As A Woman How Does It Make You Feel To Get Spanked?

[SFRL]

As a woman how does it make you feel to get spanked? 

Let's define a spanking as: A slap with a flat hand on the booty. 

 

Dudes feel free to join the conversation. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by SFRL

[Emerald]

You talk about spanking women a lot. Is it a fetish kind of thing for you?

[SFRL]

15 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You talk about spanking women a lot. Is it a fetish kind of thing for you?

Hehehe 

[Forestluv]

@SFRL getting spanking during sexual play or during the regular day?

[SFRL]

@Emerald @Serotoninluv any time she deserves it. 

[Forestluv]

@SFRL I’m a guy. Are you asking about getting spanked or soankinh her?

[SFRL]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@SFRL I’m a guy. Are you asking about getting spanked or soankinh her?

Her 

Edited September 29, 2017 by SFRL

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, SFRL said:

Her 

I’ve only dated a couple gals that was into it. Giving her some spanks didn’t do much for me. I’m more into spontaneous encounters outside.

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, SFRL said:

@Emerald @Serotoninluv any time she deserves it. 

Is this a tongue in cheek kind of play like "You deserve this!" Or is it a serious thing where you want to spank a woman when she does something that you don't like as a legitimate form of punishment?

If it's the former, then it's probably a fun and playful sexual experience that enhances whatever other erotic thing that the two partners are engaging in. So, she probably enjoys it if she chooses to engage in it. Small amounts of pain can feel good in that context. Also, spanking tends to mimic the sensation of a man's hips banging up against her in doggy-style sex and it makes blood flow to that area. So, if she likes it then it probably makes her feel turned on, naughty, and submissive. Some women may dislike it though. In this case, she will let her partner know.

But if it's the latter then it's just a shitty thing to do to her. And she's probably going to hate it and hate whoever is doing it to her. It will be the opposite of a turn on and something that will legitimately make her upset.

[SFRL]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Is this a tongue in cheek kind of play like "You deserve this!" Or is it a serious thing where you want to spank a woman when she does something that you don't like as a legitimate form of punishment?

If it's the former, then it's probably a fun and playful sexual experience that enhances whatever other erotic thing that the two partners are engaging in. So, she probably enjoys it if she chooses to engage in it. Small amounts of pain can feel good in that context. Also, spanking tends to mimic the sensation of a man's hips banging up against her in doggy-style sex and it makes blood flow to that area. So, if she likes it then it probably makes her feel turned on, naughty, and submissive. Some women may dislike it though. In this case, she will let her partner know.

But if it's the latter then it's just a shitty thing to do to her. And she's probably going to hate it and hate whoever is doing it to her. It will be the opposite of a turn on and something that will legitimately make her upset.

I don't think it's that black and white. 

As the monkey I am/humans are, it is more like a mating ritual. 

[Emerald]

15 minutes ago, SFRL said:

I don't think it's that black and white. 

As the monkey I am/humans are, it is more like a mating ritual. 

I'd say that it's pretty safe to say that most psychologically healthy people don't enjoy being punished and physically smacked by their significant other in any kind of real way. Psychologically healthy people don't like to be physically dominated or controlled by their partner in the context of non-sexual life. They may enjoy it in the context of sex because you're playing around with the lower nature, which works very differently than the higher nature. This is what BDSM is. It's people who are indulging in and playing with the power dynamics of the lower nature in a safe and consensual context. But to take those power dynamics outside of the bedroom is just really unappealing in reality... especially from the female perspective. So, spanking a woman when she disobeys your whims in real life is just violent, regressive, and completely un-sexy. It's a quick way to lose a woman with any shred of self-esteem.

Have you ever had a serious significant other and then try to spank them in a real way? I suspect not. I suspect that the idea of punishing a woman who gets mean with you is probably a fantasy of yours. Many men feel like women are aggressors because they are of the thought that women are holders of their sexual value... and by extension their actual value. So, it makes sense that sex, dominance, and punishment would play out in the context of some male fantasies. Because it is both sex and revenge bundled together in one package, that's topped off by an affirmation of your own dominance and desirability. Then if she eventually enjoys it, it hits even more psycho-sexual buttons because that means that she's come to learn to enjoy her subservience to you. So, I recommend keeping the lower nature in the bedroom, and to play these fantasies out with a woman who shares the reciprocal fantasy. But when you bring the lower nature out of the bedroom, it will wreak havoc on your life.

Think of the lower nature like a lion, and the higher nature like a lion tamer. Everyone's lion is very animalistic and primal, and has appetites that are less than socially acceptable. The lion represents all of our baser instincts like sex. The lion tamer is the higher nature, which in healthy people has strong principles and ideals and is skilled at taming and controlling the lion. The mistake that I see people make is to believe that the lion itself is sexy. So, they want to let the lion lead. But the untamed lion is not sexy. The lion by itself is just scary and destructive. But with a skilled lion tamer, the two of them become very appealing. This is why women generally enjoy being with man with a dominant and aggressive vibe in the bedroom, but prefer a warmhearted gentleman in almost all other contexts. They are attracted to the lion tamer and his ability to control the lion. So, a man who is aggressive and sexual all the time is just not sexy. Because it seems like the lion tamer is just unskilled at taming his lion.

[SFRL]

8 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'd say that it's pretty safe to say that most psychologically healthy people don't enjoy being punished and physically smacked by their significant other in any kind of real way. Psychologically healthy people don't like to be physically dominated or controlled by their partner in the context of non-sexual life. They may enjoy it in the context of sex because you're playing around with the lower nature, which works very differently than the higher nature. This is what BDSM is. It's people who are indulging in and playing with the power dynamics of the lower nature in a safe and consensual context. But to take those power dynamics outside of the bedroom is just really unappealing in reality... especially from the female perspective. So, spanking a woman when she disobeys your whims in real life is just violent, regressive, and completely un-sexy. It's a quick way to lose a woman with any shred of self-esteem.

Have you ever had a serious significant other and then try to spank them in a real way? I suspect not. I suspect that the idea of punishing a woman who gets mean with you is probably a fantasy of yours. Many men feel like women are aggressors because they are of the thought that women are holders of their sexual value... and by extension their actual value. So, it makes sense that sex, dominance, and punishment would play out in the context of some male fantasies. Because it is both sex and revenge bundled together in one package, that's topped off by an affirmation of your own dominance and desirability. Then if she eventually enjoys it, it hits even more psycho-sexual buttons because that means that she's come to learn to enjoy her subservience to you. So, I recommend keeping the lower nature in the bedroom, and to play these fantasies out with a woman who shares the reciprocal fantasy. But when you bring the lower nature out of the bedroom, it will wreak havoc on your life.

Think of the lower nature like a lion, and the higher nature like a lion tamer. Everyone's lion is very animalistic and primal, and has appetites that are less than socially acceptable. The lion represents all of our baser instincts like sex. The lion tamer is the higher nature, which in healthy people has strong principles and ideals and is skilled at taming and controlling the lion. The mistake that I see people make is to believe that the lion itself is sexy. So, they want to let the lion lead. But the untamed lion is not sexy. The lion by itself is just scary and destructive. But with a skilled lion tamer, the two of them become very appealing. This is why women generally enjoy being with man with a dominant and aggressive vibe in the bedroom, but prefer a warmhearted gentleman in almost all other contexts. They are attracted to the lion tamer and his ability to control the lion. So, a man who is aggressive and sexual all the time is just not sexy. Because it seems like the lion tamer is just unskilled at taming his lion.

I don't see why sex and sexual behaviour should be confined to the bedroom. 

Worldwide the circus get shutdown because it's considered inhumane for the lion. The lion belongs free in the wild. It can me destructive and scary, but it's also King of the wild. 

[Emerald]

9 minutes ago, SFRL said:

I don't see why sex and sexual behaviour should be confined to the bedroom. 

Worldwide the circus get shutdown because it's considered inhumane for the lion. The lion belongs free in the wild. It can me destructive and scary, but it's also King of the wild. 

There are very good reasons for this to be the case. A society that's lead by our more animalistic nature is more barbaric and unconscious. It devolves humans into mere apes. And it sounds like it would be a sexy thing to let the sexual nature lead, but it's not. A society that's lead by the lower nature has no room for anything that makes life more than just a zero sum game of fuck, eat, and shit. It's a dirty type of world. And it takes all the beauty and mystery out of sex.

I'm not religious but I'm going to bring up the Bible. The Bible warns against the nature of the beast and is so focused on shaming sin. Society had been very barbaric before the morality religions came about, so creating these rules of behavior was a major step forward for us in human evolution... even if it's a step backwards for us now. I believe the mystics of morality based religions saw firsthand society lead by our lower nature becomes degenerative. So, that is why they were so focused on controlling (or sometimes outright suppressing) our baser drives. They knew that society as a whole would not be able to become as conscious as them, so creating strict rules for controlling the lower nature was the best they could do given the level of evolution that humanity was at. It was the most loving thing they could do at the time given the nature of the era and culture.

A society that's lead by our higher nature is moving in the direction of greater human evolution. This is the part of us that creates things that make life better. And it's the part of us that has principles and ideals, and works for the good of others. It's the only reason why our lives are anything near the quality they are at now. I know there's a lot of cynicism about the state of society at present. But if we had the contrast with the earlier eras, it would be very clear to us how lucky we really are to live in such a society. However, on the flip-side, when the higher nature has no connection to the libidinal energy from the lower nature, the whole thing stagnates. So, it's important to be able to channel the lower nature's power upward toward more evolved forms of expression.

Also, sex is a lot more interesting when approached from the higher nature because the emotions are a lot better. Sex from the lower nature only allows you to feel the emotions of shallow lust, orgasm, physical dominance, physical submission, pain, and other such feelings. Sex from the higher nature allows for all these feelings in their more exhalted forms as well as sensuality, sexual tension, love, longing, connection, rest, belonging, eroticism, emotional rapture, ecstasy, and all sorts of other far more interesting and fulfilling emotions. So, the sexual nature will always glint through a person with a highly developed personality. But it will be very subtle and mysterious... and a lot more tantalizing.

I'll give an example of the female version of the lion/lion tamer dynamic because you can probably relate more to that example and see the difference that it makes to let the lion tamer lead and not the lion itself. A woman's lion is her (for want of a better word) slutty nature. The woman's higher nature is the part of her that has principles and values and behaves like a proper lady. So, is it sexier to see a woman who leads with her slutty nature and shows it off in any context? Or is it sexier to see a woman who behaves like a proper lady in public... but in the bedroom she let's her slutty nature show?

[Principium Nexus]

Should be out of tease not because of frustration. People are disgusted from letting other people project their frustration on them in anyway.

I think it can be fun and add something extra, after all it all depends on the mood/set and setting.

 

[YaNanNallari]

I think it has to do with kinks if someone says they absolutely love it. I think kinks make people close down to themselves rather than open up to love. Of course in general our bodies have feel good reactions for that area and it can move energy around.

[Spiral]

Tried it but never got into to it, felt strange and forced. (During sex)

Edited September 30, 2017 by Spiral

[SFRL]

3 hours ago, Spiral said:

Tried it but never got into to it, felt strange and forced. (During sex)

I feel like that when they ask you to strangle them. It doesn't really do it for me. 

I guess it's just preference. 

Edited September 30, 2017 by SFRL

[SFRL]

15 hours ago, Emerald said:

There are very good reasons for this to be the case. A society that's lead by our more animalistic nature is more barbaric and unconscious. It devolves humans into mere apes. And it sounds like it would be a sexy thing to let the sexual nature lead, but it's not. A society that's lead by the lower nature has no room for anything that makes life more than just a zero sum game of fuck, eat, and shit. It's a dirty type of world. And it takes all the beauty and mystery out of sex.

I'm not religious but I'm going to bring up the Bible. The Bible warns against the nature of the beast and is so focused on shaming sin. Society had been very barbaric before the morality religions came about, so creating these rules of behavior was a major step forward for us in human evolution... even if it's a step backwards for us now. I believe the mystics of morality based religions saw firsthand society lead by our lower nature becomes degenerative. So, that is why they were so focused on controlling (or sometimes outright suppressing) our baser drives. They knew that society as a whole would not be able to become as conscious as them, so creating strict rules for controlling the lower nature was the best they could do given the level of evolution that humanity was at. It was the most loving thing they could do at the time given the nature of the era and culture.

A society that's lead by our higher nature is moving in the direction of greater human evolution. This is the part of us that creates things that make life better. And it's the part of us that has principles and ideals, and works for the good of others. It's the only reason why our lives are anything near the quality they are at now. I know there's a lot of cynicism about the state of society at present. But if we had the contrast with the earlier eras, it would be very clear to us how lucky we really are to live in such a society. However, on the flip-side, when the higher nature has no connection to the libidinal energy from the lower nature, the whole thing stagnates. So, it's important to be able to channel the lower nature's power upward toward more evolved forms of expression.

Also, sex is a lot more interesting when approached from the higher nature because the emotions are a lot better. Sex from the lower nature only allows you to feel the emotions of shallow lust, orgasm, physical dominance, physical submission, pain, and other such feelings. Sex from the higher nature allows for all these feelings in their more exhalted forms as well as sensuality, sexual tension, love, longing, connection, rest, belonging, eroticism, emotional rapture, ecstasy, and all sorts of other far more interesting and fulfilling emotions. So, the sexual nature will always glint through a person with a highly developed personality. But it will be very subtle and mysterious... and a lot more tantalizing.

I'll give an example of the female version of the lion/lion tamer dynamic because you can probably relate more to that example and see the difference that it makes to let the lion tamer lead and not the lion itself. A woman's lion is her (for want of a better word) slutty nature. The woman's higher nature is the part of her that has principles and values and behaves like a proper lady. So, is it sexier to see a woman who leads with her slutty nature and shows it off in any context? Or is it sexier to see a woman who behaves like a proper lady in public... but in the bedroom she let's her slutty nature show?

I don't agree with that. When you take the Roman Empire for example, at the height of it's success, many Gods we're worshipped and rites were practiced. And those were often very animalistic in nature. Animalistic drives like aggression were often celebrated during blood games like Gladiator fights. And human lust and sex was practiced more out in the open. Then there was stuff like widespread homosexuality. 

Yet the Roman Empire thrived in all areas including culture. 

The Bible as we know it has very little to do with the original Sages and Mystics of Christianity. They lived hundreds if not thousands of years before the Bible as we know it was put together. 

The Bible as we know it is more like a final cut that the Catholic church deemed appropriate when they put it together somewhere during The Middle Ages. Many Christian story's, or versions of story's, ideas, and teachings didn't make it to the Catholic Bible. A Bible that was put together by a church that was also very corrupt and hungry for worldly power. 

There have been versions of Christianity that believed that Maria was Jesus lover, and not his mom. Those other Christian movements have pretty much disappeared because their members were all killed during lesser known crusades organized by the Catholic church. 

Not to condemn the whole Catholic church by the actions of a few. But their moral teachings don't work that well, showing the abuse by Catholic priests. 

For the notion that the lower nature of women generally would be slutty, I am not sure that is truth. Women are programmed by nature to desire sex like men do so they will mate and reproduce. 

But a slutty nature (sleeping around) does not line up with the idea that women have mating strategy based on trying to find that one great guy that presents the opportunity to create a maximum change of survival child. 

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by SFRL

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, SFRL said:

I don't agree with that. When you take the Roman Empire for example, at the height of it's success, many Gods we're worshipped and rites were practiced. And those were often very animalistic in nature. Animalistic drives like aggression were often celebrated during blood games like Gladiator fights. And human lust and sex was practiced more out in the open. Then there was stuff like widespread homosexuality. 

Yet the Roman Empire thrived in all areas including culture.

The gladiator fights were basically where they would put a criminal, socially outcasted, or enslaved man in to fight with lions. It was pretty much a guarantee that he would lose. And the people would come to watch the carnage. This doesn't really sound like a good society to live in. Certainly, the Pax Romana would have been nice to live in if you were in good social standing. But the quality of life back then is nowhere near the level of quality we have now. It's important not to glorify the past too much.

Also, Roman culture was basically just a rip off of ancient Greek culture. They just rebooted everything and gave it a new Roman spin.

21 minutes ago, SFRL said:

The Bible as we know it has very little to do with the original Sages and Mystics of Christianity. 

The Bible as we know it is more like a final cut that the Catholic church deemed appropriate when they put it together somewhere during The Middle Ages. Many Christian story's, or versions of story's, ideas, and teachings didn't make it to the Catholic Bible. A Bible that was put together by a church that was also very corrupt and hungry for worldly power. 

There have been versions of Christianity that believed that Maria was Jesus lover, and not his mom. Those other Christian movements have pretty much disappeared because their members were all killed during lesser known crusades organized by the Catholic church. 

Not to condemn the whole Catholic church by the actions of a few. But their moral teachings don't work that well, showing the abuse by Catholic priests.

That's true. But it was the best thing we had at the time and did bring us forward in human evolution. The rigid rules allowed for us to keep our baser drives outside while we worked on developing other aspects of humanity. And Jesus' teachings were always about compassion for one another. If we allow the rule of the jungle to be the leading mindset in society, then only the biggest and strongest people would rule. That means, that intellect and creativity and compassion mean nothing. Orienting society in a way that is more compassionate and in line with the higher nature and its principles allows for our better angels to lead us and society.

27 minutes ago, SFRL said:

For the notion that the lower nature of women generally would be slutty, I am not sure that is truth. Women are programmed by nature to desire sex like men do so they will mate and reproduce. 

But a slutty nature (sleeping around) does not line up with the idea that women have mating strategy based on trying to find that one great guy that presents the opportunity to create a maximum change of survival child. 

 

You see the strategic aspect and "finding the right guy" is part of the higher nature. The lower nature is very indiscriminate and just focused on indiscriminately following the sexual impulse. So, any guy will do for the task of simply getting pregnant. Now, in the earliest days of humanity, this was probably a guarantee of death for yourself and your child because the mother could not go out and hunt to provide while taking care of a newborn. But it is still part of the lower nature. It has no consideration for the future. It just follows the primal instincts.

[Guest username]

@SFRL I think it was Mary Magdelene that was hypothesized to be Jesus's wife, not the the Virgin Mary, who happens to have the same first name.

As for female promiscuity, I've heard theories that say it was evolutionarily advantageous because it obscures the paternity and makes the child less likely to be killed by competing mates, which was supposedly more common in ancient times, and would thus give the female more male providers for her offspring. I think this is what some theorists proposed after observing similar behavior in some apes.

Not entirely sure.

Edited September 30, 2017 by username