Jump to content
Create New...


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Bramblewine

  1. @BatmanC did say there's a way for the spankee to stop the spanking: they can get out of position. That takes the place of a safeword in this case. They have a safe action instead of a safe word. As long as there's a safe something, I'd say it serves the purpose.
  2. On the bottom, couldn't a short tawse be used OTK? I can see why they wouldn't have done that in school, but it would work well for an adult spanking scene, wouldn't it?
  3. If he knew what you wanted out of it, why is he angry that you need discipline again and you feeling that's not reasonable? You and he didn't communicate about what your disciplinary dynamic would mean, at the very least.
  4. That's a lack of communication right there. You and he have different understandings of what spanking means, and that wasn't communicated. This, too. Exactly why you need to discuss what it means to you, and what you want out of it, with anyone you're meeting for spanking.
  5. How is it safer to tawse the hand than the butt? I would think hitting the hand with anything would always be more dangerous. There are bones in the hand that can get broken. There are nerves that, if damaged, would impair the use of that hand, which would be seriously disabling. There's no such risk with the bottom.
  6. And that is what puts the consensual into consensual non-consent.
  7. Nice to meet you! I am in your area. Never been active in the scene, and I'm very nervous about trying any kind of in person meetup, but I'm starting to think it's time. If you have experience with it, I'd love to pm/chat and get some sense of what it's like.
  8. I'm not the one who posted that reaction, but I'm confused too, and here's why: the way you phrased it makes it sound like this was an actual judicial court. Is that seriously legal in South Africa, or anywhere? Or was this a roleplay game you participated in? Or is the whole thing a fantasy?
  9. From how the OP worded it, I interpreted it as, she is looking for something more than chatting about experiences and getting more personal, and only after that does she learn that the person she's chatting with has a partner who either doesn't know or doesn't consent. If it's not that, then again, being clearer with the people you chat with is called for. Do you only chat with someone if you're considering them as a potential spanking partner? Then say that up front. Otherwise, they'll probably think it's just a casual chat.
  10. All of them should. It's everyone's responsibility to set and communicate their own boundaries. Not everyone has the same scruples about playing with people who are partnered and do not have their partner's consent. If you feel strongly against that, and you keep running into people who assume you don't, then you need to set and communicate that boundary. Sure, those who are seeking spanking play without their partners' knowledge or consent ought to be up front about it too, but you can't control that and you can't count on it.
  11. Why don't you tell people that up front? You could put it in the About Me section of your profile. Something like, "I only play with single people," or, "I do not play with married/partnered people unless they have the informed consent of their spouse/partner." And then, if you get into conversing with someone, mention that early on, and don't proceed with them if it turns out that they have an unknowing or unconsenting partner. You can't control what other people do. You can control who you engage with.
  12. Hmmm.... what would the religious justification be? In the original Footloose, the dancing prohibition is religious in nature. Prohibition on dancing makes sense in that context, but spanking? The same religious elements would be all over that... as long as it's done to unconsenting children. Methinks we've got an alternative history story going here.
  13. Agreed about the don't say you're looking for a hot chick part. To us women, that's off putting and doesn't tell us what you're really looking for. How do you define hot chick? What's hot to one person isn't necessarily to another. Furthermore, being called a hot chick (or dismissed as not a hot chick) is dehumanizing. Better to spell out what you're looking for. Is it certain physical characteristics? Then describe them. Is it a certain age range? Then state it. Leave the "hot" and "chick" out of it. As for the DD part, that depends on whether or not what you really want is a DD relationship. As I said above, not all spanking relationships are DD. Not even all disciplinary spanking relationships are. Here, again, it's better to describe what you want. Discipline spanking? For fun spanking? Some of both? Is spanking sexual to you, or not? Do you want it to go hand in hand with conventional sex, or not?
  14. My sense is that female spankees who want a male spanker have an easier time finding one than the other way around. But that's people who are looking, and looking among acknowledged spankos. If you're talking about existing, established relationships, I'm not sure if there are more M/F than F/M dynamics, or if it breaks about even. And, of course, same sex spanking relationships exist too. Maybe that says something about how spanking relationships start? As in, women seeking men are more likely to say they want to be spanked, but perhaps some discover later that they're more toppy than they thought? No idea, just speculating. And then, some spanking relationships start out vanilla, then the parties involved discover--or reveal, as the case may be--their desire for spanking. In that case, is it harder for men to start spanking a female partner than the other way around, because there's such an ingrained "thou shalt not hit women, if you do, you're an abusive monster" belief? Or is it harder for men to cop to submissive desires, because they're supposed to be the strong ones?
  15. Are you talking about DD only, or any consensual adult spanking? Not all spanking relationships are DD.
  16. Exactly. Sounds to me like he's bratting for a spanking, when he, as you put it, doesn't act his age. Or that part of your kink is saying he doesn't act his age. Or both. Y'all do whatever floats your boat, but leave the unconsenting public out of it. How much discretion are you talking about here? Do you make absolutely sure there's no one around to see when you swat your husband, even if you're in a technically public place? Or are you doing it where it's highly likely someone will catch a glimpse of it? Public and discretion have such varied definitions.
  17. Yeah, I thought from the first that it had to do with non-consensual corporal punishment, most likely inflicted on children, not TTWD. Really disturbing, if you think about it. That clause is proof that not only corporal punishment, but corporal punishment severe enough to result in injuries it would cost money to treat has been a common thing insurance companies have had to deal with... and it's normalized.
  18. If your potential play partner says that, I would think the response is, "My hard limit is I need my spankee to have limits, and communicate them to me."
  19. Probably because now they know which is which. Still makes the thread title confusing, though. Is it really supposed to be spank me, or let me spank you?
  20. @Tighttits2022 you identify your own role as spankee, in your profile. And in the title of this thread, you say you want to be spanked. If that's correct, you're looking for a spanker, not a spankee. The spanker is the person who gives the spanking. The spankee is the person who receives it. Whichever one you are, you're looking for the other. Do you want someone to spank you? They would be a spanker. Or do you want to give someone a spanking? They would be a spankee.
  21. If that's funishment, what would be punishment? Seriously, that sounds like for real punishment to me, not funishment.
  22. Sure, but excluding all Republicans (or, as her wording implies, all people who ever vote for Republican candidates), no matter where on the Republican spectrum they fall? That's not just the opposite end of the political spectrum. That's not just political views relating to a moral issue, either. (Arguably, Trump is a moral issue, but not all Republicans support him.)
  23. That's a far cry, though, from an individual spanko considering potential partners' political views a deal breaker (or deal maker?). Personally, I think it's silly to draw such a hard line as she has, but to each their own.
  • Create New...
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search