Are Male Spankiees Less of a Man?

Well it might make the female spankee more the sort of woman that the spanker wants her to be, as as long as before, during or after the spanking the spanker does not think "The lady doth protest too much".

Isn't that the point of the topic question? The perception of the spankee and their desireability to...

What I don't understand about this topic, is that everyone in focusing on the interpersonal perspective, whereas everyone seems to be avoiding the public perspective, which I feel is the real root of the question. I mean, as has been said; what goes on in a relationship is between the three people involved. You get my point? BUT regardless of what everyone says, everyone judges others and talk about it like old washwomen. Whether it's about a man being abusive towards a woman, or a woman (or man for that matter) who is "known" for having loose morals.

I mean seriously, 12 pages of everyone glowing sunshine up the male spankee's ass. If the other person doesn't respect you (regardless of what you are), then the relationship is over. duh. Ed Wood liked to dress up in women's clothes. Everyone criticizes his first wife because, because she didn't want that. To me that's a duh moment. It wasn't something he developed into, but it was his hidden agenda. Hidden agendas destroy any relationship. Thereby, duh. There shouldn't be guarantees in life. "If you start a relationship with someone, you are guaranteed they MUST accept you." That goes to taking the other person for granted, but to a degree love is about making the other person happy, not just yourself. Love is about accepting changes in the other person.

There was a guy I knew. Married for about 20 years. They both worked throughout their relationship, but towards the end, she got diabetes or somesuch, and decided she wanted to be a stay at home mom. So, he divorced her because he EXPECTED her to help them keep up with the Joneses. You might say, she was wrong because she saw the end was near, and wanted to enjoy her last years (I don't think it was diabetes now but some other life shortening thing that I can't remember. Regardless). The point is, it sounded like the relationship was already on rocky ground. Her illness and subsequent life change was just the convenient excuse.

Yet he wasn't 100% wrong. He was entitled to have his own expecations for their relationship. People get divorced all the time for various, and sometimes silly, reasons. And some people will see his side, while others see hers. JUDGING as people do.


...uh, huh? I'm missing some sublety you are expect me to understand. I get the first 3/4's but the last part had me shaking my head. Are you saying as long as he doesn't take her for granted and ignores her exclamations to stop? Yes, but then again, see the first part of my response.

You asked "does that make a female spankee more of a woman?" i just used the quote below from Shakespeare to answer in a intended light hearted manner of, as long as he does not think that "The lady doth protest too much" (to the spanking) AKA resist, cry, making a fuss etc, no intent to think he was taking her for granted or not acting on a safeword or whatever.

Nothing very subtle i assure you and obviously not very obvious, so sorry about that.

Perhaps I was reading too deeply into your comment (highly probable). I recognized Willy Shakespear's quote, but that quote suggests two layers of understanding, and thus I thought you meant a deeper (unknown) meaning than what was on the surface.
We'll consider this ended, okay?

LOL, well I think there was more to all those pages than that, but as several people cited at the time this thing really got going, certain definitions needed to be established before a real discussion could ensue. But then again, that's assuming anyone actually WANTED a serious debate. And given the lack of response to several posts (mine included) that tried to make differentiations akin to the one you mentioned, I believe we got our answer.

In my comments I tried to address the difference between 'manly' and being considered 'less of a man'. Your taking of this to the public perception is also very valid. There are certainly interesting aspects to this question, but when have you seen anyone try to have a civil debate with differences of opinion expressed clearly but without malice? Those days are long gone.

I thought the question was worded by an emotional hurt male spankee as a way to sound off his frustration, and my first thought was to provide somewhat of a comfort answer, so to speak, as a fellow male spankee/switch. This was validated by the original poster's response in the last of those long elevenpages!

But, taking the question outside of its context, and examining it carefully will no doubt make pov's like that of kdpierre's a leading talking point. I'd personally phrase it like this:

In our heteronormative, vanilla-o-normative, patriarchal world, we are forced, even subconsciously, to view the world from the eyes of the vanilla straight male. A guy spanking his 'gal' is weird in the eyes of the straight vanilla man, but it's weird on one out of the three factors factored in here (it's 'normal' in its sexual orientation, normal in its 'patriarchal/men wear the pants in the relationship' orientation, and only weird because it has a parahelia as a sexual act). Do you want it to be more 'weird and disgusting'? Have the girl as the spanker and the guy (the god's given pants wearer!) as the spankee. (Now you lose two factors)! Want it to be barely bearable, and any threatening of visualizing it causing a weeping and gnashing of teeth? Make it two guys in the giving and receiving ends (the only reason visualizing two girls doing the deed won't result in the same reflex is because it's a straight male world, and not just a straight world)!

Does any of this come as a surprise? Absolutely not!
Take for example the ample derogatory terms for men enjoying being penetrated by their boyfriends/husbands/stranger-men in almost all languages and cultures. Gay men have fought this fight, and still are fighting it, for ages. But the straight guy who is into being spanked is unfamiliar with this confusing ground- Does bending over and taking it (pun intended) make him less of a man? Does it run counter to his masculinity? Does he have to wear make up now? What would his father say if he knew? Will he consider him a daughter instead of a son? And more importantly: Does he have to make this begrudging alliance with other men who... you know... actually 'bend over' to actually 'take it'? Surely a spanking, in the eye of the vanilla, is less of a man-eraser than penetration... and subsequently a penetrations with inanimate objects are less of a deal-breaker than penetrations with a 'living, breathing' penis!

It's a much more light-hearted conversation when the bigger picture is obscured and we resort to: Be yourself. And: Do what you want. And: As long as it's consenting adults consenting! And such.

tamerfaryak
Well put. I like your sliding scale of acceptability and could not fault its probable accuracy.

In your example you use 'normality' as the key factor though. And yes, there is certainly a sense of normality to this question as well as the specific one about being "less of a man". But to me the "less of a man" question can apply to many things. Is a cheater "less of a man". A snitch? A whiner? A guy who likes to arrange flowers? And this is why I offered "manly" as an alternative. Surely by 'normal standards' a guy into a submissive role, or who enjoys stereotypically feminine activities could quite accurately be considered "unmanly". But if these quirks are used to measure his worth as a man, then even the most conservative-thinking might well look at other factors.

If a certain mature, stoic honorableness is a defining aspect of "being a man", then a "manly" jerk who has no honor or maturity, but just a burly appearance and a loud bullying voice, might well be ....objectively.....considered "less of a man" than a less formidable chap whose word means something, and who sucks up adversity and does what he think is right even in the most intimidating circumstances.

Thanks for a lucid and interesting response, BTW.

kdpierre,
I find this distinction very fascinating. Does using ‘manly’ for those “physical-based” traits liberate the term ‘man’ to be still applicable to men of strong characters who may not necessarily act ‘manly’ in that first sense? It’s definitely worth of consideration. A more radical approach, (and those are gaining a very bad reputation of late,) will question equating ‘man’ with strong mental acuity and mature attitude in the first place.

In my humble opinion, there was always a contradictory relationship between two sets of traits composing what is traditionally seen as “male-like” (to style it in the format of ladylike!)...
Maybe it will oversimplify the matter, but I’d like to call them the soldier prototype and the judge prototype (both are exclusively male occupations by tradition). Calm and levelheaded judges in contrast with loud and virile soldiers; self-disciplined and providing supervision when needed in contrast with turning chaotic without a strict discipline imposed from the outside; even young, strong bodies as a must for the soldier image to contrast the stereotype old, only-the-strength-of-their-minds-should-matter common image of judges, etc.

To that point, there’s a proverb where I live (a very patriarchal, traditional country), for example, that refer to a woman of noble character as “A woman worth a hundred men”- such saying doesn’t hint at physical strength or sexual dominant tendencies of course, but meant for the value you eloquently described as:

But why is that a “man’s worth” though?

Cowardice and weak-mindedness are traditionally seen as feminine traits! (Even in modern English, a common slang for a coward is a part of the female genitalia; in Arabic the word for ‘woman’ itself serves as the same insult- and words for feminine-looking men in both --and maybe all-- languages are used for those insults). Also traditionally seen as feminine traits are emotional instability, mood swings, lack of objectivity, jealousy, personal bias, docility to authority, irrational fear of consequence, inability to lead, ... etc.

Thus, we find ourselves, in my humble opinion, back to the default patriarchal view of the world.

And if a male spankee is happily in a female-led relationship, and if he sees his wife/girlfriend as of mature, wise, levelheaded, and compassionate nature rivaling, if not surpassing, that of any respectable man- wouldn’t it then be hypocritical of him to refer to those exact same traits in himself or in other men as making him “being a man”, or lacking them as “being less of a man”?

If what I said didn’t make much sense, I apologize- between the foreign language barrier, and the difficulty of the subject itself, some (or a lot) of lucidity may be lost- but what’s undeniably true is me enjoying reading yours and other members’ views and having them as food for thought and pondering.
Thank you for your [native tongue] comments and clear thoughts, kdpierre.

Unlike you two, I think we shouldn't look afield for comparison terms to define a man as that might trigger heated debate. Saying a woman, traditionally, is defined as a coward, or weak-minded, made me want to throw the car in reverse right there, yet I can't argue that the vernacular "pussy" is meant to demasculate a man; to describe when a man is "perceived" as feeble, weak (either mentally or physically), or acting submissive. To forgo argument, I think we should table (American usage: to set aside) the comparisons to women. Either language hasn't matured enough to define qualities that seem undefineable, or words like 'unmanly' or 'demasculate' are fine, and we are trying to walk on egg shells by being oversensitive. And yet, I can't deny that even those two words are meant to suggest that the "perception" of a man is anything other than what he is. Contrary to alphabet culture, I don't "perceive" there being more than simply two sexes, and for a person to be "perceived" beyond a woman or (on topic) a man, is to be 'unmanly'.

Now before you start warming up your knees (jerk), let me state, I am not a 'hetero is supreme!' kind of guy. In my life, it is, but that's my "personal" choice. and that is/was my point, and why I purposefully emphasized "perceived" and "personal" in quotation marks and all other emphasized terms otherwise.

"Public perception" vs "private perception" is the root of all of the anxiety on the topic. Here is my point, when you bring the private into public, then perception can't help but change; that you will get mixed feelings. Sayings like 'what goes on behind closed doors' are there for a reason. Yes, (and I'm rolling my eyes at the amount this has been emphasized in this thread on the ELEVEN pages (a nod to all you typo-nazis)), what goes on between two people should between them alone, but when you bring the private into public, that concept is erased. To EXPECT homogenized pro- feelings on ANY matter is rediculous and finding prominent negativity from public opinion on private matters shouldn't be surprising.

I am so far confirmed a spankaholic, it isn't funny, but that's in private - because it's my private life. Yet if I was to see a man spanking a woman in public, I'd be outraged and motivated to intervention. Granted, in certain public venue, it's okay. I might even be titillated. That's the problem with modern culture today; people want it to be mandated that they are accepted and not be looked down on in "public perception" for private preferences.

Which is silly.

Because they are "private" preferences, and as has been said for the umpteenth time in this thread, what goes on between consenting adults in private, is between the three of them.

If only separating what’s private and what’s public, was that easy!

Here’s a gem from the recent past on how adherents of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy were still discriminated at for what they kept in private:

“All of the agencies in our review indicated that concealment of any
personal behavior that could result in exploitation, blackmail, or
coercion is a security concern. However, the treatment of
concealment as it relates to sexual orientation varies. Although
most of the agencies have eliminated specific references to sexual
orientation, DOD and FBI guidelines treat concealment as a security
concern. At DOD, coworkers and family members must be informed of
the applicant's sexual orientation, or the applicant is considered
potentially vulnerable to blackmail or coercion and could be denied a
clearance. DOD plans to eliminate this language in revised
guidelines to be issued in early 1995.”

Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-21/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-2 1.htm

In short, if the public will treat the male spankee (or any other sexual, or societal ‘reject’) badly enough, then he/she has every reason to be concerned with his/her secret being made public, hence, the vulnerability to “exploitation, blackmail, or coercion”- it doesn’t have to be of a national security concern, it’s enough to be damaging to his/her social life to make him/her an exploitable employee to say the least!

And this is but one example of “private life” making an appearance in “public life”.

For spankos, the fact that what we do, in a lot of cases, result in temporary, but possibly lingering for days, physical marks indistinguishable from those resulting from domestic violence- is another matter of concern.

Maybe the “alphabet culture” and their alliances will be the usual accuser suspect in this other example I’ll provide. And this is the example of falsely accusing the, say, submissive female spankee of trying to cover up for her “abusive” gentleman spanker by “falsely sexualizing an act of violence” and "falsely misrepresenting it as a consensual kink", when the marks her partner left on her bottom end in a court of law by some ‘accident’.
Still a private matter potentially damaging a spanko's life through the not-so-accidental noisy neighbor/other calling the police after hearing voices of “hitting and cries of pain” coming from the next-door house!

If only it was true that “what goes on between consenting adults in private, is between the three of them.”+ God of course, because God will always watch no matter what kinky shit is taking place ;)

And have a swell day, Lonewulf...