Introduction to Fondly and Firmly - the Gentlemanly Art of Spanking the Woman you Love

This introduction is not finished.  It is a rough rewrite of what I called the rambling "treatise" which grew to an impossible size in 1997, 1998 and 1999. This quick rewrite retains most of the good bits, but I want to make it much better.  While it is still rather disjointed, it is much better than what the so-called "treatise" had grown into!

Before reading this introduction, please read the home page
and the section on the /new/ page regarding harmony.
These describe the overall scope of this project.
 

A note on whether only women who have been abused want discipline and spanking

Quite a few feminists believe that any woman who actually wants to be punished or disciplined, including in a safe constructive way which she specifically requests, must herself have been emotionally damaged, and is therefore in desperate need of help.  Consequently, they believe that any discussion of such discipline, or perhaps even "play" spankings, constitutes the promotion of abuse.  This belief may be arrogant dogma since they would probably not change their mind even if they encountered a perfectly healthy woman who told them straight that they were wrong.  One woman I spoke to was adamant in this belief, despite proudly telling me of her own "purely erotic" practice of occasionally going to Melbourne's Hellfire Club, to have her backside vigorously whipped to the gasps of onlookers. Perhaps this belief does apply to some women - but certainly not to all.  Many intelligent, spirited women, including those whose upbringing and adult life has been exemplary, including those who are wonderful mothers and those who work in management and professions, including at least one attorney and quite a few who identify themselves as feminists, tell me this belief is utterly wrong.

I intend the term "gentleman" to mean a man who is highly principled, strong hearted and considerate.  In particular, I consider that a gentleman places a very high value on matters of love, family and personal growth and takes his responsibilities to all those around him seriously.  A gentleman, of course, has a well developed appreciation of the qualities and special needs of the fair sex.  This includes a studied understanding of certain negative aspects of the female psyche (at least in some women) of which he takes a very dim view and to which he must respond to in a decisive and sometimes demonstrative and resounding fashion.  Thus, in this treatise, the term "gentleman" has nothing to do with a man's profession, social class, income, race or religion.  Any man with noble intentions, wisdom and vigour can be a gentleman. A gentleman eschews pretense.  Even when dealing, of necessity, with persons in the grip of weakness and disinformation, he avoids condescension and exclusivity. It is not an easy role to perfect, and a gentleman will refine his understanding and skills by engaging in wide-ranging discussions.  It is a role which involves risks and quick, solitary, decision-making.  Gentlemen, being human, are bound to make mistakes - to which they admit and for which they strive to make amends.

"Test the man's resolve" mode - and Dr Robin's Skynner's perspective
 

Without giving examples or going into detail, a recurring theme is women who nag or taunt their men. For those men who negotiate, plead or try to avoid this taunting, the process may seem to be interminable. In fact I believe it is not interminable at all: those men who respond decisively find that this stops the woman's troubling behaviour immediately. This deliberately annoying, frustrating, unpleasant and anti-social behaviour by women is what I now call the "test the man's resolve mode". It is an all-too-common feature of man-woman relationships - though I know of some relationships, including some of my own in the past, where the woman did not behave like this at all.

This "test the man's resolve mode" is not necessarily done deliberately or consciously. Unless the man does respond decisively, the taunting can lead - over time - to irrevocable breakdown and loss of love. It can also cause the man to loose control and hit the woman in a dangerous fashion - in a way which is entirely out of character. This is a decisive response - although not the cool, controlled, authoritative physical response which would best have satisfied the mental processes which were driving the woman's nagging, taunting or occasionally violent behaviour.

The "test the man's resolve mode" is usually emotional taunting, complaining about things not being right, complaining about his behaviour or attitudes, pestering him to do something impossible or pointless. Sometimes - according to some surveys, quite often - the woman initiates physical violence.

Whatever the barbs directed at the man, lets assume for the purposes of this discussion that the provocation is without any rational justification. It is however keenly pursued by the women, who feels that it is her right or that she has not alternative but to combat or pressure her man as best she can.

The question then is not whether the provocation is justified - in time she will agree that it is not. At the time, no pleading or reason is likely to distract her from her argumentative path. The question is: How does the man respond to these attack on his dignity, confidence, the stability of the relationship and any children it involves and sometimes his physical person?

Many women cannot abide men who do not stand their ground. Many women fall out of love with a man who doesn't deal decisively with the shit a woman can dish out.

Men who may be emotionally ready to deal properly with this crap - thanks to their biological inheritance and perhaps what they have learnt from their father - may not in fact act demonstratively since they are trying to be nice sensitive guys. Things can then develop rapidly along tragic lines - with a spiral of more provocation and violent outbursts and quite likely destruction of trust and/or the relationship.

This in-built, instinctive "man testing" mechanism, (Lord forgive them for they know not what they do) is obviously an evolutionary advantage since women need a man who can defend her and her children against wild animals and the Hun. She does not want to find out that her man is weak when the Hun come over the horizon - the automatic test method has evolved to detect signs of weakness during ordinary life, when the Hun are likely to be far away and while she has time to seek out another man. (A successful quest leads to the most dangerous manoeuvre in a woman's life - buttering up the new man, without arousing aggression in the first and then leaving the first one for the second without getting killed in the process - but this is getting off topic.)

So she leaves the man who does not act decisively and falls in love with the biggest brute she can find, often dreaming that she can win his heart and make him tender and caring towards her, but remain a pushy bastard towards everyone else. Such a bloke, if he is truly the leading, action packed man she seeks, won't take any nonsense when she (instinctively and non-deliberately) taunts him. The right bloke will hit out - hopefully putting her over his knee and belabouring her backside in no uncertain fashion. The wrong bloke will think twice, will try to negotiate and appease. This is not the behaviour associated with real hunters and protectors - so the whingeing woman thing can be seen as an instinctively driven test (handed down and refined over tens of thousands of our ancestor's generations) to sort the men from the wimps at an early stage. A successful result is the man taking no time at all to quell the misbehaviour (hers or anyone else's) - with bluff or commanding instructions, backed up by physical force - or simply with physical force. An unsuccessful result is a man who backs down, who hopes it goes away - perhaps even a man who doesn't spank hard.

(Robin Skynner died in late 2000. I will add more information about him and his books when I revise this page.)

There is a particularly interesting interview with family therapist Dr Robin Skynner in "Not Guilty: In Defence of the Modern Man" by David Thomas (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London and William Morrow, New York 1993 See footnote 1 on the apparent un-availability of "Not Guilty".). Skynner depicts the predominant pattern of marital breakdown in recent years of women becoming dissatisfied with their husbands, and the failure of conventional counseling based on the ideas of improved communications and on reconciliation. Instead, Skynner and his wife (they worked as a team dealing with 40 couples a week) found it best to take the man and woman separately, and egg each on to stand up to the other. Successful resolutions usually resulted from the couple reaching a serious confrontation, often involving "a brief episode of violence". Skynner is not specific - but the implication is that this intensity of confrontation, and the man's physical aggression (perhaps in defence?), is crucial to the positive outcome which generally follows. This is a turning point in a relationship which had previously been characterised by the woman backing off for fear of hurting the man. Once the woman finds that she can attack the man and that he wins, this is a liberating experience for the woman. (Add this to the portfolio of weirdnesses filed under "feminine contradictions" - but it actually makes perfect sense.).

In explaining this, Skynner quotes a question to his wife and her response:

Why is it that you want us to go after you so hard and really pin you against the wall?

And she said, "Well, can't you see?" - very impatiently - "can't you see? It's obvious.
When you do that we come into our own. We don't have to worry. We can use our
energy and aggression and be what we really are and not worry about whether you
can take it or not. We become totally free."

There is much more to the Robin Skynner interview than this - it really can't be summarised. I think "Not Guilty" has some good material and I consider the Robin Skynner interview to be the perhaps the most important thing I have read in this difficult field. I can't find any of Robin Skynner's work directly on the net. He is best known for his two very successful books with John Cleese: Life and How to Survive it (1984) and Families and How to Survive Them (1994). (Search for "Robin Skynner" at http://www.amazon.com for details of various editions.)

Here is the full text of a short article regarding Robin Skynner and his politically incorrect views on relationships. This is from Melbourne newspaper The Age 24 May 1996 and was written by Catriona Bonfiglioni, writing from Wellington.

Men must stand up for themselves instead of cowering in a corner, hoping the women's movement disappears like a bad dream, and international family therapy pioneer, Dr Robin Skynner, said yesterday.

Women around the world were waiting for men to engage in the debate and fight back like real men, Dr Skynner told the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists conference in Wellington.

"For the family to work well, men still need to retain some aspects of the traditional male role and fathering functions," he said. "Women seem to desire this too, and appear to feel sexually repelled, or certainly not attracted, if the man ceases to retain some element of his assertiveness."

Dr Skynner, who has been practising and teaching family therapy for more than 30 years, said men have evolved to be violent in defence of their families and tribes and while hunting food..

But the industrial revolution, the hydrogen bomb and the women's movement had severely undermined men's confidence and curtailed their traditional role.

"Performance of the male role no longer carries with it the high self-esteem which was once associated with it."

In family therapy, women were encouraged to spell out their men's faults, and for a while the men would stonewall but eventually fight back.

"Women were always pleased when their men at least fought back and became men."

Letting the anger out also freed up the positive feelings they had for each other and often revived their sex life.

"Women don't want men to fizzle away," Dr Skynner said. "They want men to be men still. They want a man who's a man, and sticks up for himself in more ways than one. If he doesn't they despise him. That's what men have to do, they have to fight it out."

Men should get out more and bond with other men so they are not so dependent on women she (sic) said.
 
 

(Robin Skynner wrote a book in 1976 "Systems of Family and Marital Psychotherapy".  See my Footnote 2 on finding this and other books of his. )
 

There are a few issues which arise at this point, which I will mention, but not pursue fully.

One is that a sound spanking is a safer, and probably more emotionally effective, means than fisticuffs and rolling pins of impressing upon a woman that she is operating within a masculine framework and that she has transgressed the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

Second is that perhaps earlier recourse to spanking in the testing scenarios I have referred to (and which Robin Skynner and David Thomas discuss) would stop things getting to the point where the relationship is in danger.

Thirdly, if women's whingeing is a test-mode - best answered by spanking - and if feminism is a collective manifestation of women's whingeing, escalated to the level of a global socio/political orthodoxy, which in turn inhibits men from being masculine and demonstrative in their loving relationships, then men should be spanking their wives and girlfriends more (when they need it) and spanking feminists on a grand scale, generally. (This is not to say that feminism is without its benefits or that there is nothing more to it than unreasonable whingeing.)

This whingeing "test the man's resolve mode" (which may manifest as nagging, unreasonable complaint or sulkiness, violent outbursts or some otherwise inexplicable unreasonable conduct) can be the genesis of much dangerous and destructive violence - but with correct understanding and careful management, I think such situations should be handled with a safe, memorable and potentially harsh, spanking. (Update 12 October 1997: The extremes of depression and disconnection with reality which some women suffer in their pre-menstrual phase is a tragic aspect of humanity which, to my knowledge, has not been properly explained. I would caution at assuming that the personality distortions and delusions of worst case PMS is the same as this "test the man's resolve mode". At the risk of trying to cover a huge area in a few sentences, here is my best theory on Pre Menstrual Tension. The feeling of "unlovedness" which characterises PMS has evolved as a way of causing the man to lavish extra attention on his woman, in an effort to prove her delusions wrong. This keeps him more dedicated to her during the days which follow, when her menstrual flows might have made her less attractive and in which he may otherwise have been tempted to chase other women. When PMS is really destructive and the woman behaves in a way which is certifiably mad, as some will admit a few days later, I see this as an imperfectly developed instinctive process having gone seriously off the rails and way beyond the functions which made it reproductively successful.)

Fortunately not all women have this "test mode" in a big way - it is a distressing aspect of humanity. There are many women who have chosen gentle, caring, hard working men - and who seem to give little trouble to their men nor demand of them regular demonstrations of Hun-busting aggression. One wonderful woman comes to mind - she works full time to support her husband and children. While I can't be sure she is always a perfect angel, I have never seen evidence or heard reports of the "whingeing test mode" being deployed on her husband. I don't want to paint a simplistic picture of the relationship between the "test the man's resolve mode" mechanism and the spanking response - my conception is more complex than I can express here. There are many wonderful, peaceful, loving, hard-working, sexy women - and at least with this person, despite absence of any apparent cause in her upbringing, she still enjoys being spanked! This occurs in a playful, sensual setting - a delightful alternative to the tempestuous arguments and domestic drama that some couples seem to need to blow off steam. Still I guess it is different strokes for different folks.

So fellas, as we have long known, the most dangerous, destabilising, frustrating and potentially emotionally destructive forces we have to contend with emanate from the brain of the woman we love. However, when integrated with mind and body - her brain can be really wonderful too. The ambivalence about the unpredictable nature of women's emotions is a heavy burden for most of us to bear. One of the benefits of a thorough exploration of spanking is that you learn how to a unique interface to the woman's brain - to encourage her better faculties and to demonstratively control her brain's problematic functions. That interface, so fiendishly devised by Mother Nature, is the woman's bottom. Mother Nature also gave us two strong arms and hands - one to hold the woman by the waist and the other to smack her backside for as long as we see fit.

We are physically well equipped to deal with at least some of the problematic behaviour which causes grief, instability and loss of love. But we have to know how to use our tools - we could make a mess emotionally and physically if we are careless.

Feedback from a woman - 1

The following excerpts are from email with a well spanked, well loved woman, who is married with children and has a psychology degree.  This is her first email to me.  Since then we have compared notes extensively - though in her case she already has a strong caring man, and there has been nothing for me to add to the disciplinary framework which forms a cornerstone of their relationship
 
Alright, Mr. Fondman, let's have a talk.

. . .

I find your comprehension of female wiles to be a breath of fresh air.
To hear all of this defined from a man is astounding. I expected such
clarity from another woman.

. . .
 

I also find that when I get worried, or start to feel insecure about
anything, I act up - which is his clue that I'm looking for a physical
statement that he has everything under control. Additionally, I find
that the more I have submitted to him as the head of our household,
the stronger he has become as a man. The stronger he has become as a
man, the less insecure I feel as a woman and with life in general. It
all ties in together.

. . .

I see it a hundred times - ensuing divorces - and again and again I
want to yell at these men, those who have been left, to spank the
daylights out of their woman!!! They don't fight for the woman; they
give in thinking this is indeed what she wants, and they lose her.
One, two, three, out!

Women cannot, and will not, respect perceived weakness or any man that
will not fight for their relationship.

. . .

There ought to be a Male Spankers Society or something of the like to
reassure MALES of our society that they are not bully's or abusers of
any kind.

. . .

I really believe that the thoughts and feelings running through
this female brain and heart of mine are shared by the majority of
women.  That's one reason I wrote.  I felt many other women would
relate, even though they may never admit so.  There's a lot more I
could share and I'll let you determine what you'd like to know.

I also cannot strongly urge you enough to stop worrying so much with
revising the Website as getting the info together for a book.  The
title, might I dare suggest?:  "The Sociobiology of Spanking."  I
really struggled with my feelings for years and have since searched and
surfed many spanking websites and newsgroups - never participating,
just lurking.  I have heard a plethora of confirmation for what you
yourself have discovered and shared.
 

So, I want you to understand that I really believe you have tapped
into a pulsing, unseen vein in society that needs to be oxygenated,
explored and put out there in print. Spanking is not simply some
strange fetish used for sexual arousal and enjoyment!

I have said for years that spanking was an emotional issue - a heart
issue that has very little to do with sex to start.  Now to have a
deep need met with a spanking will definitely endear you LUSTILY to
the one you now see as a saviour of your insecurities, but it still
starts, in my opinion, with basic, unmet, emotional needs.  Perhaps it
is too embarrassing for many to take spanking out of the sexual realm.
 

One gentleman's modus-operandi

This gentleman is happily married, with children.  He initially objected to what he perceived as a focus of this site on the erotic aspects of spanking - something that does not interest him at all.  Since then the focus has changed somewhat - towards discipline relating to acceptable behaviour and motivation.  When I explained myself better, he replied, stating for the first time that he did in fact spank his beloved wife on rare occasions.  The following text, reproduced with permission from his email, explains what I call his "Modus-Operandi" regarding discipline.

He elucidates a number of key points, such as the need for warnings - rather than there being any surprise about a spanking being administered.
 

It is exactly the same for adults as for children. Basically you
are introducing an artificial, but safe, negative consequence to
their behavior.

It is delivered out of love, not hate or anger, to point out a
dangerous behavior when the real consequence is far less apparent
but will be more devastating (as for a child pulling on the cord
that leads to a kettle, as for a partner who thinks she can give
you an ear ache, and expect you to hang around to take it).

Except in life threatening danger, in which case you save, not
spank, it should never be a surprise. Several clear warnings should
precede, and in the end it is their choice.

The difference in the adult case is that they are generally
speechless at your audacity to presume the authoritative role and
the wisdom to judge, which is a bigger statement than the spanking
itself.  Once having chosen this route, however, you must not
flinch a fraction under the barrage that is likely to follow or you
are finished forever.  NEVER apologise, the only response can be
like "if you don't shut up, you will get another dose".

Although you are kind and flexible, in major doses, let there be no
misunderstandings about the fact that you DO have the final say.

In my experience, and as you point out, many women actually like
this, respect it and are attracted  as a result. They like to feel
protected, and the odd display of strength around the house
reinforces this.  Few will admit this.
 

The woman comments on this modus-operandi

Later, after I sent the woman quoted above a copy of the above Gentleman's Modus-Operandi, she replied, in part:
 
He's hit the nail on the proverbial head and to include anything,
edit, add text, would be to violate his writings -- can't do.  I find
it sufficient as it stands.  And he's right - NEVER apologize.

AND . . . yes, few women will admit to enjoying or needed that kind
of strength around the house.  There are a few of us stupid enough
to step forward.

Warnings ARE necessary.  The man will know how effective his
discipline has been by how the woman upholds or dismisses that
warning.  If she continues to push, he'll have to push back harder
this time - he wasn't taken seriously.  If he warns again without
action, and again she pushes - he's in a fix.  Be strong or suffer the
nagging consequences sir.  So if a man issues a warning and the woman
seriously considers heeding that warning, he's probably doing a swell
job!
 

I recieve some wonderful emails from women regarding their desires and needs in matters of discipline and spanking in their loving relationships.

High spirited women, you are not alone and you are not insane - though some of you certainly behave that way when you are testing your man's resolve!

Here is the text of an email I received in March 1998.  It is slightly edited, and has been broken into smaller paragraphs.
 
 

Dear Mr Fondman,

I just had to reply to your web site.  You have truly hit the nail on
the head.  I have had TOO many relationships go sour - I have lost
respect for the man because they were weak.

In my employment, I have to be strong and aggressive, which I do
well, but I cannot always be in charge nor do I want to always be in
charge.  At home, I want my life to be on a very different
basis from that of my workplace.

It really does go back to human nature - Men are to be the protectors
and the hunters and Women are the nurturers and the gatherers.  In
life, I want my partner to be in charge of most things, but being a
gentlemen, he would discuss major issues with me and get my input.
Then he would decide on our course of action.

You can't have two chiefs in a household.  I need my partner to make
me feel safe and secure - he can't do this if he allows me to walk
all over him.  Your reference to "Test the Man's Resolve mode" is so
accurate!! It isn't that we plan to act like this, it just seems to
happen and when the man does nothing, somehow respect is lost and
over a period of time (in my case about 2 yrs) the respect is
completely gone as well as the love.

I want to know my partner can handle anything that comes his way and
the more decisive he is, the more secure I feel.

I have a man friend who is VERY gentlemanly - he opens doors
for me, sits me a certain way in restaurants, walks on the
outside and has manners.  He is also very controlling (in a
gentlemanly way) and I know how far I can get to the imaginary line
before I get the *look*.

He has playfully swatted my behind (he knows I enjoy a nice spanking)
just because.  He will let me pick on him . . . up to a point.  When
he has had enough, he warns me, and then I have a choice to make.  I
know he has no problem spanking me.  The funny thing is, its not the
harshness of the spanking that makes me feel secure and cared for,
it's just the act itself.

He had told me I had a real spanking coming and that I would feel it,
and one day when I was at his house helping him with something, he
grabbed my arm and told me it was time for my spanking, took me to
his bedroom, and spanked me 6 times.  He spanked hard enough for me
to feel it, but it was not a beating by ANY stretch of the
imagination.  He kept his word and that somehow made me feel safe. He
is the type of man that I NEED.

One part of my brain does not want to admit this, but the other part
has accepted this fact. In return for a strong man that is
gentlemanly, protective and in control of his surroundings, I am
able to spoil him with giving him the little things to let him know
how much I appreciate his manliness (like foot massages, getting his
coffee, taking care of him).

I am happy to read that I am not insane. I know this is what I need -
to be the best person I can be.

I also agree that since, somewhere along the line, men and woman seem
to have lost their true nature, that divorce is rampant.

Well, I just wanted to drop you a line and let you know how
insightful you are!!!
 
 

After reading this letter, I replied to her, asking permission to quote it here on the "Gentlemanly Art . . . " web site.  I also asked her to tell me more about her testing behaviour, and how Pre-Menstrual Syndrome might be related to this.

( I have many questions about PMS and would especially like to correspond with women and gentleman on this - whether or not it relates to spanking. Specifically, what can a man to to best care for a woman when she suffers from PMS? Could a gentle, affectionate slapping on the tail help?  With lots of talking-to and reassurance?  Not a punishment, but some fond slaps on the bottom, and lots of caressing and cuddling, to remind her that she has been a silly-billy to feel so insecure, to imagine that her loving man has attacked her, or that his love for her has faltered whatsoever?  Maybe all of the above - but without the slaps - might be better.  Please let me know what you think.)

My correspondent impresses me as an, honest, loving woman.  I think that the feelings, behaviours and relationship failures she writes about are all too common.  The purpose of this "Gentlemanly Art . . . " site is to put men and women in touch with their true human nature so we can live our lives to the fullest and know how to cope with some of the more troublesome and otherwise baffling workings of the female mind.  (Not to imply that men's thinking is always perfect . . . What we hope to gain, in so many ways, from the love and support of a wonderful woman, is a very big subject, which I want to write more about. )
 

In response to some of my questions, she wrote:
 

As to the PMS, I notice with me, I seem to get either get insecure
or extra sassy!!  In either case, being held helps.

As to the "testing", I've noticed, with me, that its just a small
item to test the waters first so to speak, and if nothing is said or
no glance given, then it escalates with a life of its own -
depending on how often nothing happens.

These little tests - for me anyway - reinforce that my man is really
a man.  I don't need to push further because I have my answer and
all is well in my world.

In past relationships, nothing ever happened and I would start to
lose respect, then withdraw from them, and eventually leave.  I
would be as horrible as I could near the end, and still nothing!

What is really funny, is what my last ex told me.  He said he
should have taken control long ago and if he would have we would
have been happy.  He also told me that in my next relationship I
will have a dominant, "take charge" man, that I will be happier
then I had ever been - and that the man would be very lucky indeed.
 

A third woman writes of how she consistently chose the wrong men - until she discovered what sort  of manly framework she was really seeking

It seems that quite a few women in their mid thirties and forties come to realise that their past attraction to demonstrative men was not finely-tuned enough - they were attracted to all sorts of men who imposed themselves upon their women in ways which lead to unhappiness and sometimes much worse.  If a caring, gentlemanly, disciplinary framework - backed up by spanking - is what these women find they really want, then they can search consciously for the right man, or find an inexperienced gentleman and bring him up-to-speed on how he can bring out the best in her.

A woman, in her mid-thirties, wrote to me in March 1998, confirming that a new-found understanding of her true needs - which are denied by mainstream social values - has lead her into love with a spanking gentleman, rather than with the troublesome men to which she had previously been attracted.  This is part of her email, verbatim :
 
 

I honestly think that this is what I have been searching for - for
many of my adult years.  I went through so many bad relationships,
where the "man" tried to control me, using all the wrong methods.
Control is a bad word, I think, in this regard. But, I was attracted
to those types, and never fully understood why.

But, now I do.  I was looking for a man who would give me a masculine
framework. Unfortunately, the ones I chose offered me only abuse, in
the forms of yelling, ignoring, bossing me around, frightening me,
hitting (and I don't mean spanking!), using other women to make me
jealous and to "punish" me, etc..  I never stayed in those
relationships for more than a few months, but kept getting into new
ones of the same type!

And, yes, I did test those guys!  I think that deep inside, I wanted
to see if they would come through, and give me that framework that I
so desired and needed.  I believe that there were one or two of
those men, who I could have had a very happy life with, if they had
only known the correct way of giving me what I needed and wanted.

I like the idea that "my man" will give me a framework, and that if
I step out of it, there will be consequences. Those consequences may
be painful (in the right way!) but they will be given out of love,
to help enhance my life and so, his.  Not to cower me, or strip away
my self-confidence.

This makes me feel protected, looked after, and loved. I am so glad
that I found your web site!  It has changed my life.  I now know what
it is that I have been searching for, all these years.
 

The sociobiology of spanking

Apart from those who ask for it politely, my interest in spanking is only in respect of those adults who have cheerfully consented to spanking in an erotic and/or disciplinary setting - in the latter case, in the event of their failure to meet agreed standards of achievement, behaviour or attitude. The question of spanking when disciplining children is quite a different field in which I do not possess sufficient expertise to comment.

Spanking, discipline, ugly aspects of male-female relationships, biologically built-in mechanisms concerning sex, euphoria and the giving and receiving of pain and constraint are some of the topics discussed below. To do justice to these would involve a meticulously researched, book-sized treatise - delving into the underlying mechanisms of sociobiology, biochemistry, physics, "spirituality"/metaphysics and ultimately cosmology. As John Cleese said: "I'm sorry, there isn't time." However I have attempted a quick-march through some of the most contentious issues in a provocative fashion. Consequently, the following is not fully qualified, comprehensive or balanced.

 It must be recognised that a significant number of women like to be spanked from time to time - and that probably only a small proportion are getting what they crave. This is especially so in modern, non-violent life - and there are indications that those women most desperate to be spanked hard are the brightest, most responsible, most powerful - and often the most inclined to proclaim support for feminism. Of course plenty of men want to be spanked and treated like a naughty schoolgirl too. Every large town or city has sufficient men such as these - typically hardworking, prominent men in management and the professions - to keep whip-mistresses earning an honest living at AUD$200 an hour attending to their needs. I am convinced that any assertions about women's interest in spanking being merely patriarchal imagination - or solely the product of upbringing, social forces or manipulation - are to be utterly discounted.

 There is far more to life than spanking, and the concentration on this engaging and contentious subject on my web site should not be seen as an indication that I have a one-track mind about this aspect of life. To explain my appreciation and understanding of all the other aspects of life, would take another five or ten megabytes text - and an unacceptable workload which would detract from life itself.

Spanking is a thorny, exciting, throbbing pimento in the rich smorgasbord of human sexuality, sensuality and communication - which is one (admittedly delicious) aspect of the rich tapestry of life. The desire to spank and to be spanked can be all-consuming - so strike hard while the feelings are hot. This page is at best scratching the surface of a rich field of contradictions and surprises - the discussion of which is all-too-often suppressed.

However I don't want to make spanking "fashionable". It should be accessible and accepted as part of the amazing spectrum of human sexuality (amongst other things). I don't want to suggest that everyone should do it. When I say that every high-spirited woman would benefit from a spanking . . . (update 17 March - thanks to feedback from a reader, the text that was here was confusing and has been deleted, to be replaced by . . . ) I am speaking rather loosely.

For myself, I seek a romance, playfulness and sharing which integrates with as much of life as possible. In the midst of the feast are some odd things that can turn ugly. To me they must be understood and coped with constructively. So some of the following discussion is rather analytical - and forthright in its conclusions. Dealing with these potentially ugly aspects of life - and finding ways of turning them from a ticket to disaster into a source of fun and closeness - is all part of romance for me. In ordinary life I am generally relaxed and intuitive - and the following style of analysis is not indicative of how I generally think or behave. A major reason for being this analytical is to have the theory understood as much as possible beforehand, to give me the ability to stand firm and to initiate demonstrative action in situations that previously left me perplexed and floundering. This ability and confidence can be a wonderful catalyst for romance.

I would like to state that despite the importance I ascribe to both biology and upbringing - there is nothing in my family or school history which explains my interest in spanking, other that I am of English descent, and was born in England with the sun and ascendant in Scorpio. (That's the limit of my interest in astrology.)
 
 
 

Spanking, sex and other similar pursuits, including just thinking about these activities (yes, You!!!) generally lead to the creation of endorphins - naturally occurring brain chemicals which block pain, induce euphoria and are highly addictive. Other methods of flooding the brain with endorphins (or their synthetic equivalents) include: heroin, morphine and opium ingestion, alcoholism (I have read that the alcoholic's liver is damaged and breaks down alcohol into something similar to endorphins), long- distance running past the "pain barrier", intense aerobics on a similar basis and probably quite a few other things - such as the administration of corporal punishment on unwilling minors and others. I argue that these pursuits are more dangerous to the individual's physical and mental health - not to mention their bank balances and the cost to other individuals and to society - than a vigorous spanking in the context of consenting adults. "Consenting" includes agreeing to be forced to experience painful, constricting and/or degrading sensations, which at the time of experiencing them, the person wishes to halt immediately and may, at the time (but not hopefully not later) seriously regret.

I am working on a theory that many other behaviours and experiences which proved positive for the survival of our ancestors have also become involved in endorphin production. Such an evolutionary step, for instance the brain being biologically set up to get an endorphin hit when making a new tool, planting seeds (less likely since agriculture is only 5 to 10 thousand years old), hunting, or finding a partner of the opposite sex with good survival prospects, would have been a reason for our ancestors to maximise such behaviours and experiences. Hence we probably have brains wired up to do the same. For instance, do truck drivers get an endorphin hit out of planning the purchase of a shiny, new, all powerful truck? I think they do. What about people like me craving and then taking possession of high performance computers which dramatically advance our creative and earning capacities? What about women contemplating a bruiser of a bloke who looks like he could repulse the Hun with just a grimace and a twitch of his muscles - and whose hunting prowess suggests that he will bring home the bacon for decades to come? I think endorphins are involved here too. I can report that such endorphin sensations seem to be elicited by my contemplation of vivacious women of child-bearing age. This is a matter for further research!

Once they discover the euphoria of endorphins, via orgasm, spanking, the needle, the bottle, or excessive running etc. most people will do almost anything to get another dose. If managed responsibly, spanking can be seen as the non-injurious (not counting marks that may last a few days or weeks), entirely naturalistic approach to satisfying our craving for endorphin-induced euphoria. I also think it plays a crucial role in the emotional bonding of couples. The same can be said for sexual intercourse and related pursuits.

 There is a tendency to think of coitus is the centre-piece of human sexuality, with all other erotic activities and fantasies relegated to supporting roles - classified as legitimate acceptable foreplay or as aberrant perversions. I believe that a more sophisticated understanding of humanity would view sexuality as a pulsating, mutating network of actions and responses which altogether, very messily, tend to optimise reproductive success. There is far more to this than mere insemination. The activities of caressing, grooming, fighting, fondling, spanking and sex-role reversal may be viewed, depending on the circumstances as boosting reproductive success or as inconsequential or even disadvantageous by-products of a complex interplay of social and biological factors, which while still generally effective, have become so convoluted as to encompass a great deal of dead-wood and irrelevant processes. Still, if it feels good - we do it.

This discussion inevitably leads to the question of domestic violence - a dangerous and ugly area in which real, lasting physical and emotional damage is done. As a gentleman, I see spanking as a means of satisfying whatever urges may lead people into such ugly situations - hopefully without any ugly outcomes at all. Extreme caution is required, because when things get hot, there may be a slippery dividing line between intense fantasy and ugly damage. Some spanking activities which start as play could easily go beyond the healthy space where fantasy and reality meet in a way which ensures long-term happiness.

In the spanking and bondage/discipline scenes, it is standard procedure for "top" and "bottom" to previously agree on limits and on a "safe-word", which the "bottom" may utter to halt all proceedings if things really go too far.

More important than the "play" of conscious participants in a spanking scenario is the interaction between men and women in real life. Here there are no safe-words. There is no safe reality to escape to. Reality itself can turn very ugly indeed, and I have seen that on many occasions - including first-hand experience - the ugly developments emanate solely from the mind of the woman, although they are perhaps exacerbated by external conditions and the man's inability to deal constructively with the turmoil resulting from her attitude and behaviour. Often, I believe, the woman's entire perception is at odds with reality - so I do not characterise the drama which results as being the product of malicious intent. More likely it is simply delusion.

 
Theoretically, one would be able to get some idea of what turns someone one from them, or what their limits are. But there are so many indefinites - people do especially appreciate being taken beyond their previous experience. Some probably do get a thrill out of being genuinely scared. It is an "all at sea" business. It calls for some combination of logic, formal arrangement, gut feeling and sense of adventure - all guided by a sense of great care for the both of you. I think it also requires understanding that with risks, sometimes things will go wrong and that so there may be genuine, lasting regrets.

The autocratic disciplinarian who dishes out what he sees fit without prior arrangement may well be a hot fantasy of many people, but should generally be avoided because there are enormous risks. (Unless of course the spankee is lucky enough to find someone who dishes out exactly what they need.)
 

On the other hand - some people just love you taking risks with them and with yourself - including risks involving breaking the law. How else do you explain me meeting a young woman in the city, to deliver some punishment straps which I had made to her order, only to find that we had both been searching for a place in the city where I could administer the strap on her bottom? She said she got a big thrill from her boyfriend taking risks. After a little thought, I said that I had been looking for somewhere to strap her in the city. Her face lit up as she told me she had come in earlier for that very same reason!

I took her by the hand, staring intently into her excited eyes and commanded "Come with me, young woman!" Within minutes, we were in a slow moving lift I had previously identified. She faced the wall and lifted her skirt - with something of a worried look on her face. I had quick marched her there and given exact instructions on what she was to do. There was not a second wasted. She had, of her own choice, not yet seen the two straps which she had already paid me for. I unwrapped them and administered the stiff, harsh three-thonged tawse to her bottom with vigour - as she gasped and squirmed. Minutes later, walking in the bright sunshine in the crowded city street, I asked her "Did you experience regret?" She said. "Yes, I certainly did . . .". Then she looked at me directly and said ". . . but it wasn't enough!" I suggested a quick march back to the lift for another taste - but we had other appointments . . .

Risk taking comes up time and again in the erotic fantasies of women. So by taking risks with someone, you are potentially doing them a great favour - one that they cannot ask for (that would detract from the risk). However, it is obviously best to be very careful.
 
 

I was only after I held a sassy lady tightly by the waist, over my knee, and spanked her round, womanly, soft and sensitive bottom hard, that I realised the fiendish intent of Mother Nature in equipping women with their prominent derriere. It is to attract, receive and possibly incite corporal punishment, time-after-time, without any lasting injury. (Update 12 October 1997: I have received correspondence from women agreeing on this point specifically.) I have no doubt that part of the bottom's evolutionary success its ability to attract the dangerous attentions of violent men (who our ancestral mothers needed to live with to ensure their survival and the survival of their children) away from the face and other parts of the body which are more easily damaged. (Men, being fighters, are typically biologically programmed to cause maximum harm when they are angry and fighting. A man who was capable of protecting and feeding a woman and her children would be capable of killing her an a few seconds of rage. This is a big subject, but women have evolved intense emotional mechanisms for ensuring their survival in this dangerous situation. I believe that the derriere - and the typically sexual response to punishment by both men and women - are some of the responses which evolved in the course of our ancestors surviving for the last several hundred thousand years.)

(Update 12 October 1997.) I think that women's bottoms are generally very sensitive to chastisement - typically much more than a man's. Men generally have less sensitive skin - their bodies are optimised for hunting and fighting. A women's body is optimised for the delicate business of caring for children. Male to female transsexuals report their skin becoming more sensitive as their male hormones disappear and the female hormones feminise their bodies. (See http://www.abmall.com/tss/com.html for comments on the effects of drugs which block the effects of male hormones, and introduce phyto-estrogens into the body - for the purpose of feminisation.) A sociobiological perspective on this is that a man's bottom is supposed to be tough, but a woman's (if my functional description of spanking is correct) would be best served by a bottom which is very sensitive to being spanked (so the spanker does not need to hit very hard, to save her from any resulting damage). This sensitivity to punishment would be mainly in terms of causing pain, regret and determination to change her ways, but also in terms of the skin turning bright red ASAP to indicate to the punisher that this was the best place to hit! (Can anyone think of a more fiendish design for a punishment zone than what Mother Nature has provided in the female bottom?)
 

I look forward to sorting this rough introduction into much better shape!

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Not Guilty, In Defence of the Modern Man, by David Thomas This was published in 1993 in London by Weidenfeld & Nicholson (ISBN 0 297 81216 5) and in the USA by William Morrow & Company (August 1993 ISBN: 068811024X ). http://www.amazon.com does not mention the former, and lists the latter as being "out of print, but if you place an order we may be able to find you a used copy within 2-6 months." (35,000 were printed, according to www.amazon.com.) This is a shame - its a good book in many ways. Is this still available in the English edition? Weidenfeld & Nicholson seems to be a relatively obscure publisher. This book is often cited as one of the good books on mens' issues. One chap, Tom Graves, in his page on men suffering from abusive relationships http://www.bendigo.net.au/~tgraves/gendidx.htm cites it as one of only two good books in this field - the other is Steve Biddulph's Manhood. If this book really is out of print, then there may be no harm in me putting the entire Robin Skynner interview on the web. I should contact both Robin Skynner and David Thomas anyway . . .  An excellent way to find out of print books is the search-engine of search-engines of second-hand book sellers.  http://www.bookfinder.com .  See Footnote 4 on Robin Skynner's books.
Footnote 2: Robin Skynner (17 March 1999.) I used http://www.bookfinder.com to purchase a copy of Robin Skynner's "Systems of Family and Marital Psychotherapy".  Hardcover, 428 pages, Bruner/Mazel New York 1975 ISBN 0-87630-117-0. I am yet to read it. According to his Amazon listing he is also co-editor of a 1990 book "Explorations With Families : Group Analysis and Family Therapy".  To search Alta Vista advanced for Robin Skynner, click here. (For the benefit of search engines, and misdirected searchers, here is his full name, and some misspellings:  A. C. Robin Skynner ; robyn skynner ; robin skinner .)