Disobedience- that is the nobility of
slaves. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Hello all. Welcome back to the Disciplinary Couples
Club. Our weekly gathering of men and
women who are in, or would like to be in, Domestic Discipline
relationships. I hope you had a good
week.
Mine again started strong on the
behavior front, then ended in a miserable fail that included open disobedience regarding
an order she gave me before I left on a business trip. I woke this morning dreading the weekend and
its likely consequences, though I also know that I richly deserve whatever I have
coming. Damn. Damn.
Damn.
That was a good discussion
last week, and it ended up hitting on a lot of big topics we’ve covered in the
past, including crying and being “broken,” humiliation, humbling and
embarrassment, and sex and sexuality in Domestic Discipline relationships. We'll cover some of those again soon. In discussing the last of
them, Elizabeth suggested this topic: “How has your sex life changed since you
began DD? Note that I ask "since," not "because of." So, in
the time period since. There may be many other factors besides DD, and those
should be addressed. But it would be difficult to say that DD is not a factor
in any changes that have occurred. I would think that most couples have seen a
change, even if DD has been throughout their relationship. As a teaser, I asked
Frank for a one-sentence answer (on which he will elaborate if the question is
chosen) and as I expected he said: "I have far fewer orgasms but a much
better sex life."
Danielle responded, “I second
Elizabeth's suggestion for having how couples' sex lives have changed since
they began DD (or FLR). A sub-topic within that discussion could be one that
Elizabeth raised in a response to last week's topic: how and to what extent
husbands' access to pornography/erotica and their masturbation habits are
managed by disciplinary wives. Inspired by Elizabeth, I asked Wayne to give a
one sentence answer to the question about how sex has changed for him. His
answer was: "Sex is more pervasive, more intense, and more spiritual in a
FLR."
So, let’s make those the topics
for this week, though I don’t have a lot to say about Elizabeth’s
question. I don’t think our sex life
really has changed that much, whether as a result of Domestic Discipline or anything
else. Though, perhaps this thing we do
has contributed to an underlying “erotic charge.” She has perhaps gotten a little more "take charge," but not dramatically so. But, the fact that I say our sex life hasn’t
changed much in over a decade may indicate we need to do some work on that
front. We have a good sex life, but
things can always be improved upon, right?
I do think that as we go deeper into FLR, our sexual dynamic is like to
change as well.
As for access to pornography
and masturbation, I don’t really have anything to contribute. Or, not much
anyway. She has never tried to restrict
porn. She did at one point make a rule
around masturbation, but enforcement seemed to go by the wayside pretty
quickly. This week’s discussion could,
of course, remind her about that one.
In addition to Elizabeth and
Danielle’s suggestions, I want to ask a pointed question to our Disciplinary
Wives: Do you get turned on by doling
out discipline? If so, is there a
particular aspect of it that excites you?
I’m not sure whether my wife gets turned on by the spanking itself, but
she has said that she likes ordering me to get ready for a spanking and
watching me comply. She also likes imposing
corner time and watching me stand there, naked in the corner. It seems clear that what she likes is the
experience of telling me to comply and watching me do it.
Have a great week.
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteI do think cause and effect operate here but it is a classic multivariate problem , so who knows. For us I would say quality has greatly increased while quantity has decreased. She is much more aggressive in bed and more creative. My libido increased early on and has stayed robust. Recently she has decided love-making MAY occur after a spanking. This has ramped it all up for me considerably.
Alan
Was it banned in the past?
DeleteYes, it was banned except for a few months at the beginning of our relationship.It really was part of my punishment because she knew how much I liked to make love after a spanking.She also felt it was too much of a mixed signal for me after being disciplined
DeleteAlan
Where do you get all those great quotations you put at the beginning of each week's blog, Dan?
ReplyDeleteHonestly, Google searches. I had a pretty good collection going, in a draft blogger post. Then I apparently hit one wrong button, and a couple hundred quotes and a running list of past and potential future topics all disappeared.
DeleteThanks for going with this topic as requested by Elizabeth and me, Dan. I'm going to have plenty to say. I will say this right away: in my own marriage, FLR reignited a sexual spark that had almost gone out. I'm thinking about how much detail I want to share about the sexual dynamics involved. I hope lots of other people will weigh in too. I'm curious about other couples' experiences.
ReplyDeleteDanielle
For us, the most obvious change is one that probably shouldn't be much of a surprise - my buttocks (and nearby regions) play a much bigger role in our intimacy than previously.
ReplyDeleteI also don't want to get too graphic, but things that began with her inspection of me after a spanking have progressed on a number of fronts. It has been quite a treat!
I can't really relate to this week's topic. Rosa and I started out as a D/s couple for whom formalized DD quickly followed. So how could DD change something that it was always a part of? It would be like asking, "how has breathing affected your life?" knowing that the only time I wasn't breathing was in the womb.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, what constitutes a "sex life" for us is probably very different than what that term means for most others. We are utterly unconventional and have no tie to anything even remotely mainstream. And even as that goes, the factors that have altered the activities we do enjoy and the frequency or infrequency of them have nothing to do with DD, but are rooted in a myriad of other circumstances.
So, I'll just leave this week's topic to those who seem much more inclined to discussing this, and for whom DD has actually had some sort of impact.
I don't know whether it is interesting or depressing that you and I started at different points yet both end up at "not much has changed."
DeleteI can't honestly say "not much has changed", in fact, a lot has changed. It's just that DD had nothing to do with it. And you did go on to say that you have a pretty good sex life going....just that it hasn't changed much. I can't say ours is anything like it used to be. Life just keeps stomping on it.
DeleteRemember that my suggested topic was how has sex changed SINCE DD, not "because of" DD. There may be many factors involved.
DeleteElizabeth
Elizabeth: So then why say "since DD"? Why not just say "over time"? Setting 'since DD' as your point of demarcation definitely implies a link between the DD and the change .......as evidenced by the comments posted thus far. But for me, your question would have nothing to do with DD, but rather how my sex life with Rosa has changed in the 10 years we've been together. And as with most couples, I guess the answer to that is that activity is less frequent, less varied, and tainted by less energy and less physical flexibility. It also has been virtually eliminated at lengthy times by countless stressful circumstances. (I am not sure how admitting any of these less-than-savory personal hindrances brings anything to the discussion on DD though?)
DeleteKD: Got it. Yes, ours is fine. I did kind of expect that as we became empty nesters things would change more. Instead, they have stayed more or less the same in terms of volume, activities, etc. Which, isn't bad. Just not what I expected as we moved from child-rearing years into something with a little more freedom.
DeleteElizabeth: I got the distinction, though KD missed it. ;-)
KD: Our comments crossed in the ether. I can't speak to most couples, but so far we haven't hit that stage where things are less frequent, less varied and less energetic. There has been the perhaps inevitable decline in my ability to perform reliably without some chemical intervention from time to time, but that is about it.
DeleteDan: Your reply sounds like you have a good thing going. We only know a few couples who will talk about sex.....and they admit that sex has gotten scarcer as time has gone on.
DeleteAs for your comment on performance? It clearly expresses what I meant about us not being conventional in any way. Even when we do stuff, it's not what most people do.
Agreed on we have a good thing going, though I probably am underestimating some of the longer gaps thanks to longer-term injuries. We do seem to be fighting time and age on that front.
DeleteDanielle here:
DeleteKD, I understand completely what you are saying because Wayne and I aren’t young either, and sex has been changing over the 10+ years of our FLR due to the aging process. To be blunt, Wayne now has problems with erectile dysfunction for medical reasons I won’t go into. He still gets visibly horny (semi-erect) from every aspect of our power exchange, but he can’t perform like he did in our baby-making days.
In a way, the femdom kinkiness of our sex lives since adopting FLR has made it easier to deal with Wayne’s erectile dysfunction. In fact, we actually make kinky use of it in our sex play now.
I mentioned that oral sex began to play a bigger role in the bedroom with FLR. We also began to incorporate sex toys into our play as an additional aid to orgasms for me, orgasms being a little harder to achieve as a woman ages. At first it was mainly my trusty little “pocket rocket” vibrator. Then one day Wayne gave me a dildo as a gift.
I was surprised by that gift because Wayne’s erections were still quite functional at the time. When I asked him why he thought I needed a dildo, he blushed and explained that since I sometimes liked to deny him sexual release when we played, he thought I might like to be able to experience penetrative sex without him. When I asked why he had chosen a dildo that was significantly bigger than his own penis, he was too embarrassed to answer, but I knew why. I knew he was turned on by fantasies of both cuckolding and small penis humiliation and that those two kinks had motivated that gift.
I think it was a shock to both of us when, the first time I let Wayne use that dildo on me (well lubricated, due to the size), I had a wonderful vaginal orgasm, something that was rare for me. After I had recovered, I said half jokingly to Wayne, “I guess maybe size does matter, after all.” I could see that he was really aroused by that “joke”, and so began our experimentation with small penis humiliation play and cuckold fantasies. For some reason I found those games as erotic as he did. Teasing my husband about the inadequate size of his penis (though it wasn’t really inadequate) and pretending that the dildo was actually the penis of a “lover” completed the liberation of my inner bitch.
Fast forward to now. For purposes of penetrative sex, Wayne’s penis really is kind of inadequate, and we have a small collection of dildos at our disposal for “play time.” (If I feel like I want more than just oral sex, which often I don’t). But whereas ED is humiliating for many aging men in a purely negative way, it is a source of erotic excitement for us. Maybe we have invented a new kink: LPH (limp penis humiliation).
On a medical note, there is an ED treatment that Wayne hasn’t tried. Rather than taking a pill like Viagra or Cialis, it involves an injection directly into the penis before intercourse. Apparently, that method infallibly produces a 2 hour erection. Wayne has asked me a couple of times whether I want him to see the urologist about that, but I tell him he doesn’t have to do it for me because I enjoy the way things are. And he has admitted to me that some of the strongest orgasms he has ever had come from my most usual way of bringing him off now. I make him kneel with his nose to the mattress and his bum sticking up submissively, as though to receive a paddling, and I give him a hand job while teasing him about his "soft little penis" and saying how lucky it is that I have other men (i.e. the dildos) who can do for me what he is unable to do.
I hope that doesn’t sound too terrible. I feel a little ashamed to share that, but I honestly feel that Wayne and I still have a satisfying sex life because of these kinky games. Plus nobody knows me here, so why not take the opportunity to speak frankly?
Danielle: No need for shame. I have similar issues but even if I didn't Rosa herself is not a fan of intercourse. For her, it caused issues with men who primarily sought intercourse, and for me it caused issues with women who felt the same. So when we got together, besides sharing a love of BDSM, and desire to live a DD lifestyle, and gardening, and odd music, and a slew of other things, we had a perfectly matched quirk that worked out beautifully.
DeleteOur issues lately have been multi-pronged and have lessened our interactions even though we are doing fine otherwise. The thing is, all of the things you mentioned were never anything 'new' to add after vanilla desires became routine. We never HAD vanilla desires, so we were kinky from the start. But even kink can get routine after a while and age has a way of lessening desire and self-confidence. For Rosa, she has gained a few extra pounds over the years which she is having a hard time losing and then keeping off. She still looks great to me and to others, but she feels "unsexy" and that has become a big deterrent for her.
There are other factors too, but I don't feel the need to air every contributor to our current situation, especially since the responses have definitely taken the topic to mean "how DD or FLR changes things sexually for couples".
This is Elizabeth’s Frank. Part 1.
ReplyDeleteFrom the time I was 13 until I wrote my wife an email on my 50th birthday asking for DD, I masturbated at least once every day that I wasn’t ill. Most of it was to spanking porn, and this continued after Elizabeth and I married when we were 25. I amassed a large collection of magazines and videos, and later internet images, and used them regularly.
I didn’t know it at the time, but I was a porn addict. It definitely had an impact on my marriage, including our sex life. At the beginning I could masturbate during the day and still be ready to make love with my wife at night. But as I got older, I began experiencing times when I could not get erect with her. This was partly because I had recently masturbated and partly because I wasn’t as turned on by conventional sex as I was by my kink/fetish/addiction.
So when I wrote the email on my 50th birthday, it wasn’t just about improving my attitude and behavior around the house. I also wanted to bring my kink into the marriage. I was honest about that with Elizabeth; I knew she put up with my porn collection but didn’t like it. I believe that one of the reasons she agreed to start spanking me is because I promised to get rid of my collection. As we have reported, she spanked me that very night and the next day she watched as I burned all my videos and magazines.
I readily destroyed 30 years of porn because I was so excited that Elizabeth had just spanked me, and in my fantasy world I imagined that she would spank me whenever I wanted her to. When that didn’t happen, I began pressuring her by self-reporting my misbehavior. I didn’t need to make anything up because I hadn’t really started helping around the house as I had promised. And for a while she did spank a lot – probably a hundred spankings the first year. But it wasn’t enough for me, and I started looking at spanking porn again, though I was hiding it from her this time. And I also could tell that she wasn’t happy with our arrangement, with so much focus on DD.
See part 2
I find this subject somewhat intriguing from a philosophical point of view. The general argument I will make is that domestic discipline itself is not what makes sex better but some of the side effects of how it is set up bring us back to a more "natural" approach to sex.
ReplyDeleteFirst, yes, around the same time we started a form of DD, our sex lives changed. Several other factors were involved and this was part of a wholistic change to our marriage with DD being a single component. I do experience a lot fewer orgasms now but when, during intercourse, I do they are much more fulfilling and unitive for our marriage. Deeper interpersonally and spiritually.
Now to get philosophical. Sex, regardless of your spiritual or natural background is for the purpose of procreation. The desires for it stem from the natural desire to further the species and make offspring via various hormones that are naturally occurring and for women fluctuate more than men, that put a natural restriction on this process. Prior to birth control, the "natural order" of this was that if you have sex you may have a baby and was incentive for a lot of our marriage and social structure prior to the past 100 years. Also, due to the fact that women have limited natural windows with larger personal implications, a unitive aspect between partners/spouses became part of the experience. Those that are religious became "one flesh" (I actually ascribe personally to this).
With the advent of birth control, sex can and has become for many a recreational activity with very little risk of pregnancy. So the "natural" procreative aspect has been interfered with. Many marriage counselors and religious leaders would argue that with the advent of birth control women and some of the natural consequences of being a women have been degraded by men to "object" status and not "person" or "spouse" in our traditional social constructs. Men can now feed the drive for sex without having to consider consequences present for millennia. This (IMO) has produced, counter to the popular message of liberating women, a cheapening of women in the eyes of many men. The downward spiral continued by the "liberation" of pornography on demand by allowing both partners to remove any unitive and procreative aspects of sexual orgasms and interactions. It became more and more for the pleasure of the individual and is easy to overindulge.
I say all that to say this. Many wives put rules as part of DD on pornography, masturbation, sex, etc. because they are either offended by it or think (rightly so) that their partners sexuality should focus on them. An example would be that over indulgence of pornography and masturbation does mess with the male mind considerably (science on this is getting really strong). Your sexual desires become addictive and not ordered toward your spouse. In our marriage as part of our wholistic change was to study and adopt the "Theology of the Body" as expressed by John Paul II, which in my opinion is the most complete philosophies on marriage, sex, and family ever written. One of the rules in our marriage is that our sexual being belongs to each other and our marriage. Engaging in sexual acts without the spouse is stealing from our marriage and hindering the unity of our marriage. Since I had a much bigger problem with pornography and masturbation than my wife prior to this change, we made a rule a rule of no porn and no masturbation (it goes for both of us, but she does not have issues with it). We are clear with each other that it is stealing from each other. Likewise, we don't use birth control (and being in our 30s and still fertile that is significant).
Dividing into two posts
This has created two changes in our marriage. First, all my sexual desire is only supposed to be to my wife. This makes her one of the most precious and important people in my life (on top of all the other great things), and this is enforced through DD since I will admit this is REALLY hard for a guy who did not do this for years. Second, the risk of having kids means my wife is not just an object of pleasure, but we have to actually use tools, like natural family planning, to prevent having 10 kids while still able to have sex. The key to this is sex during certain times in her cycle, which means I am very in tune with her cycle, changes in hormones, how that effects her behavior...etc. What you discover is during the times she is least fertile, she wants sex the least. So when those windows are coming up I make sure there are roses in the house, dinner is made, kids get to bed, favorite chocolates, etc...because you only get a week or so every month. It has also made me more sensitive and understanding during the more difficult parts of her cycle.
DeleteDid DD do all this, no. But DD is a tools we use to "order" me the way we want (Getting a hard spanking after a lecture on how I violated this and stole from our marriage is VERY humbling and effective). For us while my orgasms are much less frequent (daily masturbation to sex a few times a month), when we do have them they are extremely connecting because my focus and desire are on her and I did all those little things leading up to it also. She will tell you that it is more satisfying for her because I spend more time making sure she gets what she needs so she wants to do it more.
Does DD turn her on? Generally, no. She will admit that sometimes during stress relief or a fun spanking she does because she knows it helps when I get really stressed and it makes her happy to help me and then wants to help comfort me. She does say occasionally the physical aspect (me naked) helps but not consistent. However, punishment spanking is a punishment...not fun there for either of us.
One final word. If you look up "Theology of the body" be careful what you read. Many Catholic sources, while well meaning, tend to focus solely on the end "rules" and not the "why". Which I find unhelpful since without the why it seems arbitrary and misses the whole point.
Hi SR. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I can't say I agree with 100% of it, but who wants a blog that is just an echo chamber. Where I disagree a bit is with the statement that, "Sex, regardless of your spiritual or natural background is for the purpose of procreation.' I think that is ONE purpose of sex. Even among non-human animals, there is evidence of sex for purely recreational purposes (bonoboes, pigs, dolphins and a few others), including homosexual relations in which procreation cannot possibly be the purpose. So, I think that procreation is one motivation for having sex and, since it is so instinctual, it probably is at the root of a lot of the drive. But, not all.
DeleteI also can't quite buy that there was once this wholesome stage in which women were not objectified because the procreative goal led to more meaningful marriage relations. If anything, the broader history includes long eras cutting across most cultures in which women were valued primarily as producers of male heirs. When plural marriage was the rule and not the exception for much of written history, can you really say that birth control came along and "cheapened" the value of women?
Now, I have been surprised at how often the women in these relationships do seem to gravitate toward some form of orgasm control/denial, and I do see how those could be a form of fighting back against both (a) erotic competition; and (b) cheapening of the primary relationship. I just think it is a stretch to suggest there was some golden age in which the marital relationship was deeper and more devoted to a 1:1 based on love and mutual attachment. That just doesn't seem to me to fit the historical facts.
I did not mean to imply some kind of golden age. Human beings have always had issues...slavery being even a bigger example throughout world history. I was speaking more to the general social structures, not a magic assertion for all places at all times. Apologies if that was not clear. Every social construct is unique. However, most cultures historically at least expressed a desire for long term sexual monogamy with the spouses having some kind commitment. A difference now would be the rate at which that change has taken place and how it has transpired due to birth control. To be honest I think we need another 100 years of history before we can draw scientific conclusions.
DeleteI wont argue that sex cannot be recreational in sexual species. But the natural biology of sex is for procreation for species that are not asexual. It is the primary and core purpose of the sexual component in those species. The emotional and psychological components that accompany it could lend to recreation, but philosophically does it matter...trying to think of a good analogy but one escapes me at the moment.
Philosophically whether it matters probably depends a lot on the subject under consideration. If the topic is how people's sexual practices have changed since DD, it may matter a lot or not at all, depending on whether they changed and why.
DeleteBut, if the premise is that cutting off the physical process of procreation leads to cheapening of male-female relationships (which seemed to be your overall point), then I think it actually does matter a lot, because while all animals procreate, humans are one of the few species that can and do consciously adjust their sexual behavior and practices to maximize or minimize chances of conception and, importantly, to maximize other things they value like pleasure, connection, romantic expression, etc. I actually see improved birth control technology and its widespread adoption as potentially leading to deeper and stronger bonds, because with that change sex can be about a lot more than mere procreation and couples may get and stay together for reasons much more closely tied to common attraction and valuing each other as something other than gene proliferators.
Danielle here:
DeleteI’ve been biting my tongue, thinking whether to respond to this thread. I guess I will. First of all, I agree with everything that Dan has said, and I just want to add a bit to it. It doesn’t make sense to me to say that sex is either “procreative” or “recreational” and that non-procreative sex is somehow “cheap” or demeaning to us women. “Recreational” is a loaded word designed to make non-procreative sex APPEAR cheap or unimportant. In fact, sexual intimacy plays an important role in maintaining the intimate bond between man and wife. As Dan pointed out, our closest primate relatives use sex for the purpose of bonding, so I don’t see how sex for the very human purpose of emotional bonding is any less “natural” than sex for procreation.
Second, I don’t see how fiddling with thermometers or whatnot so as to find the optimal time of the month to have intercourse without conceiving is any more “natural”, or less “sinful”, than using a condom or any other form of contraception. And since we women tend to be hornier at the time of month when we are most fertile, I would find it frustrating and even demeaning to submit to procedures to find the optimal time for my husband to “have his way with me” without getting me pregnant. I no longer have to worry about that, since I have gone through menopause, but I can see my younger self saying, “For heaven’s sake, I’m horny NOW, so let’s just get a condom and do it!” To be honest, all the rigmarole to find ways to cheat Mother Nature (if that’s what you think “recreational sex” does”) while submitting to the convoluted moral dictates of a church strikes me as way more “kinky” than either DD or FLR.
Finally, if you really believe it is immoral or “unnatural” for a man to penetrate a woman’s vagina with his penis for “recreational” purposes, then why not “have sex” without vaginal penetration? In our pre-FLR days, “having sex” always “climaxed” with my husband cumming inside me, generally with a condom except for the two times we decided to open ourselves to the possibility of conceiving children. But there is no reason that sexual intimacy has to include intercourse. In fact, in our current FLR it might not even include an orgasm for my husband. Come to think of it, my husband and I no longer even talk about “having sex” as a synonym for “making love.” If my husband is really craving some action in the bedroom, he will ask, “Do you think we could play tonight?” I really like the word “play” for the various things we do for pleasure (and sometimes a little pain) in the bedroom.
Somethingrandom, I am not saying that what you and wife do is wrong for you. If the spiritual discipline of submitting to the church's teachings about sex enriches your lives, then go for it. I just don't like the implication that non-procreative sex is "unnatural" or sinful. I also think you have a duty to make sure that it's as good for your wife as it is for you, since I can't imagine how I would have felt as a young wife to time sex according to a thermometer rather than my horniness.
Somethingrandom, I thought there was some good content in your post, especially how you have become more attentive to your wife, which is always a very positive thing. Also, I really had never thought about how birth control has changed relationships, since my whole adult life there were a multitude of viable choices for birth control. That is a thought provoking observation that I will have to think more about. Also, there should be little doubt for any guy here that masturbation generally reduces sexual energy which might otherwise be shared with the wife (or husband).
DeleteHaving said all that, I personally don't agree that the main purpose of sex is procreation, nor that all the drives around it are because of that, though of course that is one very big purpose. To me, it seems a lot like eating; If I don't eat, I will surely eventually die, but if you see me walking into a restaurant, it has little to do with staving off imminent death!
Also, I don't see any difference at all between using birth control and using any other method or technique to prevent pregnancy (except for abstinence, of course, which by definition is quite different)! If you are finding a way to have sex and your goal is for her to not get pregnant, then to me it seems that having sex at that time is by definition purely recreational.
Anyway, I realize that there is room for many different views in this area and it has little bearing on the lifestyle that we come here to discuss. I am glad that you found something that works for you! To me, that is the most important thing!
-ZM
Danielle, you are right, "recreational" was a poor choice of words on my part.
DeleteThere is always a flip side to stuff. Take masturbation. On one hand, it is pretty generally accepted that if a guy masturbates it takes his mind off of his partner. So, if the partner controls and limits masturbation, and maybe even orgasms in general, he will be focused solely on her and to ever-increasing degrees. As a long time practitioner of orgasm control/chastity/denial/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it, I can vouch for the veracity of such a claim.
DeleteBut here's the flip side. I have been doing this for so long, guess what? Instead of getting all hot-and-bothered without masturbation, I just learned to live without. So now I can go without orgasm for a good long time and not feel the need for one.
Readers of my blog will recall that was the rationale for O-ctober followed by No-O-vember. Where I intentionally was required daily O's through October followed by a month without. It only 'kind of' worked. But the thing is I had to retrain myself to want orgasms because I just got too used to or good at being denied.
Something to think about before embarking on any program.
KD: It does seem like the theory behind orgasm/masturbation denial does hinge on the assumption that his overall desire for sex stays constant or goes up, and that may or may not be the case. For us old guys, it seems like a pretty suspect proposition.
DeleteAlso, I'm not sure I buy that the existence of another outlet *necessarily* means he is depriving her of sex or other attention. I get that it happens that way with some men, Frank and Wayne perhaps being examples if masturbation became a substitute for sex with their wives. But, I honestly can't think of a single time that I haven't had sex and it was because I had used masturbation as a substitute. Our sexual schedule is, and pretty much always has been, a function of other factors, like: (a) are kids around; (b) do we have social engagements that keep us out late that night; or (c) has it been a long week and we are just too tired.
Never intended to started a fight just responding to a question.
DeleteI don't have near the time to respond meaningfully to everything, but will ask you to limit any I'll will to what I actually said. There are a few comments where people are upset with me for something I did not say...but such is the internet.
I don't want to imply spouses should not have sex...I love sex. Probably too much. But the concern I would express is the tendency for sexual release to become just for itself and the individual. Distracting from the other involved. There has to be more to it.
I also want to let you all know that I know my opinion is not popular culture's. Both spouses in someway have control over when to have sex. Both could be denied when they want it. But it deepens the respect for one another as a person and not just for sexual pleasure. You learn to have intimacy that is not sexual that deepens the relationship.
Not sure I am expressing myself well but I need to get my day started.
Not sure why you are saying people are upset with you. It's actually possible for people to disagree without being upset. And, I don't think anyone thought you were implying that spouses shouldn't have sex. Rather, it was the implication that it was cheap or selfish it did not involve procreation or the possibility of procreation. There is, of course, also ZM's point about the strained difference between "natural" and "artificial" birth control if both are aimed at the exact same outcome. But, he didn't "start a fight" or voice any "upset" at you.
DeleteLet's take it down a notch. Frankly, I'm getting pretty close to just imposing a flat-out ban on any religiously tinged comments on here, because this kind of exchange is what it leads to. Every. Fucking. Time.
No, not every time. I have expressed a faith-based position without rancor received or given. Banning any religiously tinged comments would do a disservice to our conversations. SomethingRandom may be misinterpreting the tone of some comments. Your response, Dan, can defuse or escalate. I respectfully request the former.
DeleteElizabeth
Elizabeth: I'm sorry, but I disagree.If a reader makes a comment based on personal opinion or experience, or curiosity, or whatever, another reader has the option to respond. And while respectful, that response can be one of profound disagreement. But those disagreements tend be more grounded in alternative experience or opinion and therefore less prone....though it still happens anyway.....to philosophical debate.
DeleteHowever, when religion....or politics also, enter into the mix, an inevitable sidetrack occurs. The DD topic takes a back seat to the perceived validity of the religious tenet. Every time a religious based remark is made, I am inclined to respond, and sometimes I do, but lately I have just cyber-bitten my tongue and ignored it. I do this because it will only make things more volatile and end up having nothing to do with the subject of this particular forum. (And maybe mostly because I know Dan hates when I do that. LOL)
Now on my blog, I will engage anyone over anything......happily, even ruthlessly, LOL. However, Dan has been very careful to limit the conversation here to DD and things relating to it. So, I think it comes down to respecting the parameters of the forum owner/moderator. If I believed Dan wanted the discussion to become a heated exchange on religion, I would jump in every time it is brought up. So the fact that you may not have received critical responses in the past may have more to do with this than readers being OK with what is being presented. Personally I do not like having to feel like I'm holding back when others are not, though, so I definitely favor either "open season" or "total ban" on controversial religious or political side topics. The tip-toeing in-between can be nerve-wracking.
[Oddly enough the person from the past I thought you would readily agree with on so many topics here, "Helen" held an almost identical view as you on this, and even left the forum primarily over this issue (as I recall) when Dan insisted that religious-themed DD not be discussed. I hope you are not so like her that you do the same.]
This is Danielle:
DeleteAlthough I consider myself to be quite a strict wife, I take a “boys will be boys” attitude towards porn and masturbation. That may seem strange, since I almost lost Wayne when he went totally down a pornographic rabbit hole and began to neglect me. But in retrospect I hold myself partially to blame for shutting him down when he first tried to talk to me about his need for DD and FLR. I know now that he was already part way down the rabbit hole when he overcame his embarrassment and reached out to me about his “need” for DD. If I had listened to him at the time, I might have saved a lot of grief.
Wayne has actually suggested a couple of times that I could consider making him wear a chastity cage to prevent him from ever masturbating when he is alone. I choose not to because I find those penis cages a little silly, and I’m pretty sure it would be more bother than it’s worth. I also found it amusing when he confessed under questioning that he sometimes masturbates to the fantasy of not being allowed to masturbate. LOL I do, however, have strategies to prevent him from overindulging in porn and masturbation.
I have a very simple solution for the problem I used to have of Wayne staying up late to indulge in online porn. I have a strict rule that my bedtime is his bedtime, so our day always ends with some intimate face time in bed. When he’s going to be home alone during the day, I remind of the things I expect him to have done when I get home, so he knows that too much time spent online will result in real punishment. I always know if his failure to complete chores satisfactorily is due to him being “a naughty boy” because he is unable to hide his shame under questioning.
Now that we have a FLR, I don’t think his consumption of femdom erotica diminishes the sexual energy available for me. To the contrary, I think it may actually keep him in a state of prolonged arousal, even though he occasionally fails in his effort to be “a good boy” for me and I have to spank him and take away computer privileges for a few days.
The other consideration is that I myself like some of the stuff he looks at, and I encourage him to show me images that arouse him and to tell me why they are arousing to him. I believe that lots of couples in vanilla relationships use erotica to add spice to their sex lives. Nowadays half of the shows on Netflix contain elements of softcore porn, so I’m not worried about Wayne getting turned on by images and stories of DD and FLR online. And I accept that if he’s looking at them, I know he will occasionally get carried away and masturbate, even though he tries to be “good”. As long as he gets his work done and doesn’t neglect me, I don’t mind. Otherwise, I rein him in.
Another reason I don’t worry too much about his porn and masturbation habits is that, like most women, I sometimes masturbate too. I don’t think we women masturbate nearly as often as men, since men get horny more easily, but most of us do it sometimes. And if we’re honest, I think most of us would have to admit that our masturbation fantasies aren’t all centred on our husbands. That doesn’t mean we don’t love our husbands, so I’m not going to let it bother me if my husband gets turned on looking at, for example, the sultry little piece of eye candy Dan included in this week’s post. LOL One good thing that has come out of our FLR, is that we both began to communicate about our sexual fantasies. As it turned out, my husband’s cuckold fantasies liberated me to communicate with him about my own fantasies and to incorporate them into our erotic play. That’s one major way FLR has impacted our sex life, though it doesn’t necessarily take FLR for couples to incorporate sexual fantasies into their sex lives.
Danielle here:
DeleteI wrote my last comment in this thread in response to the interesting comments of Dan and KD about “orgasm/masturbation denial” and the comments by Frank and Elizabeth in another thread about the place of porn and masturbation in their relationship. I wrote it offline and missed the argument that was brewing about the place of religious ideas in the discussion of DD.
Somethingrandom, I have to say I am confused by your perception that people are “upset” with you. I simply said your idea that using the rhythm method of contraception because it is approved by the Church doesn’t make sense to me because the goal is still contraception. I also disagree with the Catholic Church’s position that procreation is the only valid reason for having sex. Others made similar points. But I wasn’t “upset” with you, and I don’t think that Dan or KD or ZM or anyone else was either. Maybe you mistakenly think we are upset with you because you are upset with us?
I can see why Dan might want to ban religious discussion from his blog about DD if it always ends in bad feelings. But I don’t see why it SHOULD end in bad feelings if everyone agrees to disagree like adults. When my husband gets overly worked up in an argument, I generally end up paddling his bottom. (It would be useful if I could paddle the bottoms of other family members too. LOL) Maybe a discussion forum like this needs a moderator empowered to paddle some bottoms. ;-)
Hopefully, people will take my comment about paddling bottoms in the light hearted spirit in which I intended it.
It would be a shame if people like Elizabeth and Frank felt they couldn’t explain how their religious beliefs affect their practice of DD. I find their perspective interesting, even if I don’t share it. But I understand Dan’s frustration.
Danielle: When someone says "Hopefully, people will take my comment about paddling bottoms in the light hearted spirit in which I intended it." I do. It's when people say things like that as if they were real solutions that I bristle.
DeleteThe thing about forum differences is that in most instances, if a person were to cite some reason for why they do or don't do something and that reason was pure opinion or preference, it's pretty easy for most people to accept it as such. And if the same situation occurs and the reason given is something that they believe to be fact that isn't, there isn't a lot of ......rancor.....if someone points out that their rationale is mistaken. For example: a person says " I don't masturbate because I don't like it." that would be an opinion, and most would accept it. But if the person said: "I don't masturbate because it makes you go blind and your palms hairy." it wouldn't be controversial to say, "I'm sorry, but that isn't true. People may have thought that at one time, but there is no basis for it." BUT.......have someone say: "I don't masturbate because god says it's a sin." and you have a potential disaster. Theists who don't ascribe to that interpretation of the 'spilling seed' scripture will argue from that perspective, and atheists will see the whole things as nonsense from start to finish. Anyone who responds in any critical way will only add to the mayhem. And at the end of the discussion, no one will have learned anything, changed their mind, or gone away happy.....and none of it will have had anything to do with DD and its practice.
So that's why this has been an issue in the past and why Dan probably doesn't want to travel that road yet again.
The thing is there are a lot of things any of us can say that would cause a stir, and so we don't. Self-editing is not a bad thing. So I don't see editing certain potentially volatile subjects as any enormous infringement. It's just practical coexistence in a world where a lot of people passionately differ on some very personal things.
Elizabeth: "Banning any religiously tinged comments would do a disservice to our conversations." I'm not at all sure that's the case. The pattern I see is:
DeleteStep 1: Religious person comments about how their religious belief drives DD behavior.
Step 2: Someone comments about that practice, asks what it is based one, suggests the Bible doesn't bare it out or that the practice seems like a stretch given other religious principles, etc.
Step 3: Religious commenter gets offended and accuses the other commenter of picking a fight or being unwelcoming.
There are a couple of topics that seem to lead to long ratholes of comments and counter-comments: religion and politics. I have my own religious conventions and have studied the Bible, books about the bible, and other religious texts and materials. So, if someone claims that their religion commands this or that, I'm pretty likely to test that statement, particularly if it involves something like "We are a real Christian couple, so when I get spanked I do not take off my suit and just bend over with my pants pulled down, because otherwise I am breaking God's law by not being the man . . ." And, the original commenter really has no basis for getting offended, because by choosing to post he was inviting responses. Then, it degenerates into a mess of comments and counter-comments. Similarly with politics. I live and breathe politics. It is very hard for me NOT to comment on something that is core to who I am. And, last year I did that from time to time, before finally deciding it was just a distraction that divided people unnecessarily in a forum where it just had no relation to what we were supposed to be talking about. So, if I can censor myself on politics in order to keep discussions from degenerating, so can those with religious-based ideas about DD and sexuality. But, if they don't, then they don't get to get all offended when someone responds.
Danielle: Your "boys will be boys" attitude seems imminently reasonable, at least if the husband's masturbation is within normal limits and isn't having a detrimental impact on the relationship. As for your comment, "I also found it amusing when he confessed under questioning that he sometimes masturbates to the fantasy of not being allowed to masturbate," you are cracking me up! :-)
DeleteDanielle: "Maybe a discussion forum like this needs a moderator empowered to paddle some bottoms. ;-)" An anonymous electronic forum does have it's limits. Sigh. At some point, maybe some of us will get up the nerve to form a real-life successor to the Disciplinary Wives Club, complete with real club meetings. You can volunteer for Sergeant at Arms!
DeleteHaving a real life Disciplinary Wives Club is a lovely fantasy! As is being Sergeant at Arms, taking arms to mean a nice collection of hairbrushes and paddles and straps. ;-)
DeleteBut I like to imagine a younger version of myself in that fantasy.
Danielle
Danielle here again:
DeleteKD and Dan, you both make good arguments as to the reasons allowing religion to enter into discussions of DD (or D/s) will generally lead to conflict that distracts from the main topic of DD. But it is a shame that people can’t just amicably disagree because I find discussion of the impact of people’s belief on their practice of DD or D/s fascinating.
Take, for example, the somewhat different attitudes Elizabeth and I have about the place of masturbation and erotica in our marriages. I think the idea that the wife should be a husband’s sole erotic focus is a good aspiration, and it is one that may be raised to an absolute based on the religious idea that a man who merely desires a woman other than his wife has committed adultery. But I think it is almost impossible to enforce a sanction on “mental adultery” because I suspect we are all guilty of it, and I include us women in that. So Elizabeth’s strict rule of “no porn, no masturbation outside my presence” is a religiously inspired aspiration, whereas my more permissive “boys will be boys” attitude is the result my more secular view of marriage.
I consider myself a feminist in the old fashioned sense of demanding equal rights for women. But I think some contemporary feminists put impossible demands on men. For example, they criticize “the male gaze”, meaning the way men look at women with sexual interest. But they also say that women should be able to dress in sexually provocative ways. How crazy is it for women to dress in ways that leave little to the imagination, then call men who can’t help casting a longing glance sexist pigs? Furthermore, our society is so awash in erotic imagery, not even counting the sexual imagery so easily available online, that you can hardly blame men from thinking naughty thoughts.
I know that Wayne likes to look at online erotica, especially erotica involving F/M power exchanges. I’ve also caught him looking furtively at pretty young women who dress in a manner that makes them magnets to the “male gaze”. I like to spank Wayne for that sometimes, but those aren’t angry spankings, they are sexy, playful spankings. When I spank him for that, I will often scold him in a teasing manner, saying something like, “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself, looking at a woman who is young enough to be your daughter? Imagine how she would laugh if she could see you now, a man your age getting your bum paddled like a naughty little boy! Maybe the next time I should take your pants down and spank you on the spot so she can see. How would you like that?”
Okay, a spanking like that is really erotic play rather than punishment, although I like to make it feel like punishment. I guess if Elizabeth spanked Frank for that, it would be real punishment, and Frank would feel real guilt rather than the eroticized shame I make Wayne feel. Those different orientations are, I would think, influenced by our different worldviews. I find differences of perspective like that interesting.
That reminds me of a question I have for people who are into straight DD without the further trappings of FLR. Would the kind of playful, erotic “punishment” I described above be possible in a DD marriage, or do spankings always have to be serious business to maintain effective discipline?
Hi Danielle. As a practical matter, I probably won't end up deleting comments that touch on religion, as long as it isn't crossing over the line into proselytizing. If someone wants to give an extensive recitation on Christian DD, which involves all sorts of motivations that are very different from those in a secular DD relationship, they are very welcome to start their own blog. But, I am not going to open that up here, because it is divisive. And, just fyi, my big issue is not that religion is inherently divisive. Instead, the reason I don't want it on this blog are generally: (a) it always seems to come along with an archaic view of the female role that I am not going to give a platform to, given that *this* blog platform is about empowering women, not diminishing them, in the household pecking order; (b) and I have a very hard time keeping my tongue when someone is suggesting their view is biblically based when I know it is not or that their interpretation is questionable or when I see someone twisting themselves into a pretzel trying to show how their very idiosyncratic DD practice is consistent with them being head of the household while someone not engaging in such mental gymnastics is supposedly violating some kind of biblical injunction. I have a really, really hard time with blatant hypocrisy and self-delusion, so these "I'm a real Christian because I keep my suit on during my spanking and then take my wife in the missionary position to assert my authority after she spanks me" comments are something I absolutely am not going to let go. I'm either going to respond, which inevitably leads to one or more commenters flouncing out, or I'm going to just delete the comment and leave it at that. What I am not going to do is let someone use this blog to promote this view of women as subservient to their husband, if for no other reason than I personally think that position is *impossible* to derive from the gospels.
DeleteDanielle, on the question of whether all spankings need to be serious business to maintain effective discipline, I doubt it, though I'm not the best source since we don't do erotic spankings. I think I personally would find it confusing if some spankings were punishments and others were almost rewards, but I can see how others could sort that out.
Delete"I also disagree with the Catholic Church’s position that procreation is the only valid reason for having sex."
Delete- Sorry, but this Catholic Church does not teach.
Catholic Church teaches - Marriage/sex exists for:
1, the good of the spouses,
2, and the procreation offspring.
>>>- Sorry, but this Catholic Church does not teach.
DeleteCatholic Church teaches - Marriage/sex exists for:
1, the good of the spouses,
2, and the procreation offspring.<<<
Thanks for that correction. I am Catholic myself, and I missed the memo saying that our Church has reversed its longstanding opposition to the kind of effective birth control that enables young married couples to enjoy non-procreative sex free of feelings of guilt or hypocrisy. In my mind, that's what "for the good of the spouses" must mean.
Danielle
P.S. Okay, Dan and KD, I see your point about bringing religion into discussions of DD.
We have faith-based beliefs that help us define our DD and prohibit full FLR. We have mentioned our beliefs as we explain our relationship. We don't push them on anyone else, nor do we plan to debate them. Anyone else can hold any differing beliefs or opinions about their beliefs, as ar as we are concerned.
DeleteElizabeth and Frank
Elizabeth and Frank, I agree that you have not tried to force the faith based aspect of your DD relationship on the rest of us, and I am interested in your way of seeing things. Elizabeth, I like that way you have managed to get some of the most significant benefits from your DD arrangement with Frank that I have in my FLR with Wayne, and you have been able to do that within the framework of your faith.
DeleteDanielle
Biblical examples:
Delete"Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days
of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun..." (Ecclesiastes 9:9)
"rejoice with the wife of thy youth:
Let her be thy dearest hind, and most agreeable fawn:
let her breasts inebriate thee at all times..." (Proverbs 5:18-19)
-------
Catholic Catechism (by Pope John Paul II):
"2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life.
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them."
Or Catholic Catechism - YOUCAT (by Pope Benedict XVI):
"417 (...) In Christianity, the body, pleasure, and erotic joy enjoy a high status: Christianity believes that matter is good (...)
If anyone says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once...
420 May a Christian married couple regulate the number of children they have?
Yes, a Christian married couple may and should be responsible in using the gift and privilege of transmitting life. Sometimes social, psychological, and medical conditions are such that in the given circumstances an additional child would be a big, almost superhuman challenge for the couple. Hence there are clear criteria that the married couple must observe: Regulating births, in the first place, must not mean that the couple is avoiding conception as a matter of principle. Second, it must not mean avoiding children for selfish reasons. Third, it must not mean that external coercion is involved (if, for example, the State were to decide how many children a couple could have). Fourth, it must not mean that any and every means may be used."
>>>>Hence there are clear criteria that the married couple must observe: Regulating births, in the first place, must not mean that the couple is avoiding conception as a matter of principle<<<<
Delete>>>>Fourth, it must not mean that any and every means may be used."<<<<
There is the crux of the problem for me: the Church’s rejection of modern methods of birth control like condoms, the pill, IUD’s, etc. To me using “natural” (less effective) methods of contraception instead of the full range science and technology have given us seems pointless and silly. And hypocritical, since poor methods of contraception are nevertheless attempts at contraception. I am Catholic, but my husband and I used condoms, very effectively. Most of the Catholics I know reject the Church’s teaching on contraception. If you don’t, that’s fine. Peace.
Danielle
Danielle, totally agree, though I have issues with the second "criteria" as well. You really have to wonder whether for the authors of this "teaching," the whole point of allowing "natural" methods is because they aren't very effective. The whole discussion becomes so theologically tortured. Are natural methods OK because God can get around them more easily if he wants the couple to conceive? So, he can cause Abraham's wife Rachel to conceive at 90 years-old but is stumped by a little piece of permeable rubber? And, let's keep in mind that not one iota of this "teaching" is based on anything the Bible actually says.
Delete>>>>>>>" And, let's keep in mind that not one iota of this "teaching" is based on anything the Bible actually says."<<<<<<<<<<
DeleteTrue, but even if it was in the Bible, it still was just Iron age morality written by the men of that time. I wonder if anyone today would seriously base their life decisions on something they read in Bullfinch's Mythology? It would be just as logical to do so since people used to believe in sacrificing doves to the gods on Olympus. In the old days, different pagan cultures claimed their gods were mightier than their adversary's. Modern religions aren't that much better with people believing their god is real while others are myths. Imagine if we just did what made sense? ;-)
Danielle:>>>>>>"P.S. Okay, Dan and KD, I see your point about bringing religion into discussions of DD."<<<<<<<< LOL and keep in mind this will all probably get much worse before it gets better. The more people weighing in, the more heated this will get, and the further from anything DD-related it will go. ;-)
The bible: "the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (1 Corinthians 7:4)
Delete"Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time..." (1 Corinthians 7:5)
I think consensual denial orgasms for husband is also a good natural method.
The permission for male ejaculation is only if the wife wants a child or if she has barren days. Woman has control and she sometimes give permission for male ejaculation in her (if he was a good obedient man). Therefore the husband will much time be horny, but that's only right, because this recommended the bible: "let her breasts inebriate thee at all times..." (Proverbs 5:19)
:)
Tease and denial
Catholic Theology teaches: "The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good."
- Tease and Denial are only long foreplay.
Catholic Theology also teaches: "An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina (unintended ejaculation involves no moral fault). Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context (...) if the wife’s orgasm isn't achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired)."
- The husband should to stimulate his wife to climax, in this context the wife can have orgasms in course of foreplay, during penetration or also thereafter, for example - oral stimulation (if she so desired)
Catholic Theology teaches: "It’s not objectively wrong if the wife achieves climax as a result of oral stimulation..."
I think Tease and Denial is a good way
It is simple. In days the course of foreplay (tease and denial) wife has orgasms, but not husband. The Catholic Theology accepts female orgasms for course of foreplay and and other situations. Only the husband must never ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina
DeleteThese are wonderful! And here I thought that the Catholic Church's view was that any kind of sex was OK, even before marriage.....as long as it was between a priest and someone of either gender under the age of 16. Learn something new every day.
DeleteNow the Pastafarians need only be touched by His Noodly Appendage.....but I suppose we can seriously debate whether that appendage should manifest itself as linguine, spaghettini, or angel hair and on what day and whether the penetrator needs to be dressed as a pirate?
Oh how I love religious parameters for sex! More please!
(Dan: hey for next week's topic can we discuss which way Santa, the Easter Bunny, and Mickey Mouse think we should have sex?)
Exists many theological text for this topic. For example as says the catholic theologian Christopher West:
Delete"What if I told you that the key to understanding God’s plan for human life is to go behind the fig leaves and behold the human body, naked and without shame? What if I told you that the only way to see the invisible mystery of God is through the vision of the human body in its masculinity and femininity? What if I told you that the Christian mystery itself is simply unintelligible unless we understand the meaning of sexual difference and our call to sexual union? You’d probably think I was a bit obsessed with sex and naked bodies. You might even think I’ve been corrupted by pornographic culture. Understandable. But what if Pope John Paul II were telling you these things? Indeed, these – among other things – are what we learn from the first major project of Pope John Paul II."
In this collection of 129 audience addresses delivered between September 1979 and November 1984 first, the Pope develops an “adequate anthropology” based on the words of Christ. In order to have a “total vision of man,” we must look to our experience of embodiment “in the beginning” (Mt 19:8), in our history (Mt 5:27-28), and in our destiny (Mt 22:30).
“The body, and it alone,” John Paul says, “ is capable of making visible what is invisible, the spiritual and divine. It was created to transfer into the visible reality of the world, the invisible mystery hidden in God from time immemorial, and thus to be a sign of it” (Feb 20, 1980).
What does it mean? As physical, bodily creatures we simply cannot see God. He’s pure Spirit. But God wanted to make his mystery visible to us so he stamped it into our bodies by creating us as male and female in his own image (Gn 1:27). Thus, in a dramatic development of Catholic thought, John Paul concludes that “man became the ‘image and likeness’ of God not only through his own humanity, but also through the communion of persons which man and woman form right from the beginning.” The body has a “nuptial meaning” because it reveals man and woman’s call to become a gift for one another, a gift fully realized in their “one flesh” union.
This is what Adam and Eve experienced “in the beginning.” The very sentiment of sexual desire as God created it to be was to love as God loves in the sincere gift of self. Since this call to love is the summary of the Gospel, John Paul can say that if we live according to the nuptial meaning of our bodies, we “fulfill the very meaning of [our] being and existence” (Jan 16, 1980). It is for this reason that a man clings to his wife and they become “one flesh” (see Gn 2:24)" ...
Danielle here:
Delete>>>>It is simple. In days the course of foreplay (tease and denial) wife has orgasms, but not husband. The Catholic Theology accepts female orgasms for course of foreplay and and other situations. Only the husband must never ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina<<<<
I get what you are doing here, Anonymous, linking male chastity as a sexual kink to the Church’s sado-masochistic teachings about male sexuality. Clever. It’s a bit like linking the fairly common desire of women to be spanked by their men to religious teachings about gender roles in the whole “taken in hand” Christian DD movement.
But while I see enforced male chastity as potentially a wonderful, erotic activity for husbands and wives, I think the Church’s teaching is dangerous for women because it is a recipe for sexual violence. Think about it. The Church drums it into the physically stronger sex that the only sexual release God approves for them EVER requires access to the physical body of a member of the physically weaker sex. What could possibly go wrong!?
Let’s be clear, teaching boys that masturbation is a perfectly legitimate way to relieve sexual tension is important as a sort of safety valve that helps to prevent sexual violence inside and outside of marriage. Now, if husbands and wives agree to ramp up erotic tension by playing with that safety valve in a consensual way, that’s another matter.
Anonymous, an important theological question just occurred to me. Would my collection of dildos have the blessing of the Church since using them doesn't involve any "spilling of seed"? ;-)
DeleteDanielle
Another theological question: Suppose a wife pegged her husband for purely disciplinary purposes, but the discipline resulted in the accidental spilling of seed, would that accidental spillage be permissible? Asking for a friend.
DeleteMy views on religion are complex. I reject organized religion personally for its many hypocrisies and dysfunctional doctrines. But at the same time I support religion and religious freedom as a net positive force during the evolvement of civilization, morals and values. Historically it has been a net force for "good" while harming many people individually. But while I value religion, I am wary of its toxic influences, I am put off by hearing people tie themselves into religious pretzels trying to justify or explain DD practices from a religious perspective. I fully realize that some people are so intertwined with their religious precepts that they cannot separate them from DD. Theology used this way is really to succumb to ideological thinking -something one writer once called " a systematic way of being wrong" I will take several deep breaths now and move on but I really encourage looking at DD, its practices, impact on your relations, and strong emotions, separate from some ideology heralding " the way it should be" rather than the way it is
DeleteAlan
Danielle, haha, Yes... The Church does not give precise instructions for sex and life. Orgasm denial is only our fun alternative for long foreplay and the same time how to be also softly comply with the Catholic theology.
Delete" It’s a bit like linking the fairly common desire of women to be spanked by their men to religious teachings..."
I recommend for these women search old theology (of the 19th century and early 20th century) - is very "for male". But modern Catholic theology is "for female".
The revolutionary Pope John Paul II teaches - Also husbands must obey their wives. And all texts in the Bible in favour of the “subjection” of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a “mutual subjection” of both. (John Paul II - Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem and other...)
And today for modern theologians, the husband is as the obedient servant.
"a recipe for sexual violence."
I can't agree, sorry. The rape (also in marriage) is a sin. Every man must learn self-control. This is the difference between man and animal.
But do not worry. Today's church has a slightly more liberal attitude for masturbation:
Catechism - YOUCAT (by Pope Benedict XVI):
409 (...) The Church does not demonize masturbation, but she warns against trivializing it. In fact many young people and adults are in danger of becoming isolated in their consumption of lewd pictures, films, and Internet services instead of finding love in a personal relationship. Loneliness can lead to a blind alley in which masturbation becomes an addiction. Living by the motto “For sex I do not need anyone; I will have it myself, however and whenever I need it” makes nobody happy.
- The Church today does not demonize masturbation, only warns...
(And many priests today say - masturbation is just a little sin. Or no sin if the person is not in married, or if he has permission from his wife...)
Anonymous, just theological question just occurred to me. Would my collection of dildos have the blessing of the Church since it does not include any "spilling of seed"? ;-)
Delete- For all sexual behavior and sexual games in marriage is probably good theology this:
"John Paul’s original insights provide a whole new context for understanding the Church’s teaching on sexuality. This is, in fact, the linchpin of all sexual morality. Based on the logic of the theology of the body, one can speak of morality in the sexual relationship according to “whether or not it has the character of the truthful sign” (Aug 27, 1980). All sexual morality, then, comes down to this simple question: Does this behavior incarnate God’s love or does it not?"
Another theological question: Suppose a wife pegged her husband for purely disciplinary purposes, but the discipline resulted in the accidental spilling of seed, would that accidental spillage be permissible?
- Unintended ejaculation involves no moral fault.
Interesting.
DeleteDanielle
Alan: "a systematic way of being wrong" - I like that.
DeletePart 2 from Frank
ReplyDeleteWhen she found my new porn collection, she was very upset and insisted I get help. She expressed concern that maybe she was contributing to my problem by spanking me. That shocked me into action because I wanted our DD life to continue. I got rid of my new porn collection and began going to Sex Addicts Anonymous (SAA), a 12-step program based on Alcoholics Anonymous. At the same time, she began limiting our DD to once a week, partly because there were still children in the home and partly because she didn’t like the heavy focus on DD. I began keeping a detailed daily journal, and that did help me, looking at the list of things for which I would be punished. I destroyed my spanking porn again. I was relieved that we were doing DD at all.
A big issue in SAA is the definition of sobriety for each sex addict. It isn’t as simple as “giving it up,” as in AA, since sex can be healthy and belongs in a marriage. I struggled for some time with the definition, which each addict develops with the help of a sponsor and others in the program (and sometimes including one’s spouse). Some in the program thought that I should give up all spanking, since that was my fetish. But I knew that never was going to happen, and I believed and continued to believe that it was healthy when within my marriage. Ultimately over several years I came to the definition of “all sexual release is focused on my wife and with her knowledge.” That meant that even my sexual fantasies needed to be about my wife, and that there would be no masturbation in secret.
Eventually her “knowledge” morphed into her “permission.” I couldn’t just say, “I feel like masturbating and I’m going into the bathroom.” So crass. It became, “I know you are tired and don’t feel like making love. Do you mind if I relieve myself?” At first she always said go ahead, but over the years as she got more assertive in the bedroom, she began to deny me. And I discovered the fetish of “orgasm control” that is probably even bigger in our culture than spanking! While I am like Dan, not considering myself submissive, I did find her power to be erotic.
I also asked her to punish me when I masturbated outside of my sobriety definition. That didn’t happen often, and the last time was the one that was previously reported in which she made me masturbate in front of her and then paddled me. I found that mortifying. It did cross the line from embarrassment to humiliation (as we discussed last week), but I do think it was appropriate for the situation. I have not masturbated without her permission since and count my sobriety from that day several years ago.
Both of us had never really enjoyed performing oral sex, considering it an occasional “marital duty.” But over the years I began wanting to perform oral sex after being punished as a way to say “thank you” to her. She often punishes me over a couch, and afterwards she will comfort me on the couch, with me naked and her fully clothed. Sometimes we would begin caressing each other, but she strongly believed that intercourse should seldom follow punishment so that I did not confuse punishment with pleasure. So when I do perform oral sex after punishment, there is no release for me (though I certainly am turned on). We have taken to joking about it: We both get “lickings” (though they are quite different). And oral sex for me occur on our anniversary and our birthday. I look forward to those days!
So in conclusion: I have far fewer orgasms that before DD: About one a week rather than 1-2 per day. But my sex life is far better because it is with my wife. I would much rather make love to her once a week than have sex with my hand every day!
I also have progressed in SAA and now sponsor others new to the program and help them develop their own definition of sobriety.
Frank
I can understand Elizabeth's initial reaction, and we had a mild corollary to it shortly before we began DD. We had experimented with erotic spanking, including some "role playing" elements in which she pretended to "punish" me. The problem was, the bad behavior was real while the punishment was pretend. She became concerned that in that context, spanking-related erotic encounters involving fake punishment of real misbehavior might just reinforce the bad behavior. So, we quit entirely. The difference between that situation and yours is I never had the underlying spanking obsession or addiction, so I didn't really care that much when we dropped it entirely. I now do think that my initial interest in doing it at all probably did relate to a desire for accountability, because from the beginning it was associated in some way with the idea of punishing bad acts and was never purely foreplay or purely sexual. But, at the time I had never encountered even the idea of real adult corporal punishment, so I didn't really have any context for any such leanings.
DeleteI also get the idea of tailoring the treatment to the addiction and that abusing anything--alcohol, sex, gambling--often is not binary. I am always pretty open on this forum about the fact that I have issues with controlling alcohol use, but it's complicated. I don't drink on far more days than I do, and never miss it at all. My issue is all around bingeing--I can have none, or I can several, but having a few is a problem. What I need to figure out is whether I can do with alcohol something similar to what you describe for your sex addiction, i.e. confine it to very narrow and constrained outlets. I don't really know. I think some people can moderate addictive behaviors while abstention is the only thing that will work for others.
Setting my not particularly on-topic observations about alcohol aside, I admit I don't quite understand your particular addiction, as while I like sex I've never "needed" it on a daily basis. But, I do very much get that volume is seldom a substitute for quality, connection and presence. That's sort of the whole idea behind Tantric sexual practices -- being there fully and completely and bringing all you have to it, being very present and involved.
This is Elizabeth. Like Danielle, I believe that DD likely saved our marriage. Frank's addiction would have destroyed it eventually.
DeleteOur sex life has improved by leaps and bounds. With no kids in the house and no menstrual cycle to work around, we can basically do what we want whenever and wherever we want.
For Frank, the paddle or even the threat thereof works much like viagra. With my new assertiveness, developed with maturity and fueled by DD and my husband's resulting service orientation, I pretty much get what I want sexually whenever I want it. And that makes us BOTH very very happy.
Frank suggested I offer up some numbers: before DD, our sex together (not including his masturbation) resulted in about 4 orgasms for him to every 1 of mine (mostly through intercourse for us both). Now it's the reverse: at least 4 for me for every 1 for him (his usually through intercourse, mine mostly oral).
DeleteElizabeth
Hi Elizabeth, this is Danielle. You write: “For Frank, the paddle or even the threat thereof works much like viagra. With my new assertiveness, developed with maturity and fueled by DD and my husband's resulting service orientation, I pretty much get what I want sexually whenever I want it. And that makes us BOTH very very happy.”
DeleteHow wonderful for both you and Frank! That’s pretty much the way I feel about my sex life with Wayne, except that neither the paddle nor Viagra have the effect that both used to have on Wayne. In other words, as I explained in another reply, although Wayne still gets very turned on by my demonstrations of feminine power, intercourse is no longer his form of release due to erectile dysfunction.
Out of curiosity, Elizabeth, if you don’t mind me asking, was Frank’s stash of porn limited to spanking, or was he into other forms of female domination like my naughty husband was? Your mention of his “service orientation” makes me suspect he might share my husband’s domestic servitude kink to some extent.
Incidentally, since you enjoy oral sex so much, I want to mention a variant I find mind blowing. It is usually called “rimming” (analingus), but Wayne refers to it as “ass worship.” I found it hard to believe that couples actually did that because it seemed so “dirty” in the sense of dangerously unhygienic. But some of the pictures in Wayne’s porn collection showed that it is a real thing. I decided to give it try because there was a chapter about it at the end of that book Wayne bought about oral sex (The Lowdown on Going Down: How to Give Her Mind-Blowing Oral Sex), and it explained how to do it safely. Basically, that involves careful washing plus use of a latex dental dam as a hygienic barrier. I’m not suggesting you should make Frank do that if the idea is disgusting to either of you. But I actually prefer it to cunnilingus now because the sensation is so incredible and I can have shattering orgasms by using a vibrator on my clit while Wayne does that. There is a benefit for Wayne too. He tells me that doing that for me puts him deeply into subspace, especially if his own bottom is burning from a spanking while he’s doing it.
Danielle: Just as an aside, while the whole "safe analingus" debate rages across the internet, be advised that there is a difference among "safe sex" with random partners, "safe sex" in a monogamous relationship, and even "safe sex" between people who either know they are basically clean and healthy and those who know they have some issue that could cause problems.
DeleteAs a lifelong practitioner of analingus with several select people over the course of decades, all I can say is that other than being somewhat reasonable about hygiene and the person themselves, I have never bothered to use a 'dental dam' for a number of reasons, and have NEVER gotten ill. Ever. Not once.
One theory is that a monogamous couple who have cohabitated for any length of time, basic living results in a gradual and inevitable 'sharing' of bodily 'flora' so that after a while, there's not much you can get from a clean and otherwise healthy partner that would lead to anything troublesome. As for Rosa and I? It's one of our favorite activities and she too prefers it to cunnilingus and even can orgasm from it. And we don't use dental dams. So, let your freak flags fly and keep the saran wrap for sandwiches. ;-)
KD, thanks for you comments about "safe analingus", and for the acknowledgement that you and Rosa like it too. I guess my limited experience with kinkiness makes me feel that my FLR with Wayne is kinkier than it actually is. By the way, Wayne tried Saran Wrap once, and it was unsatisfactory. It reduced the sensation for me, and Wayne had a sore tongue for a couple of days from trying to force the tip of his tongue against the plastic barrier. Wayne has done it without protection a couple of times. It felt amazing and he didn't get sick. But I worried about that more than him and got him to order the latex dental dams. Maybe I need to rethink that. As the one on the receiving end, I feel kind of responsible. I know that if it was entirely up to Wayne, he would dispense with the dental dams.
DeleteDanielle
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is Danielle:
ReplyDeleteWayne and I got married in our mid-20’s. In the early years of our marriage we had lots of sex. It was totally vanilla but, in my mind, very satisfying. Wayne agrees with that memory. For birth control, we used condoms. Both times we stopped using the condoms so I could get pregnant, I got pregnant immediately. Wayne used to jokingly complain that we were both “too damned fertile” because he would have liked the “bare back” sex to be more drawn out. I know exactly when we conceived both times. The atmosphere was romantic, the sex felt even better than usual, and I had an intuitive feeling that we had conceived.
Sex continued to be pretty good, but of course raising children takes a toll on by the libido and reduces the opportunities for sex. Also, sex became less exciting as it fell into a long term routine. I know Wayne started to become less satisfied with our vanilla routine. He wanted to try things (not FLR related), and I admit now I was probably a bit prudish. We had arguments about oral sex. He would sometimes go down on me, and then he would want me to return the favor. I tried a couple of times, but I had a block. I found it really distasteful and it would make me gag. He said I was selfish not to give something I liked to receive. That make me feel guilty, but I also felt resentful at feeling pressured to do something I didn’t want to do. Making it worse, a boyfriend had guilted me into giving him a blow job when I was a teenager, so it also had really negative emotional connotations for me.
And then, when we were in our late 30’s, Wayne discovered online spanking sites. As he tells it, that reawakened his oldest, most powerful masturbation fantasy. As I’ve explained elsewhere, when he tried to get me to spank him, I refused because I was alarmed by my perception that he was getting into weird kinkiness. That’s when I started to lose him. Instead of going to bed with me, he would stay up late, and I knew he was in the basement masturbating to kinky images and stories he found online. I told him that I didn’t like it when he came to bed after I was asleep because it woke me up. That was the practical reason I gave, but I also felt angry and resentful about the neglect. His “solution” was for him to start sleeping in the guest room. That was the last straw. I told him we were headed towards divorce. That shocked him, and he wrote me a letter begging me not to give up on him, expressing remorse for his neglect of me and his addiction to femdom porn, and suggesting that maybe FLR could save our marriage. Feeling I had nothing to lose, I agreed to give it a try.
Frank’s account of his and Elizabeth’s early attempts to start a DD relationship correspond to my experience too. I could see that if I allowed to Wayne’s wishes to determine my actions, I would be spanking him every day, i.e. servicing his strongest kink rather than being the “leader” he said he wanted me to be. So I told him that if he was serious about FLR, he would have to give me real control and that, although I would spank him when and how I saw fit (and not according to any script of his own), my authority would have to be about a lot more than spanking. He agreed.
It would be dishonest to pretend that establishing a viable FLR was a simple thing. There were ups and downs, and I know he continued to have cravings I didn’t completely satisfy, but we persevered, and with lots of communication we managed to find our own, unique FLR groove. I will explain that in a second installment.
Danielle here for Part Two of our FLR saga:
DeleteUnlike Elizabeth and Frank, Wayne and I didn’t have a porn burning ceremony. Nor did I enforce a complete ban on pornography. I decided to investigate Wayne’s kinks, as revealed by his porn collection, to understand what makes him tick and to figure out how I could use that knowledge to guide our relationship. F/M spanking images formed the bulk of it. But his memory stick (which I still possess) contains the following related kinks: domestic servitude, oral servitude, CFNM (clothed female, naked male), ass worship, pegging, SPH (small penis humiliation), chastity and orgasm denial, forced feminization, and cuckolding. There were also some M/F images, which I found interesting.
I’ll be honest. The range and extent of his kinkiness shocked me at first, but I was determined to understand him, so I questioned him about his kinks. I wanted to understand why various fantasies turned him on. I also asked him whether he would really like all those things in real life. He said no, and acknowledged that some of the things that turned him on as fantasies would be way too humiliating or hurtful in reality. For example, I was relieved that he didn’t really want me to sleep with other men. The reason the fantasy of cuckolding turned him on was the “unfairness” of a wife having complete sexual freedom while the husband was expected to be faithful. It was like the unfairness of a wife enjoying leisure time while the husband did all the housework, or a wife enjoying oral sex which she never reciprocates, or a wife not allowing a husband to cum after she has had an orgasm herself, or a wife ordering a husband to strip while she remains fully clothed, or a wife controlling a husband’s access to his own money.
The agreement we worked out was that if Wayne was turned on by the “unfair” exercise of feminine power, I could give him that. Boy, could I ever! LOL But I would decide unilaterally which of his kinks I would use, since some were more acceptable to me than others. The first kink I added to spanking was domestic servitude. I’ll be honest: that one was a no-brainer because it had such practical advantages for me. Making him do the housework naked sometimes was an easy button to push, and it was amusing to me. Making him wear feminine aprons was easy and amusing too.
I also found great advantage in showing how “unfair” I could be in the bedroom. That meant lots of guilt free cunnilingus with no obligation for me ever to go down on him. Not only that, I felt empowered to tell him exactly how I wanted him to do it, correcting him when his technique wasn’t optimal. LOL He was so motivated to please, that he even went to a sex shop and bought a book called “The Low Down on Going Down: How to Give Her Mind-Blowing Oral Sex.” He also bought a book on erotic massage, so he could do that for me. I found that really sweet. He knows I will never “peg” him because that particular kink turns me off. Nor do I cuckold him, though we do have some fun playing with the fantasy.
All of this electrified our sex life. Suddenly, everything became sexualized for Wayne: cooking the meals in his cute little apron, doing an unfair share of the housework (sometimes naked), being put an allowance, being frequently reminded that I expected him to be “obedient”…for him it was all sexual, so he was suddenly as horny as he used to be when we were first married. Not only that, his horniness was focused on me, and that made me horny. As a result, FLR brought about a renewal of our sex life.
Not sure whether I should add anymore detail. Maybe this is already “way too much information!”
It took me a long time to appreciate that the potential for an "unfair" aspect to come into an FLR is part of the attraction. As I said a week or two ago, part of me wants/needs the entire thing to be as close to non-consensual as possible. I think sometimes the reason people like drawings of mothers spanking sons is because those childhood spankings were, in fact, the essence of non-consensual. An element of unfairness may be as close as an adult man can get to it being non-consensual. KD will object that it still is consensual, and he is right. But, the unfairness does have a distinctly different *feel* than when you are both on the same page about whether a punishment is deserved, whether the punishment fit the crime, etc.
DeleteDanielle here:
DeleteDan, I think you and KD are both right. A wife spanking her husband is almost always consensual because most husbands are physically bigger and stronger than their wives. But unfairness IS exciting because of the hint of nonconsensuality. (Is that a word?) I guess in straightforward DD, the potential for unfairness is more limited than in outright FLR, since the reasons for spankings are agreed upon in a sort of contractual way among DD couples. In the kind of FLR I have with Wayne, I have power that can be used unfairly or capriciously, whether intentionally or accidentally.
There have been occasions when Wayne has tried to make excuses before a spanking or to argue that I am punishing him unfairly. I have to confess, it turns me on to be able to override his arguments and spank him anyway. Although he might complain, I know it turns him on too. Likewise, if he questions why I have decided he can or can’t do such and such, it is exciting to be able to cut off the discussion by saying, “Because I said so,” like a parent might with an argumentative child.
Wayne’s collection of spanking images includes a number of those drawing of mothers spanking sons or female teachers spanking schoolboys. Obviously, he is turned on by them, even though he wasn’t spanked much as a child. So I think you are right that it is the idea of nonconsensuality that turns him on. Related to that, his collection also has a file with drawings he calls “Amazon Women.” Those are pictures of unhappy looking adult men being spanked over the knees of giantesses who are able to spank men against their will due to their superior size and strength.
I don't know whether most DD couples have a strict agreement about "spankable" offenses. Ours was always more of a non-exhaustive list. There were somethings that were not only spankable but were supposed to result in a spanking every time. But, she really always had the authority to spank for other reasons.
DeleteI can't recall my wife using the "Because I said so" line, but I suspect it would turn me on. I was recently talking to a friend who is in an FLR relationship, and she said it was both empowering and, frankly, just easier to cut off arguments by telling him that he flat-out doesn't have a choice or a vote on something. While I'm sure I would hate that in the moment, I still found her recounting it . . . stirring.
Dan
DeleteWith Anna she seldom speaks but gives me a certain look that says " Done with discussing do it!'
It works. Neither of us want attitude.
peter
N. (my late wife) made a point of letting me know -even before we got married- that she would spank or whip me whenever she thought I "needed" (or deserved) it, whether or not I agreed... and I soon learned to accept it. It took a while, however, to get used to being -occasionally- spanked or whipped under the eyes of one of her (female) friends... One of them was J. whom I later married - and who, predictably, soon proceeded to replicate (with a few of her own practices) the way N. had dealt with me... (including the times I got spanked or whipped before one of her own friends, or in our hotel rooms (for the benefit of our neighbors and/or the chambermaids)...
ReplyDeleteL.
L.
Dan
ReplyDeleteStories
Five or six years ago Anna wrote a letter to you which is still posted here under User Stories. Better than anything I could write it spells out the how and why we came to introduce DD into our lives. It took a lot of being open and honest to get to the point where it worked for both of us and at the same time improved me as both a husband and a father. Looking back, I can see that the sooner I was open and honest with Anna, the better our day to day lives became. It has changed our sex lives and has taught me that giving her pleasure will in the end bring us both peace. Once more we are partners. I never think of her as a dominant but rather as the navigator who knows best how to keep our marriage afloat. As I write this I sit gingerly from the reminder Anna delivered
last evening.
Peter
Navigator is a great way to look at it.
DeleteHow Peter and I got to where we are today, was work, hard work. When a husband gets lost in distractions such as porno, work or booze and the relationship with wife or family are taken for granted everyone is losing.
DeleteWhen Peter began to see that true submission to me was merely listening to what made me happy.
Without being told no cell phones at table, perhaps repairing that stuck cabinet in the kitchen without
my asking or seeing when I had a hard day that a foot massage or just doing the dishes would please me. I have never wanted a slave I wanted and now I have a partner. As a partner it is then with joy I
can reward him with the caning he might need.
I will also say that since part of our ritual after a DD session is for Peter to orally service me. Like
most men only practice makes for the perfect orgasm. Peter now has a PHD and has come to love
those moments as much as I. Too simplistic for some I understand but I love our life.
anna
Anna, I don't think what you and Peter have sounds "too simplistic." It sounds like you get what you want and Peter gets what he needs. And it sounds that what you want and is very similar to what Elizabeth and I want and get from our husbands in our different ways. I do find it interesting that you "reward [Peter] with the caning he might need." I'm not sure my husband would see a caning as a "reward". Does that mean that you see spanking/caning/etc. as rewards for good behavior rather than punishments for bad behavior and that for real punishment you would use other methods?
ReplyDeleteDanielle
Danielle
ReplyDeleteI am sure you understand that I was speaking with tongue in cheek. If I spanked him for all his bad behaviors
what would be the incentive for him to change. I began DD because it was something he craved. With him toeing the line rewards him with the discipline he craves. Trust me often a caning or belting I deliver is not
some light weight game.
anna
Thanks, Anna. I wasn't actually sure whether you were speaking tongue in cheek because with guys like your Peter or my Wayne I think there is a blurry line between "punishment" and "reward." That's what makes this so complicated. Sometimes I'm surprised by the reality of the power I have. For example, if I tell Wayne before going out, "This place had better be spotless when I get back or you won't sit comfortably for a week," I am always surprised when I come back and the house really IS spotless. I know he has an erotic craving for spankings, so why doesn't he intentionally do a crappy job to earn the threatened spanking? It's strange, but I'm not complaining about it. LOL
ReplyDeleteBy the way, when you say that it was "hard work" getting to where you and Peter are today, do you mean you had to work at making Peter understand that "true submission" was about putting the things that make you happy ahead of his craving for spankings?
Danielle
Anna, since my last reply to you, I looked up your letter under "User Stories", so I think I understand what you mean by "hard work".
ReplyDeleteDanielle
Danielle et al
ReplyDelete=
Recently read a book called'LOCKED IN LOVE" BY KEY BARRET. It was an interesting read. He writes erotica and as an experiment chose to try wearing a chastity cage for two weeks. Things him discovered about himself
and his attitude towards his wife were things i have in the past nagged about. Worth a read!
anna
Thanks for the book recommendation, Anna. I've never been interested in chastity devices, but I may have Wayne do a book report about it. I find orgasm denial most exciting when you deny the poor dears release immediately after you have had an orgasm yourself. :-)
ReplyDeleteDanielle
Danielle here again:
DeleteOkay, Anna, I’ve never really been interested in chastity devices, but the blurb about “Locked in Love” at Amazon has piqued my interest. If you don’t mind me asking, Anna, do you use a chastity device on Peter? From what Elizabeth and Frank have said, Frank is not allowed to masturbate, but I think they you use the honor system where Frank has to report any lapses. As said, I don’t mind if Wayne masturbates occasionally, as long he doesn’t neglect either me or his household duties. I wonder whether I should rethink that?
I realize that chastity is somewhat off topic for Dan’s blog, as it doesn’t directly relate to DD, unless wives use enforced chastity for purposes of punishment. But if Dan doesn’t mind, I wouldn’t mind hearing the thoughts of any men or women here who have experimented with enforced chastity, either with devices or by the honor system.
While it does arouse me to deny Wayne orgasms, I like to do it immediately after I have had one myself. I love the way I can keep Wayne in suspense after he has finished pleasuring me. I don’t allow him to ask for an orgasm, so he has to wait to see what I say or do once I have recovered from my own orgasm. More often than not, I either give him an orgasm with my hand or allow him to masturbate while kissing my feet or something. But I like to deny him occasionally to maintain that suspense. If he masturbates the next day when I’m not there, I don’t mind, but maybe I should rethink that based on the blurb for that book.
Anyway, a couple of questions. For any guys who have worn chastity devices, do they really work or is cheating still possible? I mean, if you still have to depend on the honor system with a device, what’s the point of the device? Also, are there not practical problems that make the devices more of a pain than they’re worth? It must be difficult to pee, right? I know that a guy would have to sit down or squat like a woman with a device, but even then wouldn’t the device and his underpants start to smell of urine?
If any women have used chastity devices on their men, did you notice any effect on his attitude or behavior? Did it seem worthwhile to you or do you prefer the honor system?
It strikes me that one big inconvenience would be that, from what I have read about devices, guys need to shave their pubic area to be able to wear them comfortably. Is that true? That’s a bit of an issue for me because I think men look silly without pubic hair (Wayne once had to be shaved there for a hernia operation), and I don’t like the feeling of pubic stubble at all.
Dan, if this is too far off topic, I don’t mind you calling it out of bounds. But this discussion has aroused my curiosity about enforced chastity.
Have any of your previous blogs touched on the topic of chastity?
Danielle, it's fine. We have had topics on it before. I don't have much to add to it personally, as we haven't tried any such devices. They also would like be a problem for me, because I go through way too many airport screening processes every month.
DeleteDanielle: There is a lot of information available on this and blogs devoted almost entirely to it. I myself have been doing some form of it for decades. If you don't want to sidetrack this blog, just know there are plenty of alternatives. I've even covered some aspects on my own blog. Just FYI.
DeleteThanks, KD. I guess I should do some more scrolling back. Is there a link to your blog here? I will have a look. I'm not sure whether male chastity is totally sidetracking in the sense that Elizabeth, Anna, and I all seem to agree that for us women it has a bearing on the topic of sex after DD.
DeleteDanielle
KD, I just wanted to let you know that I Googled you and, wow, I am really impressed! I love your cartoons and drawings! They are sexy and amusing at the same time, which is a great combination for me. Actually, I have seen some of those images before in my hubby's collection of femdom images, but I had no idea who you were.
DeleteDanielle
Anna here
ReplyDeleteNo Danielle, I didnt use a chastity device. In fact I read the book a few months ago. What I found most
interesting about the whole book was that the author, who is a writer of erotica, undertook the experiment
after his wife told she felt his women characters didntring true.
The whole idea he undertook this as an experiment and came to discover many things he didnt realize about
women and how he felt towards his wife.
I understand to demand chastity belt to a spouse would be useless unless the man wanted to see how his
focus changed both to his wife, his marriage and how much time he spent with other things first instead of
his marriage.
Anyway it is an easy read. Peter found it a comfort to how we have molded our lives. So a read can't harm and
if it helps a couple worth it to me.
love to all
anna
Thanks, Anna. Wayne and I will definitely look up that book.
ReplyDeleteThanks for you openness to different topics, Dan. I have been scrolling back, and I think your blog is a treasure trove. I wish I had been around for some of the previous topics you covered. I wonder how you manage to come up with a topic to write about every week. On the issue of chastity devices, I can see that it would be impossible for you and your wife to do that, even if you wanted to, due to your frequent air travel. But it doesn't appear that your wife needs to be concerned about your self control in that department anyway. You seem to be less "naughty" than the husbands some of us are married to. ;-)
Danielle
I would phrase it as "differently naughty" than some of the other husbands. ;-)
DeleteThanks for the compliment. And, it definitely is not "one and done" on topics. That would be impossible, given the fairly narrow DD subject matter. Inevitably, we are going to cover the same topic repeatedly. My only loose rule is I try not to do a topic more than once per year. It is actually interesting how the comments change sometimes from year to year. The recent topic of alternative or extra punishments is a case in point. This year, there were a lot of people who were giving and receiving non-spanking punishments. In some prior years, there has been a very strong majority in favor of restricting DD to spankings. But, I shouldn't be surprised, as regular commenters have come and gone over the years.
Oh, I'm sure your wife has many reasons to paddle your bum, Dan! :-)
DeleteBut it sounds like you are the rare kind of guy who doesn't get carried away with self pleasuring.
Danielle
Hi Danielle (and others)
ReplyDeleteI may hold a minority view on chastity devices but believe it’s a sizable minority. Although we experimented briefly with them, neither of us advocate them. Personally I think they are more of a male fantasy rather than a real life tool. My wife does control masturbation strictly and has done so from the beginning of our relationship and I support her decision completely. I think uncontrolled male masturbation can destroy an otherwise good relationship and have personally experienced that. But she relies on my confessing if I slip or her ability to detect it with interrogation. We both believe that using a mechanical device is a cop out as well as only a temporary fix that doesn't build new habits or strengthen my resolve. As soon as the device is removed the problem re-emerges. I respect the (apparently) many couples who do use a device but believe it doesn't solve the long term problem of husbands who masturbate outside the relationship.
Alan
Thanks for that thoughtful reply, Alan. It makes a lot of sense.
DeleteDanielle
N. (L's first wife) was the one who told - and showed - me that she enjoyed spanking or whipping her husband (and also that it improved their sex life!) What I also learned was that L. was turned on by his wife's firm discipline - and this was one of the reasons (or maybe the major one!) for me to follow her example when we got married... L. gets spanked or whipped more or less three times a week - and sex usually follows (to our mutual enjoyment)
ReplyDeleteJ.
This is Elizabeth. Our DD is on the honor system and Frank is very committed to self-reporting, so we feel no need for chastity devices, reporting software, etc. Plus, if he were in a chastity device his erection would not be on display!
ReplyDeleteI have not mentioned that as one of the major changes in our sex life since DD. With him not madturbating, and with me being more aggressive sexually so he never knows when or what I might initiate, he is hard a great deal of the time - despite his advanced age! And it is really good for a woman's ego for a man to be hard for her so much.
That ties into another question that has been asked on here recently about whether all spanking is punishment in our DD relationship. For us the answer is yes. I agree with Dan that it would be confusing and potentially lessen the effectiveness if I gave Frank erotic or play spankings. But other punishments have become playful. I mentioned previously that if I am paddling him for not doing a chore, I might make him do it immediately - naked and with his red bottom on display. He finds that immensely arousing, and I also began enjoying seeing his hard-on flop around the living room while he vacuumed and I relaxed with a glass of wine. The power exchange is as intoxicating as the alcohol.
So ... over time I began "suggesting" that he take off his clothes to do chores on other days than Friday. And he loves it. We discovered the fetish CFNM (clothed female, naked male), and with no kids in the house we engage in it fairly regularly (maybe once a week). He never knows when I might get so turned on as to take full advantage of what is flopping around in front of me, or just play with it a bit, or have him service me without touching it, or if I will totally ignore him. It's a lot of fun!
Elizabeth
PS. I love watching him doing "women's work" while in a "manly way"!
DeleteHi Elizabeth,
DeleteIt sounds like you have a great thing going with Frank! You are right: seeing your man aroused is arousing for a woman. I’m a bit jealous that your guy doesn’t have my guy’s problems with erectile dysfunction, but Wayne and I still have some sexy fun. He still gets visibly aroused, even if his erections are less than fully functional, and I can increase his arousal by teasing him about that. Fortunately, his tongue is perfectly functional and he is very enthusiastic in his role as keeper of my sex toys! ;-)
Yes, yes ,yes to making hubbies do housework with a red bum on display while you enjoy a glass of wine! It’s amazing how we spanking wives find our way to the same pleasures.
Danielle
Answering your question to us wives directly and without beating about the bush, yes, I get turned on by spanking my husband and it leaves me very aroused by the time I am finished. When we first got married and started practicing the DD lifestyle, I couldn't help but find that a little weird. However, my husband and I have generally been quite open with each other, so a few months down the line, I mentioned it to him and he assured me that it was entirely normal.
ReplyDelete