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.)

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Daytime TV

I don't watch much TV. We don't even have cable or satellite, the only thing we pay for is Netflix. So my only exposure to the typical fare I suppose most Americans enjoy is when I am in a hospital or doctor's waiting room. (Which is where I was this morning.)

Now I don't understand why people who are not feeling well to begin with and are probably a little nervous about their visit, need to be subjected to Kelly Ripa or Rachel Ray? It seems unnecessarily cruel. I even wonder if these places get some sort of kick-back from these shows? Why else are they always on EVERYWHERE you go?

I can't see that open mouth without wanting to stuff a live grenade in it.

Years ago, when my mother was sick and I'd bring her for her radiation treatments, there was Kelly and Rachel. Now, years later, they are still on......along with their vapid squealing audiences. UGH!

Rachel, how did you ever get a cooking show.....and keep it?

The pervasiveness of these shows, along with shows for when your appointments are later in the day and include things like "The View" or "Ellen" (which are almost as bad) is rampant. It doesn't matter whether it's a doctor, a dentist, a lab place, or even the waiting room at Pep boys, there they are. Do people really like this shit? It seems they must.

For me though, after a few minutes of hearing their annoying voices, and their catch phrases, and the insipid drivel they end up discussing, I am so wound up and full of anxiety that even if I felt fine BEFORE seeing my doctor, I go into the exam room craving a Xanax.

But maybe I'm too much of a snob when it comes to things "pop culture-like"? Maybe I should relax and give in to my baser instincts like generations do now and have done before? And so in that vein, since I think  that historically the most popular form of low-brow entertainment for the masses used to be the gladiatorial games in the Roman Coliseum, I have a proposal:

If I have to be subjected to Kelly Ripa and Rachel Ray, can they at least be engaged in bloody combat? It doesn't have to be old-fashioned with swords and spears. In fact I think chainsaws would be an excellent choice of weapons for our modern age. Maybe if that was on TV, I wouldn't mind so much. I tend to think these ladies might actually seem less grating if they were fighting for their lives. And even if I'm wrong, they wouldn't be annoying for long.

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

Of Mace & Men

 A while back I wrote a post....that was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.... about using a mace on Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Shakira. (And as you may recall no one seemed to have a problem with me doing this to Shakira. LOL) But lately I have become so aggravated with something else that has been going on for a while and that has not stopped. As a result I want to rescind my wish for legal "macing rights" for these three women and exchange it for a new one:

I want it to be legal to hit a person with my mace, not for merely expressing an opinion I find distasteful or even abhorrent, but if while doing so they use a disparaging nickname or adjective right before their target's name.

This is a commercial shot of the mace I own. It's a replica of a German mace made and sold by Museum Replicas Ltd. It's a beautiful piece and much lighter than you might think. Still those flanges are designed to rip through plate armor, so imagine their effect on loose dentures.

If someone wants to accuse Hillary Clinton of being covertly corrupt? Fine. I might even compare notes with you on that one. But.....if in doing so you feel compelled to call her "Crooked Hillary" ......out comes my mace!

You want to tease Elizabeth Warren about her purported heritage? Go for it! With 23 & Me I think she could easily back up her claims. But, even if you want to call her out on this,  she's 'Elizabeth Warren' not "Pocahontas". "Pocahontas" gets you the mace!

And there is obviously someone who can't seem to stop doing this. (link) And as such, I want macing rights whenever he does it. We are not in sixth grade for crying out loud! Or third grade for that matter! What the fuck is with this shit? Bad enough he wants to use the presidency as his bully pulpit to mock rather than lead, but does he have to do it like a child? This crude sort of mockery stopped being funny when I sprouted hair below my neck. And even before, it was borderline at best.

Even when I agree with him on someone, (rare but not unheard of) I can't because of the taste of shit in my mouth from the stupid little nickname he attaches. Just shut the fuck up already with that!!!! It's classless, juvenile, and insipid. I just want to scream every time I read one! ARRRRRRRGHHHHHH!!!!!  But then again, I guess it's an accurate reflection of the person doing it.

And WTF? Now he's got Mike Huckabee doing it too? Where's my mace?

Friday, August 3, 2018

Public Enemy

So yesterday's exchange between Jim Acosta and Sarah Huckabee Sanders raises an interesting question: Who is the REAL 'enemy of the people'?

Is is really these folks?

Admittedly at their worst, these people can be lazy, biased, and obsessed with sound bytes over substance.....but does that make them our 'enemy'? And besides, at their best, they are also the ones who have brought important information out of the shadows and fact-checked liars.

Or is it this person?

At her worst she is a smarmy, evasive, passive/aggressive liar. And at her best she is a smarmy, evasive, passive/aggressive liar. So......she's consistent. But to be fair, she is just doing her job just as the press is doing theirs.

And her near-impossible job is to try to make the shit that pours of of THIS guy's mouth sound reasonable and positive:

So this "enemy of the people"  question really comes down to, not just character flaws, or nasty traits, or even veracity, but IMPACT. Of these candidates for 'enemy' only one has the power to make things happen or not happen versus just reporting (honestly or dishonestly) about it. And if that person enacts policies that threaten the very health of the planet, (like rolling back EPA standards) just to make it easier for corporations to make bigger profits, would HE not be the true "enemy of the people" everywhere?

Thursday, August 2, 2018


Every now and then when one is involved in the DD online community, you bump into the occasional CDD person. If you listen to them (and can keep from snickering) AND you have limited knowledge of the Christian Bible, you may be lulled into thinking that even if you don’t agree with what they say, that there is at least some theological basis behind it. But if you do a bit of research you will soon find that CDD is not organized religion but little more than organized rationalization. It’s a way where religious folks who happen to have been born with a kinky streak can convince themselves that they are not evil perverts but rather true devotees of their faith. 

What little girl DOESN'T want to get spanked by Jesus?

The vast majority of CDD is M/f in dynamic. And these people have a piece of scripture they love to flash more than their butts over a lap:

Colossians 3:18 “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”

Basically “Colossians” is one of the several epistles written by St. Paul. Now, you have to admit that for a guy who only supposedly ‘met’ Jesus in a dream on the road to Damascus, he had a lot to say about how Christianity should work. He even went toe-to-toe with St. Peter, who purportedly DID hang out with Jesus (fishing buddies no less), as to how he was right and Peter was wrong in advancing the ‘church’. ( Imagine having the balls to do that…….and win? )  And, he wrote a lot of letters. (link) 

Jesus giving Peter a hand after a fishing trip got weird.

Now, I realize Paul is considered the main reason why Christianity spread rather than just remaining some reformed offshoot of Judaism, but when you get right down to it…...he was really kind of an asshole. Some of the most problematic New Testament passages can be traced right back to one of his letters to someone. So it is of no great surprise that the consistently misogynist Paul would say something like that….especially when he also said stuff like this: 

In his letter to Timothy: “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

Or how about 1 Corinthians 14:33-35? "As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches, They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

Yeah old Paul was a real fan of the ladies, huh. Still, despite this heavy advocacy of male supremacy, you can still find good Christian couples who find a way around all of it and end up in F/m DD dynamics and still claim to be following Christian dogma. How can that be? Well, you do remember that I said that ALL of this is an exercise in creative rationalization? Theirs is just another one.

Protest art attacking the biblical justification of corporal punishment in schools.

The Christian Bible is loaded with stuff. Much of it contradicts itself much in the way traditional sayings do ( “Haste makes waste.”/ “He who hesitates, is lost”) So if you already have an idea for something you have plenty to sift through in order to cherry pick your scriptural support. And if even that doesn’t work?  just incorrectly interpret a passage to  your own liking. People do it all the time! Even from behind a podium. (link)

And the reason I say all this is because if you actually take the concept of putting an adult person across your lap for being a brat, you won't find a single shred of scriptural justification for it. Kids? yes. Slaves? yes'll even find it for judicial punishments (as long as you limit the count to no more than 40. Deuteronomy 25:3 ) But spanking a spouse? Nope. Jesus did not seem to have much to say on that one. He also was strangely silent on butt plugs, nipple clips, and studded collars. Never once did he discuss "maintenance versus punishment spanking". Not even on the "mount".

Now I don’t really care what anyone does or wants to believe…...especially if their doing so provides me with some free, side-splitting chuckles……… but there are real dangers mixed up in this nonsense. Just as any relationship can spawn abuse, D/s relationships have the potential for even worse outcomes, and when the rationale for the abuse becomes clouded with religious justification, you have a recipe for some hard core manipulation. And these cases have happened.

Now I love DD and am a huge advocate for it where it is consensual, but I believe we should do things with our eyes open and our minds clear, not because we feel some god wants it a certain way….especially when that “god-directed way” is really just OUR way supported with whatever rationalization we can weave around our own shit.

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Pretty clear

OK, so here's a tweet from our president:

 Donald J. Trump


..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!
9:24 AM - Aug 1, 2018


59.1K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy


So, I don't see much point in wasting anymore time either. This pretty much delivers all any sane person would need to conclude that the president is openly, blatantly, and petulantly obstructing justice. It's all right there in his own words for all of America to see. What else do we need? It's pretty much 'game, set, and match' in one tweet. 

I would need to hear a solid, convincing argument that would explain why impeachment proceedings should not commence immediately, even with a current Republican majority. Surely you don't have to be a Democrat to be able to read what this says. (Hell, I'm not a Democrat and it's downright crystal to me.) Is there any way ANY person can read this, regardless of their personal politics, and NOT see obstruction? 

He addresses Sessions specifically,( and he is the man's boss,) and says exactly what he should do. If you were Sessions, would a direct and angry tweet from your boss be something you'd just laugh off and ignore? And even if you did, would you not worry that you could be on thin ice if you don't act on the order? That's pretty direct pressure on an Attorney General to stop an investigation. And that's obstruction.

Can any of the anthem-standing, "Proud to be an American"-singing folks explain how they can go on and on about pride, and freedom, and dead, sacrificing veterans, and all that hoopla that supposedly separates us from a monarchy or dictatorship .....and not be gravely offended that a sitting president could say such a thing and get away with it? Are the Founding Fathers not rolling in their graves and vomiting? Is this America made "great again" or threatened at its very foundation?

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

July thoughts

So my month of voluntary dares is officially over and I’m not quite sure how I feel about it all. On one hand I definitely enjoyed having my most loyal readers getting a chance to toss an idea my way and then doing my best to oblige. And so in that regard, I would have to say those specific interactions with those of you who participated were very positive. So….thanks!

I was going to do a bit of a mini-review of each one but decided to just look at the whole month as an experimental adventure and not get too caught up in specifics.  I’m also not sure if I’m going to do another one of these months next year, but that is a long way off and I may end up changing my mind several times before next July arrives.

One aspect of “Jackass July” that didn’t surprise me was the extreme ratio of female to male contributors. I sort of guessed that a female would be more willing to dare a male to do something than another male. And that was fine. Makes total sense. But on the other hand, I thought the dares in conjunction with the posts on embarrassment in general would have prompted more discussion or personal revelation on the issue of embarrassment from both genders, and that didn’t really happen. I guess people are more reluctant to discuss the issue than I imagined.

Another thing that I didn’t expect was dealing with feelings not just centered on my own sense of embarrassment over some of the images, but a kind of worry that perhaps some were too “out there” for the blog. But since none of the posts got any critical comments to that effect, I guess it wasn’t as big a deal as I thought it might be.

Either way, it’s not like this is going to be a continuing feature, and I will soon be back to posting the usual array of topics that I have tackled in the past, so if anyone WAS turned off by anything, they won’t have to worry going forward.

As for my personal 'goal’ in trying to elicit a certain response in myself? That too was a mixed bag, with some dares being more fun than embarrassing and others being more challenging than embarrassing. But that too makes sense. Anyway, besides learning a few things, I definitely enjoyed the run…………………. and I hope you all did too. 

Thanks again to all who contributed and special thanks to my Monster, Ana, for acting as referee for the event as well as my camera person for the video. ( And now back to our regularly scheduled program.)

Friday, July 27, 2018

Squid Dare #2

Yes, TWO POSTS in one day! 

Anyway, the second squid dare deals with an entirely different kind of embarrassment: the revealing of a major modesty center, not only in its 'natural' state, but while "plugged' with a very large intruder, AND after.........showing the world the sad, sore result of having something that big stretching you out! So, since you've already seen the insertion process, here are the actual dare pictures:


"DURING". (You have to wear a harness with a bullet-shaped plug or it will just drop....or shoot....out of you as soon as you move.)

And "AFTER". (and don't think I'm not blushing as I contemplate having to hit the "Publish" button with this photo!)

Just to let those of you less familiar with large plugs know, the body does a heluva quick job recovering from stuff and the immediate raw-looking result of being plugged is quite temporary. Sometimes if the plug has been worn for a long time, there will be some residual tenderness even the next day, but normally you're 'back to normal' pretty quickly. (But.....that still doesn't mean that being seen this way is any less embarrassing!)

And with that, I am now all caught up with the dares issued to me! I hope everyone had a good time having their dares followed. (I would think it's at least a little cool having someone obey an embarrassing command from afar. LOL)

[ Next week I will discuss the dares in general......and specifically in terms of how they impacted me......physically and emotionally.]