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.)

Sunday, February 28, 2021

A day (or 2) in the life...

 "You're a what? You live how? What do all these initialisms mean, these 'DD's' and 'FLR's' and 'D/s's'? And what's with this 'chastity-thing'?" These are the likely thoughts of anyone hearing of the various aspects and manifestations of the entire realm of TTWD. And to a vanilla, or even a fellow kinkster with a different set of quirks, those questions are valid. 

So, as a combination update and example of a somewhat typical lowkey weekend, here's how Rosa and I spent the last couple of days and how FLR and DD played into it all. 

Friday evening: Dinner with Wally & Marta, brought a pitcher of cocktails and we watched the last episodes of "The Flight Attendant". Marta had specifically requested a particular bourbon, ginger, and pear drink and I made a conscious effort to bring it. She smiled when I showed it to her with a kind of teasing "good boy, you listened and remembered" kind of comment. Nothing major, just a kind of subtle understanding that her words are not just suggestions for me but something to be taken somewhat seriously. In essence she knew she was kind of being "obeyed" and felt smug and happy.

Rosa took this shot on Friday evening.

Saturday: Rosa and I lazed a bit and Rosa made breakfast. Later she did some repeated tease and stops while I passionately kissed her feet .....and then had me locked up. I later gave her a requested pedicure. 

Perfect post-pedicure feet. (a past photo though)

No sex or o's for either of us but a lot of playful banter and interaction through the day.....especially enhanced by my locked condition. We discussed the remote-controlled machine pegging "game" and Rosa said she was definitely up for it, bit wanted to be a particular mood....which she wasn't feeling at the time.  Later I made her a couple of special cocktails in the evening.

Sunday: Rosa snuggled up to me early and wanted an O. She got one. I was still locked. Then she asked for coffee and read her phone while I snuggled at her feet and kissed them for quite a while......still locked. We discussed our day. I asked if she wanted me dressed or encumbered in any special way and she demurred but said she WAS going to spank me after breakfast for something I said the night before in a Skype call with a friend. Nothing horrible just something that bugged her. I made breakfast and we chatted, and then after her shower she spanked me. Nothing too bad, just a quick hard one. She said she really wasn't all that mad or upset. (I think she just wanted an excuse. LOL) I have been told she will tease me again later and maybe give me an O too......but it's not guaranteed.  And here I am now around noon typing this for you all......and yes, I am still locked and feeling quite horny. We will just go about our day for a bit and then....the fun starts again.

Not from this morning, but a very accurate depiction of it.

And that's what DD/FLR is for us during unexceptional times when there is really nothing major pressing or planned. Just a day...or two.....in the life of a kinky couple into cocktails.

Friday, February 26, 2021

White on tan on white

It's Friday and in that spirit, I'm keeping it light and brief. Today we will look at a fetish combo: nudes......with tanlines............IN THE SNOW! The reason this will be brief is because you just can't find too many of these.

Here we go......

The panties kind of throw this off for me, but considering the paucity of choices, I couldn't be too picky.

Rustic.

Why should kids have all the fun?


Putting on quite a show.


And one for the ladies. The tanlines aren't really pronounced but they're there.....and  I had to really dig to find this one. Especially since Merry prefers rear shots to frontals. (This is from a very private collection.)




Thursday, February 25, 2021

Muscles

The massive muscles of a trained bodybuilder prompt polar reactions. 

(Edited to remove the wrong video. This is the link to the right one:) LINK

"Dammit, Janet!"

And men definitely have it easier. Lots of ladies will drool over an Arnold in his prime.....and what are most superheroes other than musclebound icons? Muscled hero worship goes back to Herakles and Gilgamesh.


Der Ahnold

 But what about when the muscles adorn a female body? 

Why do large breasts on female bodybuilders look glued on ?

That's better! (Nice armpits too. LOL)

I think for some the notion of a muscle runs contrary to femininity, but is it? Or is it a matter of degree?

How's this softer version working for you?

But whether you find muscles attractive in a visual sense, there is no denying that they contribute to a particular Amazonian vibe in a kinky environment.

Is he impressed by her flexing, or worried about that strap-on?

What accentuates the feminizing of a submissive male more than a muscled Amazon?

Ultimately whether muscles are a sport, a health goal, attractive, unattractive, or appealing as a fetish, depends entirely on the viewer or participant. What about you? 
Does a whipping from a muscled woman hurt more?

Is this sexy, or a turn-off?

Is there a middle ground?














Wednesday, February 24, 2021

New painting

Keeping the 'art theme' going a bit longer......(but kinky folks, stay with me, there's a return to kink at the end of this post). Yesterday I dragged out the paints and followed through on an old request from my Honey for a particular type/style of painting. She had found this small gold frame that was severely horizontal, making the painting size 12" x 4"........practically a miniature (not something I'm used to).

To be honest, her request intimidated me. (true) And that's why I procrastinated so long. But whether it was my Covid scare or whatever, I recently just made up my mind to do it. So I asked her to choose among some landscape photos we both had taken over the recent years and she chose one with a sunrise by a lake with some severe angles and shadows. 

To be honest, it wasn't easy to work this small for me, especially now with a less steady hand, but I managed to finish it in one day.  It's not great, but she loves it. Me? I'm not sure. I keep seeing what I don't like, BUT it's just one painting......like losing one game in a season, right? LOL

This is the shot she picked.

And this is how it turned out. I altered the palette a bit to suit Rosa's desire for a lighter, brighter piece, and modified the subject a bit to fit the severely narrow space. I simply have never done anything like this before. I also signed the piece with my full name and for here edited it out.

This is also a good example of how using a photo does not mean you are relying on it. Painting is about choices and for me, the photo is just a starting point.....and no, I did not trace over it or project it onto the panel. I drew it myself with the photo merely as a model. LOL

I now have a subject I have wanted to do for about a year that I now feel ready to undertake. It is a kind of late homage  to my father. It is certainly a subject he would have loved. 

And now in keeping with Art & Kink....and as a treat for those who are getting sick of art lessons on a kinky blog.......




I like this for MANY reasons. First and foremost, the theme resonates with me since I used to take drawings I did when I was young and color in their butts. I also used real models later in life, but never did exactly what happened here. Still I find I identify with the blonde. And the other thing I like is that it feels like an allegory for the revenge of the altered (or captioned) model who did not consent to be altered. 








Monday, February 22, 2021

Exposed to Art

 

I've used this before, but it's worth showing again, as I'm sure what she's flashing is too.

Today's post is going t be a little different. I'm going to do a little of what Dan does: a bit of background, a statement of the topic, and then leave it up to you all to respond with your own experiences.

Recently there has been a kind of "art-theme" going. Two different discussions here coincided with a joint exploration between Rosa and myself of potential canvas prints for our recently-repainted (in a different color theme) bedroom. We have been seriously considering 'something Cezanne'.

A top contender, but not a finalized choice.

I grew up around art. My father was a technical illustrator who painted as a serious hobby. We went to local art shows and competed for ribbons. And when I was old enough, he began to teach me and soon I was competing on a junior level. Going to museums was a common vacation trip. And eventually I went to art school (Pratt in NY) for my Masters in Fine Art Painting. ( a mistake for several reasons but I did learn a lot).

A favorite BY a favorite. Sargent's "Carnation Lily Rose".

But rather than go into life choices, I want to explore the role of art in people's lives. Obviously some live for it, others aren't moved, and most probably live somewhere in-between. What about you? What is your "relationship" with art......and by "art" I mean Art with the big "A", though not limited just to painting but any of the "visual arts"?

A classic Rothko. Modern Art is often the turn-off to many who otherwise feel open to Art in general.

Brett brought up another interesting side-discussion. I'll paraphrase it as: "when you DO seek out art, how much are you driven by subject versus execution?" Brett mentioned that he likes a blend of both ideally, but when it came to kinky art, the subject was more important. But please don't focus solely on the kinky for this topic. 

How about a Bierstadt for over that sofa?

So, for some thought-starters, besides the ones already expressed: how would you rate your knowledge of art? Do you consider yourself a person with a sense of style? What do you have hanging in your home (and for this discussion, please don't tell me 'my naked partner from a ceiling hook'. We'll save that for another day) ? LOL Do have a favorite artist and why? Do you own any of those art "table books", which one(s)?  On vacations to other cities, are Art Museums a frequent destination? How important is understanding art to you as a person and as a parent? Do you want your kids to learn about it and do you foster that interest? And basically what do you think "Art" is or should be? 

So let's see what you all have to say. I personally am very interested in seeing what you all think. 





Friday, February 19, 2021

Drawing

On Dan’s blog there has been some discussion of the work of Barbara O’Toole. O’Toole’s work is well-known and her reputation is solid with Femdom fans. I myself enjoy some of her work, but I do so while recognizing it for what I strongly believe it is: high quality manip. I say this because of how the work struck me initially and then how that reaction was reaffirmed by certain pieces that are clearly doctored photos.

This is clearly a photo composite, and there is the "Barb" signature in the corner. Now look at the placement, expressions, and theme. Other than the handling of color and the lack of anything layered over the images, does this really look much different than any other O'Toole work? Put in a blank background, draw over the photo and ...........

....you have this more "classic" Barb manip. The faces are the same . the placement is the same. A typical Barb composition has the pronounced foreground figures with another behind them but rarely in a graduated way. 

Subjects have a way of occupying space, whether it’s in real life or a photo.....just look around your room. In painting, an artist attempting realism to some degree paints that cohesive atmosphere into the composition. Anything that ignores that relationship of object to space and to other objects risks resembling paper dolls laid on a background photo….or “Colorforms” for those who remember those. LOL

Colorforms Monster set from the 1960's.

Thomas Eakins' 'The Gross Clinic'. Not a photo or a manip but an oil painting that shows spatial depth and the relationship of figures to one another and to the space they occupy.

Now look how the accentuated outlines of each figure separates them from their environment....and in this case, what a stark, empty environment it is. The woman on the left in particular feels like a detailed Colorform.

Where a manipulated photo can appear more convincing is in situations where the depth of the photo is maintained and the underlying photo obscured.

This is very convincing as a drawing and if this was the only piece O'Toole ever produced I'd have a hard time claiming it was a manip.......but it's not the only piece and as I said to Dan, "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus". .

Does the boy's pose here seem convincing? Or that of the interior? And yet, look at the facial detail. Who renders a face so meticulously and then just slaps a bland roof panel across the top in a drawing? And can you spot the things that are remnants of the original photo sources and the things that were drawn? Look at the boy's face in relation to the women.

Does this feel natural? Yet look at the instances of individual realism. It is very suspicious for an artist to possess the skill to render a figure or background in such detail and yet not be able to paint them INTO their shared environment. So one is left with the question of "just how much of this is original?" Did this start out like any drawing or illustration or painting with a blank space that the artist then filled with their skill? Compare this to the Eakins.

There is also a kind of 'art logic' argument to my assertion that these are manips. If a person is capable of drawing like the example in the 6th image, why resort to the obvious photo use in the first? Doesn't it make more sense that the first is the basic modus operandi and that the 6th is just a more "artified" version of that same technique?  Does an artist change technique to render the same style of work? It just doesn't make sense that some are full-blown original drawings and others are traced and colored-over photos. They simply are ALL colored-over photos. 

I could keep going but I think you get the idea. And I can't say I've ever heard O'Toole CLAIM these were original, drawn subjects, so I have no issue with her. And......I even get a kick out of some of her stuff.......of which there is a LOT! So what's the point of my little image tour? Clarity. You can do whatever floats your boat, but people shouldn't confuse your 'boat' for an airplane. 

Some may think my objection is in using a camera for artistic purposes. Not so. Cameras and photos themselves are not artistic anathema. It's how you use that camera. My thesis work centered on nude figures in outdoor landscapes…...something very difficult to achieve in NJ from life. So instead I would get friends to pose for me outside and use my camera to get reference shots. Later, armed with a slew of poses and  situations, I would rework the images into paintings often quite different from what I shot. It was like using models except my models got to stay warm and go home while I could work until the wee hours in my basement.

An example of one of my paintings from about 1983 where the figure was based on a photo of a model, in this case someone I barely knew, literally a friend of a friend, who was willing to pose nude outdoors for me for free. Also my work at the time dealt with the figure in a kind of modern cross between aspects of Impressionism and aspects of Fauvism, without all of the elements of either. Despite the emphasis of this post on spatial realism, my work did not seek that effect, using a more Fauvistic approach to space. (If confused, check out some Gaughin.)

Even using a camera as a direct aid for art is nothing new.  Vermeer had his camera obscura and even my own father used an artograph to plot his paintings directly onto a paper and then onto a canvas. I myself may even resort to the same means for an upcoming painting. Why? Well first off, at least with Vermeer and my father, they are also the one finding and or assembling the subject and then personally taking the picture and using it as a guide for their own work….a work that in the end will be about more than merely copying a subject precisely. And a work that in the end is a PAINTING.....not a DRAWING. 

See, the other issue for me has to do with terminology and please keep in mind, just like “theory” in science versus its daily usage has a different meaning, Art too has its nuanced definitions:

Painting is an artistic expression using colored pigment as the primary medium. Drawing is doing the same thing primarily through the use of line. While a drawing can have halftones and shading, line is the master, much like color is the mistress of painting. Unlike painting which implies paint, drawing can be done with anything that can make a line, be it pencil, charcoal, ink, or other. But a tracing is not a drawing. So since the work resonates with so many, ( even as it also disturbs others with her youthful subjects), and is often of exceptional quality, let's recognize Barb O'Toole as the reigning "Queen of the Femdom Manip". It's a title that is not only deserved .....but accurate.



Thursday, February 18, 2021

Retouching


Last season I was standing crotch-deep in a pond casting for that elusive lunker when I saw this. It was amazing and I stopped fishing to dig my cell phone out of my pocket to try to record what was going on without dropping it in the water or missing the show before the light faded. This shot only shows part of the crazy color duality of the panoramic sky at the time. I had no time to set up anything skillful, no great camera to work with....just this view and my phone. When I got home I had to 'fix' what my phone captured. I used  a photo program to do it, but my goal was not to alter what I saw into something more magnificent, but honestly and accurately recapture the magnificence that nature provided, but which eluded my feeble attempts in the moment. And it was a "moment". It came and went with the steady setting of the sun, so my actions were as swift as I could manage in the less-than-ideal circumstances. Did I do wrong? Would an unretouched photo that depicted the sky inaccurately due to some setting flaw be somehow better than the finished image that gets it right?

Recently I was involved in a discussion with one of our 'new regulars', morningstar (whom I can't say enough nice things about) over the issue of using photo programs to enhance or alter an image beyond what was captured at the time of the shuttersnap.  She explained that her “old school” photography teacher imbued this purist philosophy in her and that she retains it until today. I am going to try to address this in a single post, but if we were writing for an art appreciation/theory book, this would be at least a chapter. LOL

What makes morningstar’s position even more interesting is that I simultaneously agree and disagree with it. I too have a ‘purist’ view with regard to certain things (the recent debate over altered photos as drawings on Dan's blog). But as she herself admitted...and my Rosa confirmed, it’s a “pride” issue…...and art doesn’t credit pride in a critique…….just the end result.  Just ask those defending manips as drawings. LOL And think of some of the commercially successful “artists”. Where was their pride? Hacks like Kinkade died millionaires while legitimate artists are eating ramen noodles every day to get by. So much for pride. 

What passes as art and makes one rich. "Painter of Light" my ass! What light? Fairytale light?

I promised you all some Bach in my last post and here it is. When Bach composed The Well-Tempered Clavier or The Goldberg Variations, the keyboard he wrote for was the harpsichord. In fact there was little choice until 1700 when Cristofori invented the piano. Nowadays it is easier to find these Bach pieces performed on a piano than the original harpsichord due to the perceived nuances a piano is capable of that the plucking harpsichord is not. Should this be sacrilege? It clearly isn’t. A better instrument comes along and artists use it to greater expression, with the end result being more important than the purity of the method getting there. 

The earliest known piano on view at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. (I've seen it. It's very cool!)

So too with art. And ESPECIALLY with photography which by its very origin and definition is dependent on a specialized mechanical device that did not always exist and which has been constantly improved from its earliest days until now. 

And what of film and film development? In the days of darkrooms and chemical baths, a photographer knew he could “push” an image with an extra few seconds of immersion, or any number of  “darkroom techniques”. Are these then also “impure” since they occur AFTER the shutter was clicked? A lot of the greats did it. Who, looking at the finished photo, cares whether the image achieved its appeal by an adjustment to the focal length or shutter speed before the “click” or to the time in a bath after? 

Do you really think Stieglitz didn't do some questionable things in the dark............room?

Now we have digital images and the whole game has changed. But…...as someone who loved to click their old “fully manual” Canon AT-1, after making all the focal length and shutter speed choices, the only thing that lingers in me is the nostalgia. Although I still find adjusting focal length digitally to be more difficult than it used to be on my 35mm. 

The fully manual AT-1.....talk about being a purist LOL

Now I still know other photography buffs who will take pride in a digital photo that hasn’t been altered afterwards, but really, does it make a difference?  If a program creates an effect that looks phony and I dislike it, I’ll dislike it, but if it looks good? Well, isn’t that an improvement? Or do I really need to re-take a shot to get it better rather than just ‘toy with it’? What if it’s a shot I took on a vacation to Peru? Should I just wait until I can afford my next trip or suffer with an unretouched photo as my punishment for not having gotten it right initially? I mean where does one draw the line?

Rosa took this of me at Machu Picchu and my face was a little too shaded by my hat. Adjusting "shadow" fixed it without destroying the scene.

Consider this as an example of how arbitrary such a self-imposed standard can be: imagine a chef about to make a pot of gourmet soup. Their expertise and pride challenges them to get everything right at the moment they toss the ingredients into the pot and start cooking. Then as the soup is done or close to ready, they taste it and find it needs more of some spice. What should they do? Not add it and serve their soup as is and take the criticism? Fix it with a dash of whatever, but inwardly scold themselves for having to make such an adjustment? Or just do what they need to to make it the best soup possible and serve it to a public who simply won’t care whether the celery salt was tossed in initially or later?

I mentioned elsewhere that the purist in me resents manips being called “drawings”, but I feel I can defend that better than I can understand technical purity in an inherently technical medium like photography. I engage in both and to me they are different.  If a technical medium can be improved technically then hey, why not? But if a manual medium is using technical means to achieve its end, then…...well…...is it still a manual medium? (but more on THAT in a separate post, and believe me the more I write on this topic, the more I see how it eerily relates to manips.)

The other thing, which will also enter into the “manip” discussion, is that this honorable reluctance to use a program on one’s own work is defiled daily by folks who’ll take your work and modify it anyway.  Now THAT’S a post production alteration that I can agree to disdain......though to be honest, I do it routinely. Nearly every photo here and those in my private collection have been adjusted in some way. Hey, I like my amateur flasher porn subjects to not have red eye, so sue me! LOL  But I am also not putting these altered images out there as my own.....and certainly not as art! And here's where I can start putting some "adult" back in an "adult" blog, just so the non-artists can still have some fun......if they're still reading. LOL

Oh my! 

I hope those poor girls didn't end up 'swallowing' those veggies! 
But talk about dishonest manipulation of a photo very likely not one's own. It's one thing to improve an image by adjusting color balance or minimizing highlights, but sticking huge fruits up not-so-innocent asses? Terrible. That sort of thing should be left for people to do in real life! (where's the lube? LOL)

The last point I wish to address is intent. The issue that prompted this discussion was one of obscuring identities in photos using a program. And even while I don’t agree with the premise that a photograph should succeed or fail on what happens at the time of the image being captured, there is certainly a difference between altering a shot via a program to enhance, improve, or otherwise change it artistically, and merely being considerate and practical with blocking out a face for reasons of anonymity. What of fixing 'red eye' in a portrait, or a 'spot fix' to hide one's graduating high-schooler's ill-timed pimple? In the former the intent behind using the program is to alter the image artistically, in the latter the intent is pure pragmatism and the program achieves it nicely.

The intent here is to deceive.

See? 

But while I know this color was also enhanced via a program, I also know that butt was that hot, swollen, and red from a spanking. It's an honest depiction of something genuine, but requiring some outside computer help to accurately depict it. 

I don’t want anyone thinking that I am saying “their way is wrong”. I struggle with my own purist tendencies and this digital purity is something my own daughter and even my wife, have strived for with their own work, bragging about a particularly successful image adding, “and that’s without any filters”. So I get it. And I’m certainly not poking fun at morningstar, especially when such a sentiment was driven into her by someone she respected. All I’m saying is that people often cite: “Life is too short to worry about such things” and maybe in this day and age, post-shutterclick programs are such things? Just make good art. However you achieve it is just part of your process, whether it's a newfangled invention like a piano, or a program to make your shot look like what you actually saw.....or even just what you WANT.

We need photo programs......because some shots are just not taken under ideal conditions. LOL