are frailer than we often realize.

I have been thinking about trust. All the polls show and have for some time what you already know: America’s trust in its leaders and institutions has been falling for four decades. Trust in the federal government has never been lower. In 1958 Pew Research found 73% trusted the government to do what is right “always” or “most of the time.” That sounds healthy. As of 2017 that number was 18%. That’s not.
Other institutions have suffered, too—the church, the press, the professions. That’s disturbing because those institutions often bolster our national life in highly personal ways. When government or law turns bad, they provide a place, a platform from which to stand, to make a case, to correct.
A problem that has so many parts and so much history—from Vietnam to Twitter bots—will not easily be solved. But there are things we can do individually to help America be more at peace with itself.
First, realize this isn’t merely a problem but a crisis. When you say you believe in and trust democratic institutions, you are saying you believe in and trust democracy itself. When you don’t, you don’t. When a nation tells pollsters it’s unable to trust its constituent parts it’s telling pollsters it doesn’t trust itself.
It’s time to see our mighty institutions with their noble facades—the grand marble court houses, the soaring cathedral—for what they are: secretly frail and in constant need of saving.
When you’re young and starting out you imagine institutions are monoliths—big, impervious to your presence. Later, having spent time within, you know how human and flawed it all is, and how it’s saved each day by the wisdom and patience—the quiet heroism—of a few. Be one of the few.
If you’re young it would be good at this point to enter your profession with a premature sense of the frailty of everything.
Six years ago I was invited to speak to a small West Point class. Polls had come out showing that the U.S. military still retained the trust of the people, and this was much on my mind. I wondered if the cadets knew how much was riding on them.
I told them the institution they’re about to enter was among the last standing, and one of their great jobs will be to keep it trustworthy.
Naturally maintaining their institution’s moral stature was not the main focus of their minds. So I told them a story of a great army of the West, admired by all, that did something wrong, and then a series of things, and by the end, when it came out, as such things do, it broke that army’s reputation in a way from which it never quite recovered. I was speaking of France and the Dreyfus affair. They had not heard of it.
There should be a course in it.
I urged them to conduct themselves so that such a thing could never happen in the U.S. Army. I don’t think I left them rushing to download Émile Zola on their iPads. I do think they were hearing for the first time how much America depends on them not only for military expertise but to keep up the national morale.
In many ways we’re too national in our thinking. Don’t always be thinking up there. Be thinking here, where life takes place. In building trust think close to home. If your teenager judges an institution called Business in America by the billionaire hedge funder spouting inane thoughts on cable TV with a look on his face that says “See how original I am!” then capitalism is doomed. You can’t make your teenager admire slippery, rapacious tech gods in Silicon Valley. But if your children understand business in America as modeled by you—as honorable men and women engaged in an honorable pursuit—then they will have respect for the institution if business. If for no other reason be honest in your dealings, be compassionate, and provide excellence.
Realize there’s a difference between skepticism and cynicism, that one is constructive and the other childish.
Skepticism involves an intellectual exercise: You look at the grand surface knowing it may not reflect the inner reality. It implies action: If it doesn’t, try to make it better. Cynicism is a dodge: Everything’s crud, you’d be a fool to try and make it better, it’s all irredeemable and unchangeable.
Be skeptical of our institutions, not cynical toward them.
For those who operate on any level of our public life, hear this: Some of our problems can be resolved or made less dramatic and assaultive by an old-fashioned concept that used to exist in American public life. It is called tact. We are in an epidemic of tactlessness, which is an absence of respect for the other side, for whoever is on that side. It is an utter lack of generosity and sensitivity.
“Bake my cake” is, among other things, a stunning example of lack of tact. You’re supposed to win graciously, not rub the loser’s face in it.
If you are, say, in the U.S. Congress, where both parties failed for a quarter-century to regulate our borders effectively, and those forced to live with the results of that derogation rise up and demand action, the correct response is not to imply they are nativist racist bigots.
You listen to people, you don’t label them insultingly.
A tactful response? “We take your point—we haven’t succeeded and we’ll try to get it right. In the meantime, since we’re all imperfect human beings, please don’t let your anger turn into something small, biased and narrow. While you investigate your heart, we will get to work.”
You lose nothing when you hear and respect criticism. You gain trust.
Finally, we ask so much of government, which is not, we know, the most competent of institutions. When we ask too much and multiply its tasks, it’s likely to fail, and when it does we become angry—and trust goes down again.
Our founders were skeptical of concentrated power. The power of government, arrayed against the individual, could crush him. They devised checks, balances, enumerated rights. Those who believe in their wisdom should speak of it more persuasively.
To this day many Republicans speak of what they call “limited government.” This is an unfortunate and unpersuasive phrase. Usage changes. To most people “limited” means insufficient, not up to the task. “He had the heart of a quarterback but was limited by his small stature.” Americans know they have limited government. They’ve been to the DMV. What they’d like is a government that acknowledges its limits and understands itself as one of many players in the democratic drama—not the central player but a present and competent one. A realistic government, a humble government, at the very least a more collegial one.
President Trump cannot help. Increasing public trust is not his declared mission, and what it would take is not in his toolbox. He tends in his statements to undermine trust: His own government is embarked on a deep-state witch-hunt conspiracy, his agencies are incompetent, the press is fake-news liars.
What can be handled by us, should be. We can’t go forward this way.