Friday, September 28, 2012

Don't clench

Whack, whack, whack, whack!

"Don't clench.  Relax your cheeks." 

"But it hurts!"

"I know it does, and clenching up your cheeks (whack!) Is not going to prevent it, (whack whack) -it's just going to make it bruise more. You're fighting it. Not accepting it.  And that (whack!) Is not (whack!) What we're going for now, is it?"

"Aaaaa! No."  (Whack!) 

"Maybe I should just (smack) spank your thighs until you unclench your bottom."


"Let's try that again...No what? (Whack!) 

"No sir..."

"There we go.  That's better.  If you need to squeeze something, here- take my hand.  Now, where were we?  Oh yeah... (Splat!) We still have a ways to go.  Hang on."


No, not those red clenched ass-cheeks
That's more what I meant 

I'm not sure why, but instructing the spankee not to clench can be a hot trigger for me.  I've heard that clenched cheeks lead to more bruising, but certainly haven't conducted any experiments to prove it.  I doubt that there's a big difference in how much it hurts one way or another.  Maybe it's that relaxing the cheeks is an act of submission.  Maybe it's the acceptance of the spanking it signifies, or it's an acknowledgement of vulnerability.  Maybe the "splat" of hand against relaxed cheeks just sounds better than the "smack" of flexed cheeks.  Then again, maybe it just doesn't hurt my hand as much!  

Here's a picture of my ass cheeks clenched...
Okay, so maybe not.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Is Pain Important? Yes.

Not too long ago I was stung by a wasp right outside my house.  I'd just spent most of the afternoon working in the yard, and had sprayed a wasp nest, among a bunch of other things.  When I was done and exhausted, I went in and got a shower.  After that, I put on shorts and a T-shirt and went out barefooted, to admire all that I had done.  One of the wasps that was sprayed I guess didn't die.  I was walking around the house, and all of a sudden I felt a tremendous pain on my foot.  I looked down, and a wasp was on my foot stinging me.  It hurt far worse than any insect bite I've ever experienced, and I'm not ashamed to admit that my first reaction was to scream like a little girl.  I shook the wasp off my foot and then stomped on it over and over with my still bare foot.  It was well past dead.  There was some growling involved.  

Later that evening, I looked it up on the internet.  It was a paper wasp.  Later I looked it up, and according to the Schmidt Sting Pain Index- a scale of 0 to 4 where a fire ant is a 1.2 and a bee sting is up to a 2.0, this was a 3.  Yep, my reaction was confirmed.  The sting hurts like hell. 

But between the time I was stung and the time I looked it up on the internet, something interesting happened. It was about 15 minutes after I was stung.  It still hurt plenty, but the most intense pain had worn off.  I felt a little excited, almost emotionally high.  I was full of energy, and maybe even a little giddy.  I recognized it.  I haven't been spanked more than a handful of times, but I recognized the same rush of endorphins, and was experiencing it.    

Heck, maybe I'm into the wrong fetish.  It'd be a lot easier to aggravate a wasp's nest than to pay someone to to spank me on occasion.  When I found ladies out there wanting spankings, I could just capture one of these wasps.  No need to take your panties off or discuss safewords- just stick your hand in the jar with a wasp!  

Of course not... there's a lot more to spanking than just the pain.  On the other hand, the pain is a big part of it.  My experience with the wasp just confirmed that it was the pain itself that led to some of the after-spanking pleasure.  So the next time you here someone say "Well, it's SUPPOSED TO HURT!" you'll know that they're right.    

P.S. this post was inspired, in part, by Bonnie's thought provoking Spanko Brunch Question this week.  I could wring several posts out of those questions, and I just might.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Why We Like Naked Celebrities

Why is there such a huge interest in celebrity nudity? I have a theory, and will try relate it to spanking celebrities as well. 

As my regular readers know, I read a lot about politics. One quick launching place for articles is the Its a left-leaning news aggregator site, almost like the drudgereport, but it has some original material as well.  To the side, it shows the most clicked-on articles of the day.  Last night, I saw the top stories on the site looked like this:

Seriously? With a month and a half to go before the presidential elections and readers of a political site would rather read about a topless princess than anything else.  Why?  I mean, there were a lot of far more important news stories. On the other hand, there are billions of places on the internet where one can find much more erotic images.  Like these for example.  
I think this is an amazing photo, and just begging for funny captions
I wish every nude model would smile instead of pout!
They're from More available here. Notice how the photographs are much better than a grainy long distance telephoto lens shot of Kate Middleton? (And while I'm at it, I'd say this anonymous young lady's boobs are more fun too!) But she doesn't get a bajillion people wanting to see these pictures and turn into a major news event covered by every news outlet.

The furor over Middleton's mammaries is not an isolated incident though.  Every time there's a new pic of some celebrity oops moment or private sex tape "stolen" and released the public goes nuts.  Remember when the internet was abuzz after someone "hacked" the cell phone of Christina Hendricks and published her photos just in time for the season premiere of Mad Men? (But she insisted that the one pic of her bare breasts was fake!)  Yes, she obviously has nice boobs. But so does my lunchtime buddy, and I get a far bigger kick out of seeing those of my lunchtime buddy than any Hollywood star.  (Sorry... she hasn't given me permission to post them on my blog.)  Again I asked myself "Why?"  

Here's what I came up with: While I can appreciate the beauty of someone anonymous, I find it sexier when I know them.  I'm a guy, and naturally I like to look at naked women.  But there's a hierarchy in what naked women I'd prefer to look at.  Beauty is better than plain, but familiarity trumps.  It's like when you're playing spades... the higher the card the better, but a spade can trump. I'd prefer hotness, but familiarity can trump hotness.  It's not JUST familiarity though.  Digging deeper, there's maybe a sense of someone sharing with you, or the sense that you're seeing something that you're not supposed to.  Maybe it's that you have some affection for the person, and it's not just that you're seeing a pair of boobs, but that you're seeing HER boobs.

Think about it this way... I live relatively close to a college, with plenty of hot girls I see jogging around the trail every day on my way home from work.  If Playboy did a "Girls of the ____ " like they used to back in the day, I'd be interested and probably chuckle, but if I heard that our hot babysitter from last week was in it, I'd definitely get it and that would be the 1st thing I looked for.  I think celebrities and the public's prurient interest in them is just an extension of this.  A bunch of people watch Mad Men and the guys that do feel like the "know" a little about Joan and so when the actress who portrays her has some naughty pictures surface, they're all over them.  Billions of people feel like they "know" Kate Middleton, so when pictures surface, the public is all over them. 

Oh yeah, I was going to relate this to spanking... if (hypothetically) I check out spankingtube some night, and there are plenty of new videos, I'll check out the ones that sound good, or are longer, but if there's one with someone I've had personal interaction with, you'd better believe that those are going to be the 1st ones I watch.  I'm looking at you, Pandora and Ten.  The same concept applies to spanking models who allow the public to get to know a lot about them, like Alex, and oh yeah... Erica.

Maybe this should all just be completely obvious, but after seeing that five of the top seven stories on Huffingtonpost were on those paparazzi pics, I thought about it and thought I'd share my little theories. 

Friday, September 14, 2012


As promised... a post actually about spanking.  In one of my first blog posts I broke down elements of a why spankings appeal to spankos: pain, sexual arousal, surrendering control, punishment for doing something bad,  trust, emotional release, etc...  One of these elements was vulnerability.  I think vulnerability is one of the least appreciated elements of a spanking, but to me it's one of the key ingredients in a good spanking.  Vulnerability also interacts with and enhances other elements of a spanking.  It requires a great deal of trust for most people to feel comfortable allowing themselves to become vulnerable.  Becoming vulnerable can be a prerequisite to the emotional release some people crave in a spanking.
One big part of vulnerability, or one way to help the bottom achieve it is, at least to me, for them to be undressed.  We don't wear armor, but our clothes protect us, and it's certainly not normal to be undressed in front of a person who is not.
Well, maybe your doctor, but still.
When you're getting undressed in preparation for sex, often the lights are dim if not off, you're wearing your best clothes, the other person is getting undressed too, and you've both had something to drink.  On the contrary, getting undressed for a spanking involves none of these things, just the cold sober light of day.
You're just there, and bare, with all your blemishes and imperfections on display.  And you know he's going to see all of you once you start kicking. 
Getting naked, or at least partially so, is a big part of becoming vulnerable, but it certainly not all there is to it.   The over the knee position is, I think, designed in part to make the spankee feel vulnerable.  Feelings are a great big part of it.  Just as no one but lovers and doctors see you naked because we protect ourselves with clothes, we also protect our emotions, perhaps to an even greater extent.  Maybe it's only those that spank you that ever get to see you truly let go of your emotions.  They witness the raw, unvarnished reaction to an overwhelming stimulus.  Maybe it's not just physical stimulus you're reacting to but mental.  The reaction is not just to the pain, but feeling guilty or even ashamed.  It's obviously different for different folks, but without allowing yourself to become vulnerable, you're probably not going to react like this:

It's often said that submissiveness is a gift.  While that is probably very true, I think that maybe vulnerability is an even greater gift.

See there, after my last post, I'm still capable of posting something strictly spanking related.  AS a follow-up, though... while the deaths resulting from the attacks at the Libyan embassy are a tragedy, I couldn't help but notice the amusing timing of this announcement: yesterday the world record all time highest temperature recorded, that had been in Libya, was deemed to have been false.  The new world all time high temp. is now held by Death Valley, CA.  Take that Libya!  Global warming note- both were recorded before 1925. 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

politics, football, 9/11,"lustful cockmonsters" and wondering about the image of Mohammed on pita bread?

Sorry, I haven't posted in awhile.  Wish I could say that there've been real life stresses going on and I just haven't had time, but that's not exactly true.  While real life has been plenty busy and stressful lately, the truth of the matter is that for the last three weeks or so, most of my late-night-after-the-family-is-finally-asleep-when-I-might-usually-post-something-time has been spent instead watching the conventions, the pundits talking about the conventions, and well, football and the talking heads talk about football, and then 9/11 documentaries on the history channel.  So I thought I'd write about those things, and somehow relate it back to spanking, just a little bit.  I'll save the funny stuff until near the end.

Politics first... (scroll down if you want)
I'm one of those exceedingly rare undecided voters at the moment.  It's not that I haven't thought about the significant issues facing the nation or who would be best to lead the United States.  It's just that I have my own political philosophy, and I haven't quite yet decided which of the two candidates is more likely to fulfill my desires.  I'm either a selfish liberal, an intellectually honest conservative, or a pragmatic libertarian... I haven't decided.

I do think that our economy and the national debt is probably our biggest problem that must be dealt with, and neither party has done a good job of it.

An aside- How I'd fix the economy... but no one asked me.
Most economists think that more stimulus would help create jobs at this point but Democrats are not liberal enough to propose new stimulus spending at this point. (Or maybe they're just not courageous enough!)  Austerity hasn't worked out so well for Europe, and I don't think we should be raising taxes on anyone or cutting the budget in the short-term.  The decline in government jobs over the last few years is very real, and absent that job numbers and consumer confidence would have risen, and unemployment numbers would be down.  We should be building more bridges, not laying off teachers, and sending more NASA trips to Mars, at least in the short term.

On the other hand, speakers at both conventions talked about how their plans kept Medicare solvent a little longer, but entitlement spending (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid,  Social Security, and pensions) make up the biggest chunk of our long-term national budget problem but Republicans are not fiscally conservative enough to touch Social Security (or maybe they're just not courageous enough!) instead focusing on the 1/4 of the budget that's discretionary spending that doesn't involve the military.  Long term we have to reform both social security and medicare/medicaid, as proposed by the bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles commission.  Let's face reality, that SS isn't a separate annuity but a tax on wage earners (and a somewhat regressive one at that).  If we hope to keep it around, those that are socially secure already don't need to receive it, and we should gradually adjust the retirement age and eligibility to reflect increased life expectancy since SS was enacted.  While we're at it, Medicare needs reforms that will likely make medicine more efficient, but will very likely hurt doctors and nurses in the pocketbook. (They shouldn't look to lawyers hurt in the pocketbook over medical malpractice tort-reform for sympathy, though.)

So... my prescription- stimulus spending now, but make the tough painful changes to entitlements that are necessary in the long term.  Makes sense to me, but neither party has the cojones to do it.  

Back to politics
Back to why I haven't been writing on my spanking blog... Maybe the best night of TV ever for me- lights were out settled down with a beer to watch the Cowboys beat the Giants and fast forwarded through the commercials, then watched Clinton's speech which I'd also recorded.  I've watched a ton of political speeches over the last few weeks, and the pundits were right- Bill Clinton gave the best speech of anyone in either convention, and it wasn't close.  He's a magnificent speaker, and what he said was written primarily by him, not a team of speechwriters.  It was refreshing, informative, and insightful.    Hope he got a blowjob that night, Hilary was in China, but he earned it.  Woops... where was I? One point he made in the early part of his speech bears repeating.  He said that no president - not himself nor any of his predecessors could have fixed the economy in four years from the state that it was in when Obama took office.  He was absolutely correct.  The president doesn't have all that much control over the economy.  Clinton himself was elected in a large part because the economy in 1992 was bad, and though it was turning around by the fall, it didn't turn around fast enough to help George H.W.Bush win re-election.  Instead Poppa Bush was defeated by Clinton who made a major theme of the campaign the phrase "it's the economy, stupid!"

Which brings me back to being undecided.  Who we elect as a president doesn't really matter in terms of the health of our nation, and especially our nation's economy.  Clinton, as president, benefited from a fantastic economic cycle that he had little to do with creating.  Some manufacturers have to plan well ahead, and they think that the economy will be back to normal in 2015.  Not 2014 or 2016 depending on who gets elected.

But what about social issues? As a secret spanko, I can certainly identify with gays an lesbians... Like them, I get sexual gratification from acts that are a big turn off to the majority of the population.  If Romney were elected, the slow march toward allowing gay marriage would come to a screeching halt, right? The president has little power over state legislatures or supreme courts.  That's where this battle will be fought.

This post is going downhill in a hurry from this point on...
Evidence of this came recently when an NFL player voiced his opinion in support of gay rights.  In response, a state legislator from that state wrote the owner of the NFL team and asked him to basically tell his players to keep their mouth shut.  In response to THAT, a punter on a different NFL team sent nasty letter to the state legislator in which he actually used the phrase "lustful cockmonster" -the full text of the letter as well as a more detailed description is here (and no comment on how "happy" the punter looks).

This finally brings me to last night.  I intended to actually post something, but got distracted watching 9/11 documentaries.  I noticed a breaking news story about the Egypt embassy protests, and read a article (since edited) that had a "response" from the American Embassy there.  The Egyptians were protesting because of a "movie" depicting Mohammed as doing bad things. The American embassy's "response" was a statement about how it condemns abusing the freedom of speech like in the movie.  Here's a good breakdown of the chronology of the events.  Reading that pissed me off.  What I didn't know was that the "response" of the American embassy was written prior to the attacks.  Romney condemned the statement, and in turn has been roundly criticized today for having done so before all the facts were out.  I'll give him a pass on that, as I had the same reaction. (Even though I don't have a staff to keep me abreast of world events.)

I googled the name of the guy that produced the movie, and after some searching, found the movie on youtube.  Last night it had just over 2,000 views. Just checked and it's at about 750,000.  The acting, makeup, and special effects are comically bad.  (I'm kinda scared to link to it out of fear that my blog will be attacked, but it's been linked to by umpteen bajillion real news stories today, so I'm safe, right?) But it got me thinking about how Muslims get really angry over an image of Mohammed, and how different this is compared to Christians.  There weren't violent uprisings when Southpark depicted Jesus and the Christmas poop years ago.  Heck Christians find images of Jesus everywhere. There are intentional depictions of him, but his image is even seen unintentionally.  Especially on tortillas.  Yes, the image of Jesus has been found on tortillas.  Alot.  Over and over.

And it made me wonder whether in an Arab country someone ever thought maybe they saw an image of Mohammed on a piece of pita bread.  My 1st though was that if they did, they'd probably not mention it out of fear of being stoned or beheaded or something.  But then I realized -duh- they wouldn't know what he looked like!

Hope at least a few of you made it this far.  I promise to return, and return to spanking content on the blog soon.  Just had some pent up words I had to get out, I guess!