To see a full-size view of the images posted, just click on them.

RULES FOR POSTING COMMENTS: This blog is meant to be interactive. Please utilize the comment feature to respond to posts that prompt a reaction. You do not have to agree with me to post, but I do ask that your comment pertain to the post itself. I also ask that "anonymous" guests attach some sort of name to their comments so readers can tell everyone apart. (If you cannot follow these simple rules, your post may be DELETED or at the very least mocked for the entertainment of those who can respect my guidelines.)

Monday, October 23, 2017

Eventful weekend

not me and the genders are get the idea.

It has been a whirlwind of a weekend! Rosa took Friday off and I left my last post just before we went out the door. After that..............we got there and set up, went hiking, found a pretty waterfall that eluded us on our prior visit, ate, talked, fished, told scary stories around the campfire, slept pretty comfortably on an unusually chilly night, got up, found our car battery died, had a Ranger give us a jump charge, hiked some more so I could show Rosa the setting that inspired a few scenes in my "Woman of the Well" story, packed up, got home, immediately showered and dressed for a formal quinceanera, went to eat, drink, and talk, came home, got up on Sunday to unpack, had my son come over with a package he ordered for us, took Ana back to her apartment, then had dinner with Marta & Wally and two other friends before calling it a night.

(Think we packed enough in?)

And in the midst of all that............yes........we did manage to sneak in two separate outdoor switchings. The first we did when we were hiking in the spot where the beautiful waterfall was. There were other people around, so we just kept going deeper into the woods. Rosa and I had already discussed giving this a try and she was very willing. So when I found a good switch candidate and started to cut it, she didn't seem surprised. Once cut we walked some more and when it seemed we were fairly isolated, I asked if she was willing to give it a try.

She agreed, and I just dropped my pants and put my hands on a fallen log with my bent butt jutting out. She had never used a longer, supple switch before and it took her a few swishes before figuring it out, but she took to it very quickly and naturally. As she got her swing and placement better the last few were pretty effective. But overall, we only did about 25 and then opted to keep moving.

Later that day, I went behind our site to find some firewood and realized we had a pretty prime location for another round right in our own 'backyard'. Our two adjoining 'neighbors' were both out and I asked Rosa if she wanted to deliver another set. She had seemed to like the switch and not only said so, but was walking around after the first session swishing the thing through the air. (I teased her that she was acting like the young Arthur in "Excalibur", swinging his newly-won sword around in the woods with Merlin.)

She gave me 30 more and these were all stinging beauties! Ouch! She had mastered the art in just one prior try-out and now was pretty adept at getting the placement and sting just right. From my end the switchings hurt so that I was having difficulty taking them at the time.....and I noticed in both cases my bottom would kind of feel fine right after she stopped, only to grow in burn once I pulled my pants up. Still, I think I would like to have a more grueling session at some point and since Rosa told me to keep the switch and bring it home where she could use it in private.....that could very well happen. So there you are. Perhaps not an adventure of epic proportion.....but true, and very enjoyable as a 'fun first' (and second)  for us. We do a lot of hiking, and I do think now that this door has opened, I could end up getting switched in other places......provided we have enough privacy to do it.  

Friday, October 20, 2017

Heading out

Rosa and I will be leaving for our short camping trip be good while we're gone. (And maybe a few of the several hundred who visit might want to surprise me with a comment or two to greet me on my return? Other than a couple of loyal regulars, it has been DEAD around here. Surely one of you must have something to say? ......Oh and that doesn't apply to you, Sean, unless it's a pertinent comment with your real name, OK?)

See you in a couple of days...........hopefully with a few stripes across my butt!

Thursday, October 19, 2017

I dare you.... look at this and not laugh:

I suppose this is the proposed solution for a woman with a bestiality fetish who lives in a "no pets" apartment? Whatever it's fucking hysterical!

Some of the things that get me are:

What's with the giant bell on the collar? Who puts a bell on a dog? .....especially a fake dog? It's not going to run away or chase cats.

The girl......who looks a lot like Emma Roberts.....has THE goofiest 'getting fucked' expression I've seen.

She's also wearing stockings and 'fuck me' heels. Is she trying to look sexy for the fake dog? Honey, he can't see you. Not only is he fake.....but he doesn't even have eyes!

And just look at that dog! Even if the dazed bimbo wasn't in the picture, that thing would still crack me up all by itself. It looks like a robot dog wearing a cat costume. And how do you explain that thing to guests?

No, say what you will, but this is some priceless shit!

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Natural switches

It has been a very long time since I've twisted and turned under a stingy switch cut from the wild. In fact, I don't recall Rosa and I ever engaging in this. However, this Friday Rosa and I are heading off on a short, one-overnight camping trip and have already discussed finding an appropriate time and place to give this a try.

One thing about plans though, is they never can be counted on, and any number of things could prevent this from happening.......but I'm hoping it does. We have a short list of activities we want to indulge in while out in the woods, mostly vanilla in nature, but happily the otherwise normal agenda DOES feature a mutually-desired switching as something of a priority. 

Since I am familiar with this campground, I have a plan that should allow us to discreetly get in a few good licks, but I also know that the place is very solidly booked for this weekend. I know of a trail that is not as popular as some of the others, and since Rosa wants to get some nature photography in, I thought we could combine the two. So as she takes her shots, I will be scouting out switch material ( I tend to look for black birch trees with a bunch of 'suckers' sprouting from its base ) and a good spot to use them. Thankfully switches......while very stingy AND very effective at leaving plump, livid welts.....are also very quiet.

Absolute WORST case? I'll cut some before we leave on Saturday and soak them in some water so Rosa can try them out on me on Sunday in the privacy of our home.

No switches in this shot, but I liked it anyway. Besides, that guy's butt looks pretty tender even if it wasn't a whippy branch that did the damage!

On a side note, I did notice that in looking for an appropriate image to accompany this post, that the paucity of outdoor F/m switching photos is staggering! The ratio of these to M/f, F/f, and even M/m dynamics is incomprehensible. I simply cannot believe this simple act, while popular enough when the woman is bent over, occurs so infrequently with men on the receiving end. I found dozens of M/f switching shots......maybe more, and only about two (shown here) with a guy getting it from a lady. What's up with that?

Monday, October 16, 2017


In my last post, "Icebreaker", I told of our return to discipline via a bit of pre-conditioning. (One might say 'tenderizing'?) So it should be of no surprise that Saturday Rosa took the opportunity of some in-house privacy to get down to some more serious spanking.

I got the full experience as a result and had a fairly difficult time enduring it. At one point I even emitted one of my 'unhappy grunts' which is a noise I make when I REALLY hate how the spanking is going. Rosa asked me what was wrong and I told her, and to her credit she just continued along until she was satisfied.

Afterwards, we decided to take advantage of the rare privacy and add some 'extras' to the post-spanking me wearing a particular pair of pouch panties that, instead of a thong strap up the back, are more like a very lacy jock strap. 

A bit like this but pink and with a shorter 'skirt'.

The open rear and lack of a strip of material going up the buttcrack allowed for full view of my spanked cheeks and the glass butt plug I would also be wearing. 

THIS be precise.

Finishing off the look was a black & white polka-dotted apron I wear when I am in "servant mode".......which I was.  BUT.......before 'dressing up', it was over Rosa's lap for one more spanking! This one was a very short but VERY hard. The two punishments combined were more than enough to leave me very contrite and sore......and in a very subby, mushball mood. And after dressing, plugging, and getting everything Rosa wanted, I just hung out at her feet while she relaxed, smooching her tootsies while hot-bottomed and plugged.

Not a bad place to be!

Saturday left us both in a mood and Sunday morning became the perfect time for a little mutual romance......concluding with a one-sided orgasm for Rosa (as readers may recall, I am to remain chaste until the 27th) and just some frustrating teasing for me.......along with more foot kissing. Not a bad weekend.....even if my hinder was fairly stingy for most of it.

Friday, October 13, 2017


This past Wednesday, Rosa and I had some 'private time' which she used to deal with something I was not doing that was bugging her. It was our first full-on punishment spanking in a while and she really let loose. 

Thankfully the two short preliminaries I blogged about did help in getting me back to a more receptive state......otherwise I probably never would have been able to handle what she gave me Wednesday. Even still, I can't say it was 'fun'......and I couldn't believe how long it went on for. Wow, was I sore afterwards!

It did help though. I think it helped both of us actually. Now the question will be if Rosa maintains this level of discipline going forward?

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Having your cake....

....and eating it too? Funny how this whole thing began with something as simple as a wedding cake. You'd think wedding cakes must be endowed with special powers of affirmation and permanence.......odd considering that they are essentially foods that will be eaten and disappear. And hell.....I had a wedding cake.......and now I'm divorced and with someone else. It's not like the cake preserved my marriage.....a cake can't even preserve itself. But here we are.

An ostensibly "Christian" bakery decided that it would be more Christian to refuse service than to embrace fellow 'sinners' in the manner their god advised. And as a result, a cake for a homosexual wedding became the centerpiece of a controversy rather than a reception table.

In my last post I touched on a few key questions that I feel are important in understanding this controversy. The one I want to address now, is whether a person can use their religion to ARBITRARILY discriminate? Let's look at the "Christian" bakery. Biblically speaking, there are several verses that denounce homosexuality. Now, I know there is a lot of contention over what these verses actually mean, but let's just give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that the Christian Bible condemns homosexual behavior.  Fair enough. The Bible is a rule book in many ways, so it's not unusual to find a lot of rules in it. And a good Christian would naturally want to live by those rules. And there's the problem.

There are a LOT of rules. One in particular, would probably be of prime concern to a devout wedding cake baker: divorce is wrong. And this is a rule Jesus himself made pretty clear....without any of the ambiguity over homosexuality:

1  Corinthians: But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 5:31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mark 10:2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied. 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Yep. You'd have to admit that if you were a follower of this Jesus guy, divorce is pretty clearly a no-no. So, here's my question: If one were to go back into the records of that bakery, could they find where they ever baked a wedding cake for a second marriage where the first marriage did not end in one spouse's death? Given the high incidence of divorce in America, my guess is that they did. And if they did, where was their 'religious belief' hiding at that moment?

Another thing at issue here is something I learned as an HR manager: certain Federal laws (pardon the expression) trump everything else. In other words, a group that is granted 'protected status' under Federal Law cannot be discriminated against while a group who has not been granted such status, can. ( I remember a fictitious HR scenario where one co-worker routinely tormented another co-worker by placing their lunch out of their reach because they were bound to a wheelchair. This was not only an asshole thing to do, but it violated Federal Law by discriminating against a Federally protected group....the handicapped.....and as a result was considered VERY bad. However, I asked our corporate lawyer if the same gravity would apply to the same situation if the targeted victim was not handicapped, but merely short? Nope. Short people are not a protected group.) (Randy Newman was onto something I guess). Race, religion, gender, ethnicity, disability, and age are all Federally protected against discrimination, so if an old, dark-skinned, Philistine male with one leg wanted service from a Christian business......guess what?

Anyway, back to wedding cakes. One group has recently come up with a strategy to sort of stick it to these discriminating Christian bakeries: The Satanic Temple*. They are advocating that people go to these bakeries and order Satanic Wedding cakes! (link)

The idea being that while a Gay couple cannot rely on Federal protection, a religion....CAN! Charmingly brilliant.

But in all honesty......IF.......IF this issue was TRULY about 'religious freedom', I might lean towards the rights of the vendor over those of the customer. After all, the customer can go elsewhere....and maybe that would be the best revenge. There's a great example of this in the life of Harvey Milk, his camera shop, and the fates of pro-Gay and anti-Gay businesses in the Castro section of San Francisco in the 1970s. But I don't believe this is anything more than an attempt to legalize hate towards a selectively targeted group in favor of another group, of one predominant color, and of one predominant religion............and that IS  un-Constitutional.

*For more interesting things being done by this 'religion', check out their innovative battle in Missouri (link)