Wednesday, June 16

Spanked for Masturbating - part 2

In Spanked for Masturbating - part 1 I spoke about my husband's and my little rule: you can masturbate, but if you get caught red handed you get a spanking. This rule has made the Ménage à Moi so much more exciting! In that first part I recounted a time when I caught him "doing the deed" and made him pay a steep price. In this post, I'll flip the situation and write about my own experiences in this regard.

It comes as no secret to regular readers of my blog that I am a known... masturbator (Blush!). I first uncovered this at length (and with the photos to prove it - oh my!) in my July 2019 blog post Julie's Masturbation Session.

It really was a bit embarrassing to write about it. As I re-read that post I could feel my own embarrassment coming through. Especially that particular session where I made a complete fool of myself and wrote about it, and then published hyper-humiliating photos of myself masturbating as self-punishment. Of course, some commenters thought it was my best post ever. At the conclusion of the post I wondered aloud if I needed a good psychoanalyst. A reader responded:

The account here is stunning. This girl, and I do mean *girl*, doesn't need a psycho-analyst, she needs a disciplinarian. In all the years I've been following this blog, you've never been as shamefully naughty as you've been this week. Your exposure is profound. I read through this very slowly, pausing to picture in my mind everything you were describing in detail. It feels like I was in the room with you, in your mind with you, and your humiliating performance is still palpable. The embarrassment you felt when you posted this must have been intense, and it should warm you for a long time to come. It's a bit of a game-changer here because, though you've exposed your submissive side and experiences in many ways, this to me represents a more personal submission and vulnerability to your readers not like anything you've shared before. As such, it's possibly the most erotic account I've read, and these are the best female masturbation photos on the web. Generic pics of models or porn stars can't touch them.

Oh dear.

Fortunately, on that occasion, I was not caught by my husband doing it, and did not have to suffer any of the humiliating and painful consequences that would have gone along with that.

Yes, a spanking...

I, in fact, masturbate quite a lot. You can probably tell that kinky sex is on my mind quite a bit. When I was writing my second book, Julie's Spankings, I was masturbating constantly. It was part of my writing process. I was not happy with a chapter until I was able to have an orgasm proof-reading it. There's over 60 chapters in that book!!!! That a lot of strummin' the ol' banjo. I hope you'll agree that my "dedication" to my craft comes through to the reader. My orgasm to yours. For real. Doesn't knowing that make it just a little bit of an extra special read?

But, it's our game that when my husband catches me playing with myself, no matter how early or far along I am, I am roughly hauled out of bed, thrown across his knee, and hand-spanked relentlessly to shrieks and tears. If I complain at all about my treatment, or even if he just feels like giving it to me, I will get the belt at the end. I have been a bad girl, and I deserve everything I get.

I first began masturbating as kid, shoving my stuffed doggy between my legs and humping it. A bit like this:

I could get off like that. I lived in fear of somebody walking in on me! I was especially worried that my Daddy would find out I was a masturbator. They were indistinct feelings. My tummy did flip-flops at the masturbatory thought of Daddy walking in and just saying, "oh, Julie...". I wasn't into spanking at the time, and did not fantasize about Daddy fucking me, just discovering me in the act and being "disappointed" in me: "oh Julie...". I could cum to the stuffed doggy and that thought. So confusing.

When I masturbate now, the chance of "Daddy" (my husband daddy that is) walking in on me and catching me in the act is very real. And husband daddy will express his disappointment in his little girl in much stronger terms!

No matter what material I am masturbating to, in the back of my mind, as I get closer and closer, is the thought of being walked in on, stopped, scolded, and given a severe spanking. And while I enjoy malesub porn, I only get off to femsub stuff, so I am already thinking along those lines.

His protocol with me, by my request, is not to play it off as "cute", or "angry", but to play it off as "disappointed" (I wonder where that comes from? Hmmmmm?). "Oh Julie...". And then the scolding: "you know you're not to play with yourself like that." And then my punishment: "I guess I'll just have to teach you that lesson one more time, young lady." Oh gush!

"Please Daddy! No. I won't ever do it again. I promise!" Daddy will not be satisfied with promises. He will only be satisfied with a sniffling red-bummed little girl.

At some point in my spanking we will both morph solidly back into husband and wife roles (we were never anything but, we just use the terms "Daddy" and "little girl" to evoke a certain something). He will scold me for having sex with myself. For "cheating on him" like that. He is perfectly available for sex whenever I feel I need it. Is he not good enough for me (said sarcastically, he knows he is - my most intense orgasms are at his mouth and hands). SPANK SPANK SPANK.

"Please! I'll have sex with you! I'll have sex with you right now!" I cry out. I am very horny. I was likely pretty close to an O when he busted in on me.

He lets me off his lap. My bum is red and stinging. I get on my knees and pull his hard cock out. I take it into my mouth and suck it.

I may still be crying from my spanking at this point. My tears may intensify as he shoves it down my throat. He enjoys my tears lubricating his cock.

If I am a bad girl, or a naughty girl, my front teeth may graze the shaft of his cock. "Argh!" he will say. He's liable to slap my face, pull me up by my hair, and throw me face down onto the bed.

"You fucking bitch. You did that on purpose," he may say as he removes his belt from around his waist. Did I do it on purpose? yes.

He may make me lie across some pillows to elevate my ass. He may turn the top pillow edge on and make me clamp it. The belt will make me uncontrollably hump during my whipping.


He may get a dildo from the bedside drawer and insert it into my mouth. "You practice keeping your lips wrapped around that cock. Show me, show me," he'll say as he fucks my mouth with it. I keep my mouth and lips in the perfect girlish "O".

He'll then stand beside me and whip my ass with his belt until I am frantic.


Unlike the girl pictured above, who is getting off easy, I will be naked, draped over two pillows with a third edgewise into my cunt, and a dildo stuffed in my mouth.

As he whips me he may say, "go on, finish what you started." My hands will dive to my pussy and I will desperately rub as I hump and am whipped. I will cum that way. He will know as it happens. He'll throw the belt aside, get behind me, and fuck me from behind. He likes fucking my pussy after I have cum. He knows I am sooooo sensitive there right after, and he enjoys feeling me squirm desperately under him as he fucks me. It "excites" him, the cad. He will only end my fucking with a thrusting bare cock sperming deep inside of me. I never feel more like a "wife" then after a whipping and a sperming.

Sometime he will not allow me to clean up afterwards. He'll insist I put my panties directly on and redress myself. His sperm will come seeping out of me as I move about over the next hour, staining my panties. Like that girl I reported on a few blog posts ago, he may like seeing me with my hair and makeup disheveled, knowing my panties too are stained: a properly trained and fucked wife.

Is this a fantasy of mine? Why yes it is. Does this play out in real life? Indeed so. It's one of the games we play...

Monday, June 7

Gender, Attitude, and IQ Differences

I was perusing our local woke lefty national newspaper, the Globe & Mail, and came across a really, really dumb article in a series of really, really dumb articles.

Locked Out Of The Ivory Tower

 It was written by these two:

Chen Wang
Robyn Doolittle

Chen seems to be an earnest intern of sorts. Robyn is an experienced award-winning investigative journalist.

Their premise is that while more and more women are being hired into academia (administrative, professorial, and teaching positions), they are supposedly "locked out of" the higher echelons.

Using only employees from the Ontario "Sunshine List" (people making over $100,000 in 1999, and then inflation adjusted up to $147,537 in 2019), they show how at one point, in 1999, when women only made up 12% of the workforce, they on average made the same money as men. This was because they were evenly balanced throughout the pay grades. However, as more and more women were hired, they tended to concentrate into the lower-level positions and pay grades, and thus the average compensation of all women was 5% less than all men.

The article posits without proof that this is because there are barriers to women achieving the higher ranks based entirely on their gender, and not at all on other factors that may be different between men and women (e.g., hard work, dedication, talent, interest, IQ, job choice, ...)

I call bullshit.

This is how you spot the "fake news". Look for any complex issue that involves tons of variables, and if you see it reported as being only a single variable, without any proof of that, or consideration of other potential factors, you know you're being lied to.

I can think of many other potential reasons. Another explanation could be that back in 1999 there was still true equality of opportunity, and women of equal quality to men were hired, and they were hence compensated the same. But in 2019, there are so many forced "diversity hires" that these people do less well, and are thus less well-payed. Another one could be that there have been more and more "gender and race studies" professors hired, of which applicants are a dime a dozen and the bar is low, so thus pay is low, and those are filled by women? Here are some other potential factors (by no means an exhaustive list).

  • Women choose to work fewer hours, valuing family and free time more heavily than men do.
  • Women are not as aggressive in asking for raises as men.
  • Women take time off their careers for childbirth and childcare, and so are slower to advance.
  • Women concentrate more into artsy fields (women studies, sociology, ehtnic studies, ...) that pay less well than fields such as engineering or computer science.
  • At the very top end of the IQ range, women are less well-represented than men.

We'll look at these last two in more detail. I know that last one is the most controversial, so let me dig into that one first.


The results of IQ tests are on agglomeration of many different talents and abilities, innate and learned. They all try to get at an elusive "g" factor that is the "innate intelligence" driver.

I think we all intuitively recognize "g" when we see it: in a young child, or a genius high-schooler who gets 100% in all their math subjects, or the brilliant computer programmer, or the chess master. Yes, environment has played a role, but there is also a certain innate intelligence spark in some individuals that cannot be denied (and the opposite in some others, though they may be absolutely delightful people!).

Psychometrists try to design the tests to get as close a true representation of "g" as they can (though never perfectly). Often an important part of IQ tests are sequences such as this one:

You're expected to answer "E", another triangle. 70% of people who took this online test got that answer. To my mind, the most dominant pattern was that the decrease in the number of sides from top row to middle row was the same as from middle row to bottom row, and "D" was stupid, so "E".

If you're good at answering dumb questions like this, you're good at seeing patterns in things, and you are therefore likely to have a high "g".

Having high "g" means you will likely do well at academics, get a decent job, and make more money. It's no guarantee either way, but that's how it sort of lines up. Obviously does not apply to sports and arts, just to the more academic stuff, such as lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants, and University professors for sure.

There have been many studies comparing men and women IQ scores. My reading of the literature seems to indicate there are biological sex-based differences. IQ is measured on a Bell Curve with an average score of 100 by definition.

Men are about 4-6 points higher than women on average, and with a more spread out distribution. There is controversy around this and much gnashing at teeth that goes beyond the scientific, but the data looks to be pretty solid to me.

H. Nyborg
Department of Psychology, Research Unit for Differential Psychology, University of Aarhus,
Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 497–509

We see adult males shifted to the right and with a broader/flatter distribution. This leads, at the extreme right to a sizable discrepancy in the expected number of males and females at a high IQ level. At a "g"=3 corresponding to an IQ of 145 ("profoundly gifted") there is an 8:1 ratio of males to females. And "profoundly gifted" is where we want our University Professors to be on the IQ range.

Why is this at all important? Why raise it at all? Isn't this one of those "hate facts" about men and women?

I don't think any facts like this should be used for policy making. If you make a policy, e.g., that there's no sense in training or hiring women to top IQ jobs, it would be terribly unfair to those very special women that are way up there. And if what we are striving for is a meritocracy anyways, then the good ones will float to the top. It is the very essence of the policy of "equality of opportunity" to allow for all folks to be equally well educated and trained and to compete for these jobs.

A different policy might be if you were, say, the Russians building a world-class chess capability. They might determine that there are only so many slots for training young talent, and given an IQ analysis like the one above, reserve all the slots for boys in order to best use scarce resources. That is emphatically NOT a policy of "equality of opportunity", and I would therefore never endorse such a thing, despite the fact that it would use scarce resources better. I think fairness in opportunity is way more important.

So if using these facts is not important for making policy, why bring it up at all?

The reason it is important is because there are vast and increasing number of people who value "equality of outcome". Unless women make up 50% of the academic ranks and are paid exactly the same as men, "equality" has not yet been achieved.

In the Globe&Mail article they say,
In 2000, the federal government created the Canada Research Chairs Program to stop a feared brain drain to the United States. The goal was to create 2,000 new research positions and dole out hundreds of millions in funding. But three years later, eight women scholars took the CRCP to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal alleging discrimination. Only 15 per cent of the chair positions had gone to women, even though women accounted for 26 per cent of professors. In a landmark settlement in 2006, the CRCP agreed to set targets to ensure that women, Indigenous people, other visible minorities and people with disabilities were being properly represented.

But little changed.

In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Commission took the extraordinary step of asking the Federal Court to enforce the settlement, as most universities were still missing the targets. (In the CRCP system, schools nominate candidates, which the program then evaluates.) Earlier this year, universities were warned that if they fail to hit equity targets by December, 2029, they’ll lose some research chair positions. (A spokesperson for the CRCP said that as of May, 2021, 85 per cent of institutions were meeting equity targets.)

So the way I read this is that the government successfully forced the Universities to hand out research dollars to women less qualified than men. So we all lose.

This is specifically NOT "equality of opportunity". This is the men being shafted. Equality of outcome can only be achieved by sacrificing equality of opportunity. So don't aim for it!

My point is that gender bias is not the only reason there was a difference in the granting of these chairs. It likely played a part, but innate IQ difference could have played a sufficiently large role as to be able to completely explain the unequal outcome all by itself, even with perfect equality of opportunity.


Another factor that can explain pay gap differences is the choice of career. Some careers are simply more valued than others in today's world, and thus pay more. This is the law of supply and demand, not some patriarchy imposing it. If there is a lot of work for plumbers, and few plumbers, the wages for plumbers will go up.

In the case of academics, a STEM-field professor makes a lot more money than a women's studies professor. It is because the STEM-fields are in higher demand in the workforce than women's studies are. They command a higher wage, and Universities must keep up with that or lose all their talent to industry.

But why do women avoid STEM fields? Why do men avoid nursing? There are innate sex differences where boys and men value things more, and girls and women value people more. And this is not cultural. In cultures that are the most gender equal, where girls and boys are most brought up to believe they can be and do anything, where there are the fewest barriers to girls and young women going into STEM, you see the difference maximized.

G. Stoet, University of Essex, D.C. Geary, University of Missouri
Psychological Science - February 2018, pp.581-593
The Gender-Equality Paradox in STEM Education








The vertical axis is the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) which assess the extent to which economic, educational, health, and political opportunities are equal for women and men. Higher means more equal. We see countries such as Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden right up near the top, as you would expect, and countries such as Jordan, Turkey, Algeria, UAE, Qatar, down near the bottom.

Chart A on the left correlates this with the gap in STEM scores relative to reading scores for men over women (it does not speak to raw scores in STEM). The gap was largest in the most equal countries. In other words, in Finland the boys do way better in STEM than in reading. And while girls may do well in STEM (as well as the boys), they do better in reading than they do in STEM. Because of this intra-personal talent difference, it is posited that more boys choose STEM than girls.

When correlated with % women amongst STEM graduates, chart B on the right, we see the lowest percentages in those most equal countries such as Finland, and the highest percentage in the least equal, such as UAE, because of this "interest gap", it is posited.

When you allow men and women to choose for themselves, without cultural bias, men choose STEM and women don't.


Both these effects, interest in STEM, and inherent differences in IQ, can well explain any disparity in numbers and pay, something this shoddy Globe & Mail article completely fails to mention, because they are pushing a "social justice" point, and damned any result other than the one they are after.

 

We will return to our regularly scheduled spanking content next post!

Saturday, June 5

Daddy Issues

Lion from Male Chastity Journal did not seem to approve of my Internet viewing habits on my last post, Sexual Assault, or not really? He commented:

I'm more surprised that you bothered to watch this stuff than I am by the content.

Hey, I resemble that remark..

On the theme of brain-rotting interwebz habitz, I thought I'd talk about a couple of podcasts I enjoy.

I used to enjoy the "Call Her Daddy" Podcast on barstool sports.

Call Her Daddy

A lot of very open and very crazy-fun hot young thing sex talk. The girl on the right is Sofia Franklyn and the one on the left is Alexandra Cooper. The guy on the left is Dave Portnoy, "El Presidente" of Barstool Sports, who made their podcast famous. It broke up in a soap-opera worthy crash and burn. Long and short is that Alex stayed on and Sofia left, and it's just not the same anymore...

Sofia has emerged with a new podcast, "Sofia with an F".

Sofia with an F

I like it. Sofia is fun, and she spills the T.

In a promotion for her new podcast, Sofia appeared on Violet Benson's "Too Tired to be Crazy" podcast.

Too Tired to be Crazy

Violet's website and brand is Daddy Issues. Their podcast together was titled Sex, Daddy Issues & Fetishes w/ Sofia Franklyn. They are both late-twenties now.

at around the 20 minute mark they have the following exchange.

Violet: Like I am looking for a man that's older than me, like I think 5 to 10, 12 years. I don't care. Like, I like that. It's sexy 'cause I can finally feel like a little girl... like I feel like a lot of times I feel I want to be the baby and then sometimes I date guys who are younger than me so then I feel like I'm their mother. So now I do want older men.

Sofia: I've, like, only dated older.     So you can act up???

Violet: Yes. I can sometimes be like "I don't want to do this!" and then...

Sofia: I guess... you... oh my God! It's our Daddy issues! Like we kind of want a little bit of a Daddy! We do!

Violet: Oh My God! I want a Dad!

Sofia: We kind of do. If you really think about it. I'm the same way. I'm like, I need someone to babysit me, not the other way around.
 
Violet: Yeah I think that's what deeply I've always yearned for and I just never admitted that, I guess, until right now. Oh My God. Wow. Ok. So that is what I'm looking for. My Dad.

Sofia: I have never admitted it publicly, but I guess here we are, both of us. But yeah, I agree.

I loved that exchange. It's not something women actually talk about with one another, so it's nice to hear an honest conversation. The words they used, "little girl", "baby", "act up", "Daddy", "babysit me", "yearned for". Those girls don't just want an older man, they want to be infantilised and made to behave by a Daddy figure. I thought it came a millimetre away from spanking as a topic, just after the "and then..." which was cut off.

Violet wants to feel like a little girl, like a baby. Sofia asks her if she wants to "act up?" Violet agrees that she sometimes wants to stomp her foot and say "I don't want to do this!", so that then Daddy can discipline her in some way. Am I reading too much into that exchange?

But how would this discipline proceed? What does a young woman who thinks it's sexy to be made to feel like a little girl expect for her discipline? I think on this blog, we all know the answer to that. Yes, she would be put across Daddy's knee and given a spanking. Of course.

I want a Daddy sometimes. I want Daddy to spank me when I act up.  Make me kick and cry across his knee and make me promise to be a good girl. Put me in the corner afterwards.

😭 😭😭 😭

And if it so happens that my spanking has to be at a time or place where others are there to see it?

Overbarrelspankingtoons

Well so be it. I am not ashamed I need a good old fashioned spanking every now and then. Yes I am ashamed of what I did to earn my spanking. And I am embarrassed and ashamed during my spanking, of course. A bare-bottomed spanking across your Daddy's knee is supposed to make you feel embarrassed. It's part of your punishment.

And if you've been very naughty, especially in front of others, it should be a spanking on the spot.

Overbarrelspankingtoons

And it doesn't matter what you're showing off in the process. You've been a bad little girl and you deserve the shaming. Of course, the most embarrassing part is the kicking and the crying and the apologizing and the promising to be good and to obey, if only the spanking would stop, please stop! All the girls witnessing would dampen themselves knowing that's what they so often need and deserve as well. Some of the boys too...

Yes, it's humbling to get a spanking from Daddy, or from your loving husband when he needs to assume his role as your Daddy, but it's good to be humbled every now and then.


Wednesday, June 2

Sexual Assault, or not really?

I was surfing the youtube earlier today with my morning covfefe and came across this young woman complaining of a sexual assault.

Her name is Justine Paradise and she's a 24-year-old social media influencer. She is very hot if you ask me! Here's some pics from her insta.

Cute as a button!

Likes to play!

Naked contemplation

Take me to bed, baby!

Schoolgirl vibe!

Rocking the sexy sundress

Peace Out!

Ah to be young again! I'm a total simp for her (am I using that word right?).

Justine's complaint is against another youtuber named Jake Paul. Looks like a total douche to me.

The youtube-chain started with me watching a video from lawyers Viva Frei and Robert Barnes discussing Dershowitz's lawsuit against CNN.

Dershowitz WINS BIGLY Against CNN

For some reason the youtube algo next threw me a video from freelance reporter Alison Morrow. OMG I love Alison's look!

Famous YouTuber Cries Censorship After Demanding It For Others

Alison was discussing a video put out by another youtuber, Philip Defranco, who previously said that social media platforms should censor anybody who posts the opinion that the election was at all rigged, and then later on posted another video where he was complaining that his video that covered Justine being sexually assaulted by Jake got shadow-banned. He claimed that it was obvious that in the first case it was clearly disinformation, but in the second case it was absolute truth. Alison called him out on his contradiction ("who determines what is true and what is false? You want youtube doing that???").

So I went to see the Philip Defranco shadow-banned video, of course.

These DISGUSTING Jake Paul Allegations

Defranco gives a fairy balanced conclusion, withholding final judgment, but does amplify Justine's accusations considerably, without raising the obvious doubts, and without covering Jake's side at all because Jake would not comment, which I can well imagine why, his lawyers probably advising him against it. You can tell by the title where his bias lies.

So I went to see Justine's video accusing Jake Paul to decide for myself.

Jake Paul Sexually Assaulted Me

I absolutely believe her story, she is very earnest and she is very credible. She's a bit dumb. She has low self-esteem despite her good looks. What I'm not so sure of is if it is "sexual assault". You be the judge. I'll rehash what she says in the video and add some of my own comments in red.

She was referring to events that happened in June/July 2019. She did not report on them until recently though the incident was bothering her literally every day.

One June 1 she decided with a mutual friend to "hang out with some cute boys". She went with a girlfriend and a guyfriend to the "Team 10 house" which is a mansion owned in part by Jake Paul. She says she knew of Jake Paul. All visitors were required to sign an NDA on the way in, which she did. [Ok, is that normal?]

She was looking for a bathroom and bumped into Jake Paul and a bunch of other people in the kitchen. Jake said he liked her hair and pointed her to the bathroom. She spent the rest of the party hanging out with her two friends. Jake came up to her midway and asked for her phone number which she gave him. After that he started messaging her from across the room, which she thought was awkward. She produced the conversation.

They texted and saw each other about 6 times between June 1 and July 20. Each time she came by the house there were a bunch of other people there. Jake would acknowledge her but not speak directly to her, instead just txt her when she was in his house, and even when they were in the same room. She says it reminded her of middle school. She assumed he had really bad social skills. She also observed him going up into his bedroom multiple times with all sorts of different girls where she presumed they had sex. [I presume he was deliberately treating her like trash, negging her (?), and she was into it, because she kept coming back for more. Pretty low self-esteem.]

One day Jake approached her and pulled her into a little corner area and started kissing her. She says she was fine with that. She did think he was cute. She did want to kiss him. She thought it was weird, though, because the place where he kissed her was in front of everyone. She thought he was showing off to his friends that he was making out with her, and it was awkward because she had her guyfriend there as well, "but it was fun" she said. [She clearly enjoyed the little bit of attention from him, and being his "property" like that. Also she seemed to be getting off on cucking her guyfriend a bit.]

Later on, similar situation, Jake grabs her hand and starts walking with her to his bedroom. She thought it was cute. [Cute to be owned - I agree!]

She then says people have brought her to their room before and they literally just wanted to show her their room, or sometimes they try to do something sexual but if she doesn't want to she just says no and they respect that.

In his cool bedroom with a big fishtank they were talking and he was clearly seducing her. They were then dancing in his room, and kissing, and then he took it to his bed which she was happy with. [Is she, like, 12, what did she think that was leading up to? Especially given the train of girls she had observed going to his bedroom and having sex with him. Maybe she is just really dumb-naive? I honestly think she is.]

She says she thought it was fine if she went into his room, thought it would be fine if she wanted to kiss him, because she thought he would stop if she didn't want to do something.

She says that every time he put his hands on her, or guided her hands to him, she "would just kind of move it away and say, like, no, and then like, just back to kissing." [Mixed messages all day long. I get it, she just wanted to kiss, but rather than just stating that clearly, as in, "no Jake, I'm not comfortable going further than just kissing today" she seemingly plays "hard to get".]

At some point he becomes frustrated and says "if nothing is going to happen, then what's the point?" [Finally, some honest douchebag communications - he was making it clear he did not want to continue with just kissing. This was her chance to put a stop to it.]

According to her, at that point he stood up, undid his pants, "grabbed my face, and started fucking my face". [Colour me skeptical. Is that a thing? At no point did she say she feared a physical assault from him. She was not terrified. She was not at knifepoint. She literally opened her mouth and let him stick it in. Maybe she was just in the process of opening wide to say "Noooo" when it just sort of slipped in? And once in, she must have carefully kept her lips over her teeth. With guys I've known, slip up and let even a little bit of teeth out and he is pulling out fast! Don't need to bite it off, just let him try to get off scraping against your front teeth.]

She then goes on to say that she has only given oral sex to 2 or 3 people before then because it was so special, even more so than penis-vagina sex to her. She says because "when it's going in your mouth that's touch, that's taste, that's smell, that's, like, it's all in your face." She illustrates it with her hands in the video.

"it's like, all in your face and everything!"

[Very sexy description. At this point I'm getting suspicious. Is this a little fame play for her? Tell a titillating story in a sexy way, get a lot of attention? Maybe even get a nice payout from Jake?]

What was she supposed to do, she asks. She was still laying on the bed, he was on top of her, he was holding her head, like, into him, like she couldn't even tell him not to. He didn't ask for consent or anything. He knew she didn't want to do anything with him because he had said "if nothing is going to happen, then what's the point?", and then he just shoved himself into her. That's not ok, she says.

[So much wrong here! But the visual of her getting her cutey-pie 22-year-old face stuffed with cock while she struggles to both keep her lips in a big "O" for him and tell him "noooo" at the same time is kinda sexy I am very embarrassed to admit. So insensitive, I know. Where do I hand in my "girl card"?]

[She takes his statement as evidence that he knows she doesn't want it? No, that's evidence he told her what he expected and then she gave it to him like a good little girl. I'm sorry, I am just going from bad to worse here. How about letting his cock scrape against your teeth and then saying NO like you mean it?]

She goes on to say, "It didn't last that long, though, because he... finished... he came... in my mouth... and, honestly, it was less than 30 seconds, so it didn't last that long, there was maybe 20 seconds, if that. 

[Ooooh! Impugning the douche's manhood. Love it!]

I couldn't go anywhere because he was literally grabbing my head and shoving himself into me, At that point i was really confused... so I just kind of rolled over on his bed, and then he like cuddled me for 0.2 seconds, he literally put his arm around me and got back up, and then walked back to his door and said 'let's go back to the stu'" ('stu' is the music studio in the house where everyone was hanging out).

[I guess she swallowed? That was really above and beyond.]

"And I was just like, ok let me just fix my hair and makeup first because it was all messed up and i went to his bathroom that was connected to his room, and I was trying to, and he was NO, LET'S GO!

And he was, No, Let's Go!

"I mean why would you sexually assault me and then not even let me fix my hair and makeup?"

[Ok, is this a parody at this point? Am I being trolled??]

"I don't want to leave your room looking like this. I didn't want to be looking like that at all. Like, that's embarrassing, to have, like, my makekup all like going down and my hair all messed up because it's obvious sexual things happened. So I'm like no, I'm going to fix this, so I like fixed my hair and makeup as fast as I could."

[I don't think her makeup was the only thing that went down? Yes - sorry - just shoot me now.] 

[Power move from douchebag Jake, making her go downstairs with her hair and makeup all messed up having just swallowed a mouthful of cum and her, like, breath smelling of Jake Paul's cum? She's such a perfect little sub.]

"He grabs my phone..."

[And at this point she goes off on a 5 minute tangent about her phone]

"I used to have a pretty old phone so when people are putting their numbers in my phone and stuff and and they're like - oh it's so tiny -  I was really judged on not updating my phone. Basically everyone there would make fun of my phone."

This was the size of phones then,
but this one was my phone,
and as you can see it's pretty tiny.


 [I am laughing in tears by now. I know I shouldn't be...]

"He picks up my phone. He was 'come on, let's leave, get your dinosaur phone and let's go' and I was just like wait a second, because up until this point he had been nice to me, he had been sweet to me... So this complete 180, being... sexually assaulting me... being just like straight up rude, like who cares? Who cares if someone updates their phone?"

[What she's defining as 'sexual assault' seems, in her mind, kind of on par with hair and makeup and being teased about her old phone??? Wat-da-heck?]

After this she explains that she kept trying to get back in touch with him but that he ghosted her, and that's basically the whole story.

Phew!

Here's my take. She had sex with him. He was pushy. She sent mixed messages and did not say no clearly. He was a power-tripping douchebag. She has low self-esteem and is attracted to power-tripping douchebags. She regretted the sex afterwards. That's her definition of "sexual assault". She's kind of dumb. She likely needs a legal guardian.

It does kind of cheapen the concept for women who were violently sexually assaulted and genuinely feared for their lives.

Well, whatever, it was entertaining anyways.

Monday, May 31

Israel and Palestine

I thought I'd write a post on my take on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I know, I know, what does a dumb blonde spanking blogger know about it? It's just that with the latest rocket attacks, and people seemingly split on the issue, I thought I'd read up on it and form my own views. Please correct me (politely!) in the comments where you think I'm getting something wrong or am factually off-base.

If you have no interest in politics whatsoever, a good read is the ongoing story exchange between Lion and I, both some maledom and some femdom for your entertainment pleasure - click on Sexy Story Exchange instead!

--

The region known as Palestine borders the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and is roughly the size of New Jersey. In pre-history it was one of the places civilization first grew up, emerging from tribes to agricultural communities, into city states. Jews and Arabs were one and the same. Myth has it that both tribes were the sons of the patriarch Abraham who lived in 2150 BCE. His son Isaac the Jews, and Ishmael the Arabs. They both believed that there was one and the same God.

The Palestine region changed political overlords many times. The sequence was,

  • Egyptians
  • Assyrians
  • Babylonians
  • Macedonias
  • Ptolemaians
  • Seleucids
  • Hasmonians
  • Romans
  • Byzantines
  • Early Muslims
  • Christian Crusaders
  • Mamluks
  • Ottoman Turks
  • Great Britain (administered under "The Mandate")
  • Israel

There may have been some sort of Jewish rule during the Egyptian period (the time of Solomon, David, and Saul), although there is little solid archaeological record, mostly Bible stories. The Hasmonian Jews did control Palestine for 100 years or so until the Romans moved in around 63 BCE (Jewish Hanukah commemorates Judas Macabeus re-taking of Jerusalem and the re-dedication of the Temple there in 164 BCE). Arabs controlled Palestine during the Early Muslim period for about 500 years.

From 1516 AD Leading up to the outbreak of WW1 in 1914 the region was controlled by the Muslim Ottoman Turks. Neither the Arabs, Jews, or Christians of the region got along particularly well with them. The Ottoman Turks sided with the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires in WWI and were defeated by the Allied forces of Great Britain, France, Russia, and eventually USA.

While the war was still raging in 1916, confident of victory, the Allies made a secret treaty between the UK and France, with agreement from Russia and Italy. The agreement would divide the Ottoman provinces outside the Arabian Peninsula into British and French control and influence. The British- and French-controlled countries were divided by the Sykes–Picot line. The region of Palestine was designated an "International Zone" mainly because of the religious importance of Jerusalem.

Soon after, the League of Nations (a precursor to the United Nations) declared a British Mandate over Palestine and the land to the East of the Jordan River (the "Transjordan").

During the war the British had made contradictory promises to Jews and Arabs to secure their support. Arabs were needed to secure the Suez canal and to keep the oil flowing. Jews were needed because of powerful lobbyist groups in the UK and America, and the UK desperately wanted an isolationist America to join the war effort.

Arabs were promised political control of Palestine, and Jews were promised a "national home" in the very public Balfour Declaration. The following was published in The London Times in 1917.

Both the Arabs and the Jews clamored for the British to make good on their promises to each of them, and jockeyed for position by forcing immigration and fighting amongst themselves. Britain cut off Jewish immigration into the Transjordan, reserving it for the Arabs and therefore excluding it from consideration as part of a potential "national home for the Jewish people", but continued to allow both Jewish and Arab immigration into Palestine.

"Zionism" was a movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. It started in the 19th century in Europe. The first wave of Jewish immigration took place around 1890-1900 where an estimated 30,000 Jews immigrated to Turkish Palestine mainly from Eastern Europe and Yemen. These were mainly agriculturists. A second large wave of 40,000 came from Russia and Poland in 1904-1914. There were a lot of communist idealists amongst them and they established the communal kibbutz collectives. Several waves occurred after that leading up to WWII, during it, and immediately after.

In 1900 under the Turks, the population was about 600,000, more than 90% Arab. By 1948 towards the end of the British Mandate the population had grown to almost 2,000,000, 70% Arabs and 30% Jews. There was no displacement of Arabs during that time. Both the Arab and Jewish populations grew through immigration. In fact, the Arab population grew by over 1,000,000 while the Jewish population grew by 500,000.

The Zionists had an organization called the Jewish National Fund (JNF) that collected money internationally and funneled it into Palestine. They used the money to buy and occupy land, often very willingly at exorbitant prices from the rich Arab families. Their policy was to lease the lands they bought to Jewish settlements. JNF policy was that Jewish land, once acquired, could never be resold to Arabs nor opened for non-Jewish employment.

The JNF drained swamp lands, dug wells and built irrigation. By 2007, the JNF owned 13% of the total land in Israel. Since its inception and until now, the JNF planted over 240 million trees in Israel. It has also built 180 dams and reservoirs, developed 250,000 acres of land and established more than 1,000 parks.

The industriousness, education, and capital supplied by the Jews was a giant economic boon to the region that was otherwise languishing under the Arab feudal system. The huge influx of Arab immigration was partly due to the orderly British government, but also largely due to the economic opportunities made possible by comparatively rich Jewish settlement.

However, the Arabs remained politically hostile to any possibility of a Jewish state, and the hostility often broke out openly with Arab riots targeting Jews in 1920, 1928, and especially in 1936 with the Arab Revolt. According to a contemporary description from the 1928 riot,

The crowd reportedly shouted "Independence! Independence!" and "Palestine is our land, the Jews are our dogs!" Arab police joined in applause, and violence started. The local Arab population ransacked the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. The Torath Chaim Yeshiva was raided, and Torah scrolls were torn and thrown on the floor, and the building then set alight.  During the next three hours, 160 Jews were injured.

The Arabs became increasingly hostile as Jewish immigration continued. The British also tried to slow the immigration and backpedal on the Balfour Declaration to calm the situation amongst the Arabs. However, the Jews were upset at the perceived breaking of the promises contained in the Balfour Declaration and this promoted a certain militancy amongst them as well which eventually lead to Jewish terrorist attacks against the British in Palestine.

After the Arab Revolt of 1936, Britain established the Peel Royal Commission on the Palestinian situation. It proposed a two-state solution for Palestine where Jews would have political control over some parts of Palestine, and Arabs over other parts, as follows.

It made provisions for the gradual and voluntary movement of willing Arabs out of Jewish regions and Jewish people out of Arab regions.

The Jews were not at all happy with the solution, given their tiny allotment of land and limits on immigration, but ultimately accepted it as better than nothing. The Arabs however, were dead set against any Jewish state at all in Palestine, and outright rejected the plan. The Axis Powers of WWII, Germany and Italy, encouraged this attitude and the threat of Arabs joining the Axis was ever present. Moreover German policy was now firmly against a Jewish state believing it would create "an additional position of power under international law for international Jewry."

As a result of the pressure from the Arabs, Britain backpedaled on the partition plan in a 1939 white paper and severely curtailed Jewish immigration at a time when there were more and more refugees and Jews were being put into concentration camps. The white paper was heavily debated in England and was eventually itself narrowly repudiated, leaving the situation completely unsettled.

During WWII, which broke out Sep 1, 1939, the Arabs double-dealt on both sides but allied themselves more with the Axis powers. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, an Arab and the nominal head of Islam, living in exile in Turkey made a deal with Hitler and Mussolini that in exchange for Moslem support the Axis would recognize the sovereignty and independence of the Arab countries and promised Axis help in "the elimination of the Jewish National home in Palestine." Speaking in the name of God and the Prophet, the Mufti publicly urged Muslims everywhere to rise up against the Allies, though the request was not met with enthusiasm and no such mass uprising ever occurred. Meanwhile the Jews in Palestine remained loyal to the Allies (the other choice being the Nazis).

In the spring of 1940 the Chamberlain government in Britain was replaced by Churchill. Churchill welcomed the Palestinian Jews as allies and renewed promises for a Jewish homeland after the war.

During and after WWII there were millions of Jews murdered, had all their possessions stolen, and were displaced from Europe due to the fascists. Few countries wanted to take in that many Jewish refugees, especially as anti-Jewish sentiment was strong everywhere. The newly formed UN with strong support from the US and the UK put forth a resolution for the establishment of a Jewish State and the partitioning of Palestine.

Jerusalem would be kept under international control. The vote was 33 for, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. The Muslim countries voted against it, utterly rejected the plan, and promised to go to war if it were implemented.

Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, told an Egyptian newspaper "Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades." Azzam told Alec Kirkbride "We will sweep them [the Jews] into the sea." Syrian president Shukri al-Quwatli told his people: "We shall eradicate Zionism."

Personally, I find this to be rather ugly of the Muslims in general and the Arab Muslims in particular. The Muslims controlled vast swathes of territory in the region.


All the green is now Muslim controlled territory, and the tiny red bit, literally the size of New Jersey, is what was given over to the Jews to administer as a national homeland, with provisions and assurances to deal fairly with an Arab minority population, and without even control of the heavily disputed Jerusalem which was to be left as an International UN Mandate.

The vote was ratified and the Arabs went on a war of extermination against the Jews in a combined offensive from the armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and the Arabs in Palestine in May of 1948.

The Jews had not been heavily armed before this point, and only had the arms they were able to smuggle in against the British. Moreover, the British in Palestine seemed more sympathetic to the Arabs and vacated their strongholds directly to the Arabs when they left. The Israelis were experienced warriors and tenacious, however, and the Arabs uncoordinated in their attacks allowing the Jews to deal with them one by one rather than all at once. This lead to a complete Israeli victory in 9 months which left them with more territory than they had originally been allotted.

Original UN allotment on left
The situation after the 1948 Arab-Isaeli war on the right

Leading up to and during the war there was a mass exodus of Arabs from the Israeli controlled areas of Palestine. Over 80% of an estimated 1,000,000 left the Israeli-controlled areas, and another 200,000 or so remained. Many left of their own steam fearing what was to come, and given that their leaders had all deserted them; and the Israeli's committed atrocities as well. However, many of the Arab villages and communities in Israel actively warred against the Israelis and could not be reasonably left alone and intact given the very limited Israeli resources at the time.

Nowadays the Arab exodus is referred to as the "al-Nakba" ("the catastrophe") and is portrayed as some sort of "ethnic cleansing" of the Arabs by the Israelis. Most of the references I found to the al-Nakba fail to mention the fact that the Arabs actively went to war and tried their hardest to eliminate the Jews completely from Palestine, which I find to be rather unbalanced. For example, from Aljazeera:

On that day, the State of Israel came into being. The creation of Israel was a violent process that entailed the forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homeland to establish a Jewish-majority state, as per the aspirations of the Zionist movement.

Hmmmmm... left something important out of that, no?

Many of the refugees went to the Gaza strip controlled by Egypt, and the West Bank controlled by Jordan. Rather than allowing them to freely immigrate into Egypt and Jordan, those countries kept many of the Palestinians penned up there in atrocious conditions in order to put pressure on Israel and to have a base of operations to launch future conflicts. This situation exists until today.

In the 1956 Suez Crisis, The new President of Egypt, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, taking it from France and Britain, and also kept the Straits of Tiran closed to vessels in and out of Israel. This forced Israel's hand and they went on the attack in the Sinai dessert, taking the straits and the canal from Egypt (along with French and British forces) and re-opening it. They eventually withdrew to their original border completely with UN assurances that the canal and straits would stay open.

in 1967, Israel reiterated its post-1956 position that the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping would be a cause for war. Egyptian President Nasser, however, announced that the Straits would be closed to Israeli vessels, and then mobilized Egyptian armed forces along the border with Israel, ejecting The United Nations forces, in conjunction with other Arab forces who did likewise, staging for an imminent attack.

Arab troop deployments before hostilities.

The above map shows how the Arab forces were aggressively deployed, after getting rid of the UN and closing the Suez canal and the Straits to Israel.

Israel preemptively struck Egypt, almost completely eliminating their air force. Then, having complete air dominance retook Gaza, the Sinai, the Suez canal, and the Straits of Tiran. Jordan then began an uncoordinated attack of its own from the West bank. Israel fought back and took that. Syria then attacked from the Golan heights in the North, and Israel fought back and took that as well. It only took six days in total.

Israeli counter-attacks

There is said to be a controversy over who "started" the Six-Day war. To me it was pretty clear the Arabs did by their aggressive military provocation and the blockade, but were caught by surprise when the Israelis threw the first punch.

Gradually over negotiated settlements in 1972, 1980, and 1982, Israel ceded back most of the land they took, but kept administrative control over Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.


Israeli began putting settlements into Gaza and the West Bank which angered the Palestinians who fought back in the intifada, a series of suicide bombings and other terrorist activities lead by the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) under Yasser Arafat.

In 1994, with the Oslo Accords, much of the Gaza Strip (except for the settlement blocs and military areas) came under control of a new Palestinian Authority, led by Arafat. In September 1995, Israel and the PLO signed a second peace agreement extending the Palestinian Authority to most West Bank towns as well.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (left)
US President Clinton (center)
PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat (right)

Troubles continued however, and in 2005 Israel unilaterally and forcibly pulled Israeli settlers out of the Gaza Strip and declared an end to its military occupation of Gaza.

In 2006, Hamas won the elections in Gaza by a plurality of seats and then went to war against the secular Palestinian Authority party (Fatah). Hamas is an Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist Organization closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. They are anti-semitic, deny the Holocaust, and believe the Jews are a conspiracy to take over the world. On August 10, 2012, Ahmad Bahr, Deputy Speaker of the Hamas Parliament, stated in a sermon that aired on Al-Aqsa TV:

If the enemy sets foot on a single square inch of Islamic land, Jihad becomes an individual duty, incumbent on every Muslim, male or female. A woman may set out [on Jihad] without her husband's permission, and a servant without his master's permission. Why? In order to annihilate those Jews. ... O Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. O Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one.

That about sums up Hamas!

Periodically, in 2008, 2014, and 2018, Hamas launched attacks into Israel. This most recent attack of Hamas targeting Israel with over 4000 rockets is just the latest in a long series. Each time Hamas does it, they instigate it, and Gaza winds up the worse for it.

According to the Oslo Accords, Israel and the Palestine Authority share responsibility over the West Bank, dividing it into 3 zones.

AreaSecurityCivil Admin%land%Palestinians
A (Green)
Palestinian Palestinian 18% 55%
B (Dark Red)
Israeli Palestinian 21% 41%
C (Pink)
IsraeliIsraeli61%4%

Area C is much disputed. It was supposed to be gradually transitioned to the Palestinian Authority but that has not happened yet.  The status of Israeli settlements in the the West Bank is in dispute internationally.

The Golan Heights are claimed by Israel, and they're not moving as it is a militarily strategic position overlooking Israel. Trump recognized the Golan Heights as being part of Israel, and moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem which the Israelis have designated their capital city.

The Trump administration advanced the Abraham Accords which normalized relations between several Arab countries and Israel, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morroco, with other countries expected if the Biden administration can keep the peace process on track.

All in all, my take on it is that while both sides of the conflict are partially at fault (Israel with historical atrocities, over-aggressive policing, and continued settlements), the Hamas terrorist "government" in Gaza is a very bad actor, and the Arabs in general have been bad actors throughout the history of Israel, unwilling to compromise in the least or even give an inch while expressing strong anti-Jewish sentiments and the desire to completely eradicate Israel as their one and only goal.

The suffering of the Palestinian people, especially those in the Gaza Strip, should be placed squarely on the backs of their own Hamas terrorist leaders that even the Palestinian Authority disavow and went to war with.

A dumb blonde spanking blogger's two cents on it anyways. Your comments are welcome, as always.