Foolishness since 2007

Foolishness since 2007
Foolishness since 2007

Monday, April 30, 2018

Seeing A Professional

Judging by the number of toots I see for professional female spankers, the business must be booming. I have never seriously considered seeing a pro. Bacall is all the pro I need. I have admired a precious few of them, but most bill themselves as strictly business offering stern looks, severe clothing, and scolding etc. I like a hot bottom, but the woman must be playful. It's the girl next door look for me.

Even if I had never met Bacall I doubt I would have seen a pro simply because paddling is sexual for me. The pro's websites proclaim there will be no sex period. Without a sexual release, a spanking would be no fun for me.

Absolutely required for me

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Donald Trump, Tragic Hero

Two articles today.

First, the face of education. The Fresno State English prof who is glad Barbara Bush is dead. What you get for $40,000 tuition.

Second, Trump compared to tragic heroes like the Magnificent Seven


His very flaws may be his strengths
The very idea that Donald Trump could, even in a perverse way, be heroic may appall half the country. Nonetheless, one way of understanding both Trump’s personal excesses and his accomplishments is that his not being traditionally presidential may have been valuable in bringing long-overdue changes in foreign and domestic policy.

Tragic heroes, as they have been portrayed from Sophocles’ plays (e.g., Ajax, Antigone, Oedipus Rex, Philoctetes) to the modern western film, are not intrinsically noble. Much less are they likeable. Certainly, they can often be obnoxious and petty, if not dangerous, especially to those around them. These mercurial sorts never end well — and on occasion neither do those in their vicinity. Oedipus was rudely narcissistic, Hombre’s John Russell (Paul Newman) arrogant and off-putting.

Tragic heroes are loners, both by preference and because of society’s understandable unease with them. Ajax’s soliloquies about a rigged system and the lack of recognition accorded his undeniable accomplishments are Trumpian to the core — something akin to the sensational rumors that at night Trump is holed up alone, petulant, brooding, eating fast food, and watching Fox News shows.

Outlaw leader Pike Bishop (William Holden), in director Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch, is a killer whose final gory sacrifice results in the slaughter of the toxic General Mapache and his corrupt local Federales. A foreboding Ethan Edwards (John Wayne), of John Ford’s classic 1956 film The Searchers, alone can track down his kidnapped niece. But his methods and his recent past as a Confederate renegade make him suspect and largely unfit for a civilizing frontier after the expiration of his transitory usefulness. These characters are not the sorts that we would associate with Bob Dole, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, or Mitt Romney.

The tragic hero’s change of fortune — often from good to bad, as Aristotle reminds us — is due to an innate flaw (hamartia), or at least in some cases an intrinsic and usually uncivilized trait that can be of service to the community, albeit usually expressed fully only at the expense of the hero’s own fortune. The problem for civilization is that the creation of those skill sets often brings with it past baggage of lawlessness and comfortability with violence. Trump’s cunning and mercurialness, honed in Manhattan real estate, global salesmanship, reality TV, and wheeler-dealer investments, may have earned him ostracism from polite Washington society. But these talents also may for a time be suited for dealing with many of the outlaws of the global frontier.

At rare times, a General George S. Patton (“Give me an army of West Point graduates and I’ll win a battle. Give me a handful of Texas Aggies and I’ll win a war”) could be harnessed to serve the country in extremis. General Curtis LeMay did what others could not — and would not: “I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal. . . . Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you’re not a good soldier.” Later, the public exposure given to the mentalities and behaviors of such controversial figures would only ensure that they would likely be estranged from or even caricatured by their peers — once, of course, they were no longer needed by those whom they had benefited. When one is willing to burn down with napalm 75 percent of the industrial core of an often-genocidal wartime Japan, and thereby help bring a vicious war to an end, then one looks for sorts like Curtis LeMay and his B-29s. In the later calm of peace, one is often shocked that one ever had. A sober and judicious General Omar Bradley grows on us in peace even if he was hardly Patton in war.

So what makes such men and women both tragic and heroic is their full knowledge that the natural expression of their personas can lead only to their own destruction or ostracism. Yet for a variety of reasons, both personal and civic, their characters not only should not be altered but could not be, even if the tragic hero wished to change, given his megalomania and Manichean views of the human experience. Clint Eastwood’s Inspector “Dirty” Harry Callahan cannot serve as the official face of the San Francisco police department. But Dirty Harry alone has the skills and ruthlessness to ensure that the mass murderer Scorpio will never harm the innocent again. So, in the finale, he taunts and then shoots the psychopathic Scorpio, ending both their careers, and walks off — after throwing his inspector’s badge into the water. Marshal Will Kane (Gary Cooper) of High Noon did about the same thing, but only after gunning down (with the help of his wife) four killers whom the law-abiding but temporizing elders of Hadleyville proved utterly incapable of stopping.

The out-of-place Ajax in Sophocles’ tragedy of the same name cannot function apart from the battlefield. Unlike Odysseus, he lacks the tact and fluidity to succeed in a new world of nuanced civic rules. So he would rather “live nobly, or nobly die” — “nobly” meaning according to an obsolete black-and-white code that is no longer compatible with the ascendant polis.

In other words, tragic heroes are often simply too volatile to continue in polite society. In George Stevens’s classic 1953 western Shane, even the reforming and soft-spoken gunslinger Shane (Alan Ladd) understands his own dilemma all too well: He alone possesses the violent skills necessary to free the homesteaders from the insidious threats of hired guns and murderous cattle barons. (And how he got those skills worries those he plans to help.) Yet by the time of his final resort to lethal violence, Shane has sacrificed all prior chances of reform and claims on reentering the civilized world of the stable “sodbuster” community. As Shane tells young Joey after gunning down the three villains of the film and thereby saving the small farming community: “Can’t break the mold. I tried it, and it didn’t work for me. . . . Joey, there’s no living with . . . a killing. There’s no going back from one. Right or wrong, it’s a brand. A brand sticks. There’s no going back.”

Trump could not cease tweeting, not cease his rallies, not cease his feuding, and not cease his nonstop motion and unbridled speech if he wished to. It is his brand, and such overbearing made Trump, for good or evil, what he is — and will likely eventually banish him from establishment Washington, whether after or during his elected term. His raucousness can be managed, perhaps mitigated for a time — thus the effective tenure of his sober cabinet choices and his chief of staff, the ex–Marine general, no-nonsense John Kelly — but not eliminated. His blunt views cannot really thrive, and indeed can scarcely survive, in the nuance, complexity, and ambiguity of Washington.

Trump is not a mannered Mitt Romney, who would never have left the Paris climate agreement. He is not a veteran who knew the whiz of real bullets and remains a Washington icon, such as John McCain, who would never have moved the American embassy to Jerusalem. Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush certainly would never have waded into no-win controversies such as the take-a-knee NFL debacle and unvetted immigration from suspect countries in the Middle East and Africa, or called to account sanctuary cities that thwarted federal law. Our modern Agamemnon, Speaker Paul Ryan, is too circumspect to get caught up with Trump’s wall or a mini-trade war with China.

Trump does not seem to care whether he is acting “presidential.” The word — as he admits — is foreign to him. He does not worry whether his furious tweets, his revolving-door firing and hiring, and his rally counterpunches reveal a lack of stature or are becoming an embarrassing window into his own insecurities and apprehensions as a Beltway media world closes in upon him in the manner that, as the trapped western hero felt, the shrinking landscape was increasingly without options in the new 20th century.

The real moral question is not whether the gunslinger Trump could or should become civilized (again, defined in our context as becoming normalized as “presidential”) but whether he could be of service at the opportune time and right place for his country, crude as he is. After all, despite their decency, in extremis did the frontier farmers have a solution without Shane, or the Mexican peasants a realistic alternative to the Magnificent Seven, or the town elders a viable plan without Will Kane?

Perhaps we could not withstand the fire and smoke of a series of Trump presidencies, but given the direction of the country over the last 16 years, half the population, the proverbial townspeople of the western, wanted some outsider, even with a dubious past, to ride in and do things that most normal politicians not only would not but could not do — before exiting stage left or riding off into the sunset, to the relief of most and the regrets of a few.

The best and the brightest résumés of the Bush and Obama administrations had doubled the national debt — twice. Three prior presidents had helped to empower North Korea, now with nuclear-tipped missiles pointing at the West Coast. Supposedly refined and sophisticated diplomats of the last quarter century, who would never utter the name “Rocket Man” or stoop to call Kim Jong-un “short and fat,” nonetheless had gone through the “agreed framework,” “six-party talks,” and “strategic patience,” in which three administrations gave Pyongyang quite massive aid to behave and either not to proliferate or at least to denuclearize. And it was all a failure, and a deadly one at that.

For all of Obama’s sophisticated discourse about “spread the wealth around” and “You didn’t build that,” quantitative easing, zero interest rates, massive new regulations, the stimulus, and shovel-ready, government-inspired jobs, he could not achieve 3 percent annualized economic growth. Half the country, the more desperate half, believed that the remedy for a government in which the IRS, the FBI, the DOJ, and the NSA were weaponized, often in partisan fashion and without worry about the civil liberties of American citizens, was not more temporizing technicians but a pariah who cleaned house and moved on. Certainly Obama was not willing to have a showdown with the Chinese over their widely acknowledged cheating and coerced expropriation of U.S. technology, with the NATO allies over their chronic welching on prior defense commitments, with the North Koreans after they achieved the capability of hitting U.S. West Coast cities, or with the European Union over its mostly empty climate-change accords.

Moving on, sometimes fatally so, is the tragic hero’s operative exit. Antigone certainly makes her point about the absurdity of small men’s sexism and moral emptiness in such an uncompromising way that her own doom is assured. Tom Doniphon (John Wayne), in John Ford’s The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, unheroically kills the thuggish Liberty Valance, births the career of Ranse Stoddard and his marriage to Doniphon’s girlfriend, and thereby ensures civilization is Shinbone’s frontier future. His service done, he burns down his house and degenerates from feared rancher to alcoholic outcast.

The remnants of The Magnificent Seven would no longer be magnificent had they stayed on in the village, settled down to age, and endlessly rehashed the morality and utility of slaughtering the outlaw Calvera and his banditos. As Chris rides out, he sums up to Vin their dilemma: “The old man was right. Only the farmers won. We lost. We always lose.” He knows that few appreciate that the tragic heroes in their midst are either tragic or heroic — until they are safely gone and what they have done in time can be attributed to someone else. Worse, he knows that the tragic hero’s existence is solitary and without the nourishing networks and affirmation of the peasant’s agrarian life.

John Ford’s most moving scene in his best film, The Searchers, is Ethan Edwards’s final exit from a house of shadows, swinging open the door and walking alone into sunlit oblivion. If he is lucky, Trump may well experience the same self-inflicted fate.

By his very excesses Trump has already lost, but in his losing he might alone be able to end some things that long ago should have been ended.

Saturday, April 28, 2018



Populism is seen as both bad and good because people disagree about what it represents and intends. In the present age, there are two different sorts of populism. Both strains originated in classical times and persist today. 

In antiquity, one type was known by elite writers of that time to be the “bad” populism. It appealed to the volatile, landless urban “mob,” or what the Athenians dubbed pejoratively the ochlos and the Romans disparagingly called the turba. Their popular unrest was spearheaded by the so-called demagogoi (“leaders of the people”) or, in Roman times, the popular tribunes. These largely urban protest movements focused on the redistribution of property, higher liturgies or taxes on the wealthy, the cancellation of debts, support for greater public employment and entitlements, and sometimes imperialism abroad. Centuries later, the French Revolution and many of the European upheavals of 1848 reflected some of these same ancient tensions. Those modern mobs wanted government-mandated equality of result rather than that of opportunity, and they believed egalitarianism should encompass nearly all facets of life.

This populism operated via redistribution and it was the antecedent of today’s progressive movement. Contemporary progressive populists favor higher taxes on the rich, more entitlements for the poor, identity politics reparations, and relief from debts such as the cancellation of student loans. Various grassroots movements like Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the Bernie Sanders phenomenon have all promoted such policies.

But there was always another populism—and in the ancient world, it was considered a “good” form of grassroots activism even though its contemporary version is disparaged by the liberal press: this political movement stemmed from the conservative and often rural quarters of the middle classes. The agrarian agendas of the Gracchi brothers, Roman politicians from the second century BC, were quite different from that of the later bread-and-circus urban underclass, in the same way that the American revolutionaries emphasized liberty while their French counterparts championed egalitarianism. More recently, the populism of the Tea Party is antithetical to that of Occupy Wall Street.

In ancient Greece, these agrarian populists were known as “mesoi” or “middle guys”—those who were mostly responsible for the rise of the Greek city-state and constitutional government. Their signature ideas were preserving ownership of a family plot, seeing property as the nexus of all civic, political, and military life, and passing on farms through codified inheritance laws and property rights. The mesoi felt their approach offered stability to the otherwise volatile political order.

Similarly, the complaints of the later Roman agrarians against latifundia—the emergence of vast estates—today seems like a proto-Trumpian rant that rural Romans fought endless wars abroad for imperial expansion throughout the Mediterranean world without personally benefitting from these campaigns. Yet the benefits were, in a Roman context, an endless supply of cheap foreign slave laborers, influxes of disruptive global wealth, and corporate consolation of property at home. These profits went mostly to a Roman deep state of well-connected senators, imperial functionaries, magistrates, legates, provincial governors, and a permanent and expeditionary military force.

The rise of Donald Trump and those like him reflect some of these same age-old trends. Among contemporary conservatives, there was a growing complaint that the Republican Party had often forgotten the reminders of Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville that small property-owners were the stewards of conservatism, and of traditional norms and customs. They were seen as essential in stabilizing Western consensual systems, due to the pragmatism of their own lives and the stability of rural communities. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, such centrism in the American context set these agrarian property owners against both the absolutism of British monarchy and the recklessness of mass revolutionary movements like those in France.

Obviously America is no longer, a nation largely of yeomen farmers. But the ownership of a house, or a business, or a retirement savings plan, along with static populations centered around small businesses and well-paying manufacturing jobs, is perhaps the modern equivalent—as are traditional and hereditary rural communities in between the two coasts. Yet the trajectory of modern Republicanism had been to largely ignore such communities of small property owners and the effects that globalization and deindustrialization has had upon small them—a neglect that led to startling political repercussions in 2016.

Before 2016, both Republican and Democratic political elites and establishmentarians in the media, Wall Street, the universities, and entertainment largely agreed, albeit for different reasons, on a number of issues that had combined to enervate the middle class of the interior.

In the context of ancient and modern parallels, recent complaints about misspent time, money, and lives in wars abroad recall the lamentations of an Everyman character who appears in Livy’s Roman history, Spurius Ligustinus. Ligustinus was an impoverished small farmer in the Italian countryside who in his fifties recites in anguish to the Roman senate his 22-year career of overseas military service as a legionary and centurion. The battle-scarred Spurius’s personal tenure was a roadmap of overseas expansion—and a window into both the winners and losers of Roman globalization.

Illegal immigration and open borders have also been accepted as an almost natural expression of global labor and consumer markets—with largely positive results for both left and right. Liberals and ethnic activists championed those arriving, often illegally and unvetted, from Latin America and Mexico, in expectation of their permanent political support. Identity politics has transformed the Democratic Party, and, in theory, empowered its electoral opportunities in the American Southwest. Republicans, for their part, welcomed the cheap labor and/or deluded themselves into thinking that amnestied impoverished illegal immigrants would vote for family-values conservatives.

Neither party worried so much about the insidious erosion of immigration law, much less how laws that were otherwise applicable to most Americans could be arbitrarily ignored by a select few. That illegal immigration led to overburdened social services and schools, and drove down the wages of entry-level American workers was written off as the whines of those who did not understand the rules of free-market capitalism and the obsolescence of physical borders. In truth, open borders were unstable and did not promote the interests of the American middle classes. Illegal immigration reflected more the aristocratic/revolutionary binaries of the French Revolution, as immigration was paradoxically seen as a boon to the economic interests of the elite Right and the social justice agendas of the Left.

There was a similar consensus across party lines to embrace, without much reservation, globalization. It was seen not just as a reflection of Western cultural influence and technological revolution, but also as something morally and culturally enriching. Nationalism and borders would give way to a worldwide homogeneity—even as it left millions of Americans between the coasts with stagnant wages, lost jobs, or a sense of alienation from the centers of power in America.

Writing off large swaths of the American interior as the country of losers has been among the most radical developments in American history. For those who missed out on the advantages of one-world commerce, it was sometimes seen mostly, in Darwinian terms, as their own fault, either because they did not, for example, pack up and head to the fracking fields of Texas or North Dakota, or because their self-inflicted pathologies excluded them from acquiring the skills and education necessary to succeed in the knowledge-based “information” economy.

by Victor Davis Hanson

Closely connected in 2016 to populist issues of trade and globalization was deindustrialization. Another notion took currency: that the age of the smoke stack and assembly line was over. America, the idea went, had moved beyond an economy fueled by muscular labor and those who provided it. This was a strange mindset. The winners of globalization were materialists par excellence—eager consumers of costly appurtenances that relied on hard labor, such as smart phones, luxury cars, wood floors, organic fruits and vegetables, and expansive homes.

A few obvious disconnects arose. How exactly could millions of Americans out of work be deemed to have had the wrong skills and trades when what they used to do well—build, fabricate, mine, log, and farm—was ever more essential to the enjoyment of the good American life? Did it make sense to fuel an international commercial system in which many of the most successful parties warped the rules of engagement to ensure advantages in trade and employment? Was it really accurate that manufacturing was irrelevant in the United States, given the country’s cheaper power rates, skilled work force, sometimes lower taxes, and less intrusive government?

At best, Democrats talked about transitioning factory workers or coal miners to wind and solar industries; at worst, they saw the white working classes of the Midwest as experiencing the same lack of opportunities that minorities had suffered, evidenced by their spiraling suicide rates and opioid addictions. Republicans believed that the market would sort things out; a community’s lost aluminum smelters and fertilizer plants proved that they should be lost. “Creative destruction” was simply how the market worked, and it always favored the most efficient outcome—efficiency defined in terms of lowest financial outlay, without regard to the social and cultural costs exacted.

We are still in the midst of a populist pushback against the two political parties. The nature and themes are ancient—on the one hand, an urban and radical effort to redistribute wealth and use government to enforce equality, and, on the other, a counter-revolutionary pushback of the middle classes determined to restore liberty, limited government, sovereign borders, and traditional values.

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

The Panic Button

Some like a spanking where you have no control, and you reach the ‘panic button’ state.  Where you think it won’t end. It is most effective. Rapid licks OTK with a hairbrush is a time-proven method for an effective spanking. As Bacall says, OTK is great because "it's right there", meaning the bottom is so conveniently located and the application of a hairbrush is really easy. 

This is an edited version of an on-going conversation I have had with a woman who was spanked by her parents, established a  relationship with an "Aunt and Uncle" before she married and is also spanked by her husband.  The spankings by her "Aunt and Uncle" are for stress relief. Similar to the ones she got from her parents, they take her to her panic button quickly. The spankings from her husband are erotic.

On tears - It is not so much the pain that makes me cry when I get a real spanking, it is mostly my mindset when it happens. I want the release so I'm ready to just 'let go' and I don't try to hold back. I know not everyone needs tears, but they do make me feel better. To me, adult spankings should be whatever a person wants and need to be satisfied. 

I'll be honest, I can write things down that I'd never be able to say to someone about spankings. Its a lot easier to express my feelings to you, and I can only imagine the embarrassment I'd feel trying to say them in person. I've talked to a couple of other women who want real punishment spankings sometimes too, so I'm not alone in that, but I would guess we are in the minority. I don't think of them as 'punishment' in the same sense it was when I was spanked as a teenager. Then I deserved to be disciplined for my misbehavior, but now they're really my way of coping with emotional issues. I have a difficult time of letting go of sad and stressful things, and they sort of grate on me after awhile. A hard spanking isn't going to kill me, but crying my eyes out does help on the emotional side, and its a lot cheaper than a therapist. LOL I think my husband would give me those spankings if I asked him to, but I know he really doesn't want to. I was seeing my 'uncle' before I even met him, and when I figured out he was the guy I wanted to spend the rest of my life with, I told him everything. Thankfully he understood why I needed them so it hasn't been an issue for us. He's met my disciplinarian, and usually goes with me when I need to see him. He's watched me get spanked a couple of times, but most often he sits in the next room until its over.  

You asked about anticipation and there is definitely quite a bit of that. Not sexual like with my husband, but I will admit there is a certain excitement that builds up when I know I'm going to see him, my "uncle". Maybe excitement is the wrong word because its more like anxiety or a little feeling of dread, but I still get the butterflies in my stomach and feel that certain tingle in my bottom before it happens. A lot of the feelings are the same as when my Dad spanked me, but now I have a lot longer to think about them. I schedule a visit at least a week or two ahead so it gives me plenty of time for my imagination to run amuck and make me want to change my mind!  

I never purposely did anything to get a spanking while at home, but I knew if I got caught doing them I would get spanked, so maybe subconsciously I wanted to get spanked. I definitely didn't enjoy being turned over Dad's knee, and I certainly didn't accept them very well. I think if we had been outside, everyone within two miles would have known Daddy was blistering my bare bottom! LOL 

Monday, April 23, 2018

That Damned Batten

Many years ago Bacall found a discarded wooden batten at our sail club. She judged it perfect for frying her inner thighs. Yeah, strange, right? I tried it, but did not care for it on my inner thighs, but liked it on the front and backs of my legs. Yeah, strange, right? 

This fellow's legs look like mine after she works her magic on me. Once the thigh fry is done, she switches to a wood paddle to make my bottom glow. It's like two paddings rolled into one.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Girdles And Garters

A reader commented that he liked to see woman's laps with garters exposed. So do I. I hope he enjoys these pictures from the vault.

Monday, April 16, 2018

Watching Your Friend Get It

I did a post in 2013 titled Guess Her Muff, no muffs are shown, but it continues to garner more eyeballs week in week out than any other post. I love it.

Saturday, April 14, 2018

Thought For Today

The urge to use the power of the government to silence or destroy those we disagree with is why the Framers wrote the Constitution to limit federal powers, and to create checks and balances between the three branches. It’s why the more cynical (or realistic, depending on your viewpoint) anti-Federalists insisted on the addition of the Bill of Rights.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018


Pictures of things I don't understand

Put your junk through a hole and she teases you

Another hole

Big and Small

More Big and Small

Seems To Be A Very Popular Fantasy

Monday, April 9, 2018

How we came to spanking

An OBB reader posted:
I have never met anyone, knowingly, that shared my passion for spanking.
Neither have I sought out like-minded folks to meet up with. I do wonder, though, if I ever will at some stage.

That gave me the impetus for this post - a tell-all.

How we came to spanking…that starts with my background before I met Bacall. I think I spanked most of the girls I dated. I never planned to spank them, it came naturally because of something they did. I would ask them to cease whatever annoying behavior they were doing. Of course, the little darlings relished that game. So I would hoist their skirts and spank them. They took it in good fun. But, it was common that the same behavior occurred the next date with the same result. I was being played, but I was too dim to understand it. I did not see spanking as sexual. But, afterward, they would often be sitting on my lap with their panties down being comforted and still impish. The only way I can see this is that since their panties were down for a “good reason” it was OK to advance to some heavy petting. Always likes that term. So spanking was a back door to sex. Bad pun.

I was 19 when spanking became sexual for me. Now I not only consciously wanted to spank I wanted to be spanked. That was two firsts for me. The trigger for this event was a picture like this one of two women spanking each other. Why a depiction of F/F spanking caused my sudden interest in F/M spanking will always be a mystery to me.

Since I was now actively thinking about spanking my dates, it was no longer spontaneous. And I think less enjoyable for both of us. I had a lot to learn.

When I started dating Bacall, she naturally felt my palm and after awhile I got the nerve to tell her I wanted to be paddled. She took to it like a duck to water.

I was still really stupid about spanking her. I thought the only way to do it was paddling her like I liked being paddled. That was too painful for her. Still is most of the time.

Years pass, I was usually the one getting paddled. I just could not imagine another way to spank other than with a paddle and hard.

The internet dawned and we found that we were not alone in enjoying spanking. One thing led to another and soon we were in a group of spankers. At first, only 20 people, it quickly grew to over 100 souls. We got together several times a year for long weekends.

It was at the first party that things changed for us. I was spanking a gal in an adjoining room and Bacall came in and told me to come and see this. I said, "In a minute, I am little busy right now". But, she was so excited she persisted to encourage me to drop what I was doing and come to see her discovery. It was a leather paddle.

We bought several leather paddles and that changed the whole dynamic for us. She was now paddled as often, if not more so, than me.

More years went by and just as suddenly she decided she liked wood paddles better. Not the same ones as I prefer, but still darn stingy ones. Isn't that right, Ronnie? [At her request, I made her one just like Bacall's]

This photo was taken during her transition from leather to wood. From left to right, a metal ruler - her idea. Pussy flogger. Two leather toys and her first wood paddle.

So to our reader, what I am saying is that there are people just like you out there. Why are we hiding from each other? You will not find many women that enjoy spanking men, but there are lots of women who want to be spanked.

Questions? Comments?

Saturday, April 7, 2018

Trump Is Cutting Old Gordian Knots

Trump seems to be running the White House like The Apprentice. I don't like the style. Yet, reading this article gives me hope.
Donald Trump’s unconventional methods may be exactly what is required for seemingly unsolvable problems.
The proverbial knot of Gordium was impossible to untie. Anyone clever enough to untie it would supposedly become the king of Asia. Many princes tried; all failed.
When Alexander the Great arrived, he was challenged to unravel the impossible knot. Instead, he pulled out his sword and cut through it. Problem solved.
Donald Trump inherited an array of perennial crises when he was sworn in as president in 2017. He certainly did not possess the traditional diplomatic skills and temperament to deal with any of them.
In the last year of the Barack Obama administration, a lunatic North Korean regime purportedly had gained the ability to send nuclear-tipped missiles to the U.S. west coast.
China had not only been violating trade agreements, but forcing U.S. companies to hand over their technological expertise as the price of doing business in China.
NATO may have been born to protect the European mainland, but a distant U.S. was paying an increasingly greater percentage of its budget to maintain NATO than were its direct beneficiaries.
Mexico keeps sending its impoverished citizens to the U.S., and they usually enter illegally. That way, Mexico relieves its own social tensions, develops a pro-Mexico expatriate community in the U.S. and gains an estimated $30 billion a year from remittances that undocumented immigrants send back home, often on the premise that American social services can free up cash for them to do so.
In the past, traditional and accepted methods failed to deal with all of these challenges. Bill Clinton’s “Agreed Framework,” George W. Bush’s “six-party talks,” and the “strategic patience” of the Obama administration essentially offered North Korea cash to denuclearize.
American diplomats whined to China about its unfair trade practices. When rebuffed, they more or less shut up, convinced either that they could not do anything or that China’s growing economy would sooner or later westernize.
Europeans were used to American nagging about delinquent NATO contributions. Diplomatic niceties usually meant that European leaders only talked nonstop about the idea that they should shoulder more of their own defense.
Mexico ignored U.S. whining that our neighbor to the south was cynically undermining U.S. immigration law. If America protested too much, Mexico usually fell back on boilerplate charges of racism, xenophobia, and nativism, despite its own tough treatment of immigrants arriving into Mexico illegally from Central America.
In other words, before Trump arrived, the niceties of American diplomacy and statecraft had untied none of these knots. But like Alexander, the outsider Trump was not invested in any of the accustomed protocols about untying them. Instead, he pulled out his proverbial sword and began slashing.
If Kim Jong Un kept threatening the U.S., then Trump would threaten him back and ridicule him in the process as “Rocket Man.” Meanwhile, the U.S. would beef up its own nuclear arsenal, press ahead with missile defense, warn China that its neighbors might have to nuclearize, and generally seem as threatening to Kim as he traditionally has been to others.
Trump was no more patient with China. If it continues to cheat and demand technology transfers as the price of doing business in China, then it will face tariffs on its exports and a trade war. Trump’s position is that Chinese trade duplicity is so complex and layered that it can never be untied, only cut apart.
Trump seemingly had no patience with endless rounds of negotiations about NATO defense contributions. If frontline European nations wished to spend little to defend their own borders, why should America have to spend so much to protect such distant nations?
In Trump’s mind, if Mexico was often critical of the U.S., despite effectively open borders and billions of dollars in remittances, then he might as well give Mexico something real to be angry about, such as a border wall, enforcement of existing U.S. immigration laws, and deportations of many of those residing illegally on U.S. soil.
There are common themes to all these slashed knots. Diplomatic niceties had solved little. American laxity was seen as naiveté to be taken advantage of, not as generous concessions to be returned in kind.
Second, American presidents and their diplomatic teams had spent their careers deeply invested in the so-called post-war rules and protocols of diplomacy. In a nutshell, the central theme has been that the U.S. is so rich and powerful, its duty is to take repeated hits for the global order.
In light of American power, reciprocity supposedly did not matter — as if getting away with something would not lead to getting away with something even bigger.
Knot cutters may not know how to untie knots. But by the same token, those who struggle to untie knots also do not know how to cut them.
And sometimes knots can only be cut — even as we recoil at the brash Alexanders who won’t play by traditional rules and instead dare to pull out their swords.

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Men In Panties

I have enjoyed wearing panties since we were newlyweds. Panties and paddling go together for both of us. We both have panties we only wear for spanking. Some are matching. Bacall has a large drawer of them. I have over a dozen. I would have more, but they shrink.

One reader wrote and told us about some of the really good looking and expensive panties he buys. I guess we are both too cheap to get those.  

A fellow blogger sent me this comment she found on a panties site.

My wife bought a pair and she loved them so she got a pair for me and I love them. We will be wearing them when we go out together. what fun! 
They feel good on and she says they look great on me.
Must buy more . A pair for each day.

Here are two pair I bought last month on Amazon. They have room for male equipment which makes them a lot more comfortable. They are rather sheer and allow the sting of the paddle to come through. Bacall likes the look and the way they feel to her hand. I get a lot more stroking during a paddling with these on. Grin.

 I wish my abs looked like this

Monday, April 2, 2018

F/M Paddling

I don't like to be paddled OTK. But, I do like to see laps like this one. I have always been a fan of high waisted pencil skirts.

Would she startle you if encountered her on the beach?