I'm curious how women feel about this in relationships. Like when you're being a little sassy, teasing him, or intentionally pushing his buttons in a playful way, and your boyfriend or husband responds by putting you over his knee and giving you some playful smacks on the butt. Of course, its not done out of any actual anger or sexism and its completely consensual (you can say no and he'll stop).Its a pretty patriarchal and old fashioned idea, but I can see why some women would find it hot and fun for their man to take charge in that way, especially when it's all in good fun and there's an understanding between both partners that it's just playful teasing.I also wonder whether part of the appeal for some women who like this kind of thing is specifically that it's their man putting them over his knee. Not necessarily because they believe men should have actual authority over women, but because they enjoy the contrast between his traditionally masculine, assertive role and their own more feminine, playful, or submissive role in that particular moment. In other words, maybe the gendered nature of it is part of what makes it exciting, even for women who otherwise believe strongly in equality and wouldn't tolerate being genuinely controlled by a partner.At the same time, I can see why other women would find the whole thing off-putting. The idea of a grown woman being "punished" by her boyfriend or husband, even jokingly, (especially if he only spanks her and not vice versa) can seem quite demeaning and sexist.So I'm curious: Do you find the idea of your boyfriend or husband playfully putting you over his knee appealing, embarrassing, demeaning, or just silly? And if you do enjoy it, is the fact that he's the man and you're the woman actually part of the appeal, or does the spanking go both ways?
>>35088287I'm not into it. I'm not against spanking for sexual gratification but as "punishment" it makes the dynamic weird.
>>35088296Well, its not real punishment, the idea here is that its kinda a game the couple plays where the woman acts bratty so the man deals with it by spanking her
>>35088287If you want me to dump you on the spot, go to the police, and press charges for assault, then go for it. Obviously some women will be into it, but also a great many won't be. It's not unreasonable to *ask* a woman whether she would enjoy it, but don't ever *assume* she will. Same goes for most other kinks.
>>35088499I get that. It doesn't appeal to me. I'm not into ddlg stuff and turning it into a punishment even playfully gives me the ick it's not sexy it's awkward.
I hope I find a woman who likes this, this sounds fun to do to one
>>35088287I don't think you should playfully spank your gf. You should spank her and be serious about it so she understands she's being a cunt
>>35089703any women here have thoughts on this hot tank? I'm all for spanking women but this sounds abusive desu
>>35088287>>35088296I tried this once. When we were dating/engaged even. I was playfully teasing her lifting her skirt, then she threw a shoe at me, and went on a miniature upset tirade (not long, like 30 or 40 seconds). I grabbed her, bent her over my lap, then spanked her. I didn't ask her, I didn't tell her I was going to do it, and I had never done it to her up to that point before. She actually calmed down and hasn't acted like that since, in the last 7 years we've been together.For context; a couple days afterward I asked her what she thought of it, and she actually responded, "Well, I was acting out and threw my shoe at you, so I figured I deserved it."Women truly are bizarre creatures.
>>35090105Nice! I wonder what percentage of women like this idea
>>35090105>I didn't ask her, I didn't tell her I was going to do it, and I had never done it to her up to that point before.FYI, that is abuse.
>>35090871Agreed, but do you like the idea in op?
>>35090882>Agreed, but do you like the idea in op?No.
>>35090871>that is abuseSo is throwing a shoe at someone, you dumb hole.
>>35090977Why not? Just curious
>>35088287holy words words words we have a containment thread for this
>>35091269But this is directly relevant to this thread
