When I saw the title to Matt Forney's article the other day, How to Beat Your Girlfriend or Wife and Get Away With It, my curiosity was sparked. Talk about a refreshing article; as refreshing as watching John Wayne in McLintock give Maureen O'Hara a right good walloping. I strongly recommend giving Matt's article a thorough reading to understand his point of view when it comes to the proper way to manhandle women; taking notes is encouraged.
McLintock was on the boob tube recently and it has been a couple years since watching the film, so it gave me a refresher on how John Wayne handles women -- with his manly hands. It makes me wonder if Matt Forney has seen this classic film, because if he hasn't he most definitely should.
McLintock: Man's struggle to tame woman; a 1960s American western film adaptation of Shakespeare's timeless man-versus-woman play Taming of the Shrew.
This past year I wrote about how to handle women, but the thought has been on my mind for some time to write about other ways women can be handled. Thanks to Matt's article I am not a lone blogging voice of dissent when it comes to handling women with tactful physical force. Perhaps his article is satire, perhaps it is not; to me it is narrative that I cannot argue against, which makes it all the better.
Along with Daniel Tosh, I too feel the challenge to call 'bullshit' when I hear it said that there is no excuse for domestic violence, or that a man never ever ever under any circumstances hits a woman. Never say never, ever. In my view, I think women should not be exempt from a beating simply because they are women. To not manhandle a woman who has stepped out of line because she is a woman, yet a man would be manhandled in a similar scenario, is nothing but pure bias, also known as prejudice, also known as sexism.
What makes woman so special that she is above a beating? What makes man less special that he is allowed to take a beating, verbal or otherwise? And what if, hypothetically speaking, a disciplinary beating is a way in which some women learn because that is how they were conditioned from a childhood of spankings?
This isn't about right or wrong child-rearing practices, or if long-term impacts of spankings are good or bad. It is about the possibility that there are people, in this instance women, who may have been nurtured and conditioned to respond to disciplinary spankings; and the idea that some women may need -- and may even enjoy -- a certain amount of physical aggression put upon them as adults to keep them from misbehaving. This is in no way the fault of a woman but a kinky side effect of being raised with spankings, hypothetically speaking of course.
I do not know where the modern idea comes from that women are perfect angels and undeserving of being manhandled when they misbehave. As Elvis pointed out, women can be hard-headed and devils in disguise. Sometimes, a devil needs to be dominated. Sometimes, a hard-headed woman needs a hard-handed man to spank some sense into her. Sometimes, a hard-handed man needs a hard-headed woman to understand that he will only be pushed so far before he pushes back.
I find it fascinating how much popular
culture has changed due to group-think mentality, or vice versa, when it
comes to spankings between adults and men handling women in a forceful
manner; this gradual shift over the years comes across loud and clear in
classic films. Besides the McLintock film examples, other great cinematic manhandling/spanking scenes include Gone With the Wind;
when Rhett in his studly bout of drunkenness makes it clear to the domineering Scarlett that
she won't be turning him out that night as he ascends the towering staircase
carrying her away into the dark while she fusses under his power.
Another one of my personal favorites is Elvis Presley in Blue Hawaii,
when he lets the trouble-making rich-kid brat know how much she is
cared for with a good old-fashioned spanking, something that nobody else ever had the time to give her. The morning-after results may be cinematic inaccuracies, or they may be
examples of artists using enacted lies to tell the truth -- that women
change their behavior for the better when men who care for them
take a firm hand to their back sides.
I see no reason for women to get upset over talk of such behavior-modifying techniques since women are demonstrated as employing shameful and non-consensual forceful tactics when they become unsatisfied with their man.
For example, a recent Firestone tire commercial where a woman drives over her man's gaming system after she arrives home and finds him asleep on the couch. She doesn't just run it over either; she takes false starts and does a few fake-outs...kind of like a man raising his fist in threat without doing anything...and then she finally pulverizes the system in cruel dominating laughter. Wow, color me not impressed by a paltry attempt at reverse sexism to sell tires. Try this, Firestone: Show your tires outlasting the potholes in Tacoma and leave the battle of the sexes out of it. But I digress. Back to spanking.
In truth, women (and men) would be better to embrace their personal
kinks instead of feeling disgraced by them via current trends or popular
group-think mentality. There is nothing wrong with a woman enjoying a healthy consensual erotic spanking
or whipping, or an evening of submissive domination at home in the safe
privacy of a bedroom with the man she loves, or at least a man she lusts and trusts. To enjoy spankings or to want spankings is nothing to be ashamed of; nor should spankings or something rougher be considered abuse when both parties consent. Consensual role play may involve a woman acting obstinate as that is the role she is playing, and either she or the man may get aroused by it. Sure, it may make no sense or sound crazy to the inexperienced, but where is it written that foreplay and sex and humans ever had to make sense? As if.
The fact is that there are women who totally get off on being dominated and manhandled. Totally. Having spent time in the trenches of retail work at a boutique adult novelty 'sex'
shop in my younger days, I feel that I am quite qualified to positively say without hesitation or doubt: Women do exist who like to be spanked, whipped, flogged, ridden, pushed, shoved,
clamped, slapped, smacked, and dominated by men they love. Maybe not all women, maybe not all women all the time, but they are out there.
Empirical evidence of this phenomenon is unavoidably obvious in the amount of adult stores across America, the Internet, and countless other countries that sell whips, riding crops, cat-o-nine tails, floggers, handcuffs, bondage cuffs, pleasure tape, spanking paddles, blindfolds, nipple clamps, clit clamps, bondage kits and bars, harnesses, submissive attire, assistive furniture and other dominating devices. Who buys such items, people may wonder. Why, men and women who enjoy using them, naturally. I know it to be true because I have been an active participant in transacting such sales, from both sides of the counter.
Therefore, in spite of the vociferous outcries that women should never be hit or manhandled, sales indicate the opposite and that women are being treated with physical force, albeit consensual. And, what's more, there are women who enjoy being treated in such a manner. Sound crazy? That's women for you.