Comment Archives: stories: Currents: Feature
Re: “The Big Spank!”
Domestic Discipline IS the lifestyle I live. Its not for everyone, but it helped my marriage and opened up communication and closeness. I think the author did a really good job with a very hard subject to cover!
Re: “Buddha in the Desert”
the Playboy article on the Roach Cult is coming out on Feb 19th.
Re: “The Big Spank!”
Domestic discipline is not a lifestyle I live, although would like to live but my husband is struggling to get on board. Nevertheless, I had a very bad experience on the ADDs blog and know others who have had the same. Its a shame that Mari and the Tucson Weekly did not look further into the blog listed, or the author. What you find may shock you.
I will continue to read domestic discipline blogs and continue to dream of having this lifestyle one day but will never return to the ADDs blog after my experience there and hearing others horror stories as well.
However I will check out Spanko and The Domestic Discipline store in my continued quest for domestic discipline.
Re: “The Big Spank!”
so this is where the 'new weekly has gone to "Soft porn". the big spank?
hope kids going by on the street don't notice..
hope our sons don't think this is the way we "treat" out women.
Re: “The Big Spank!”
Thank you for emphasizing the consensual nature of spanking play. It is the sort of thing that many people do not understand and fail to make the effort you did to learn more. My husband and I do not practice either the sort of dominance and submission in Shades of Grey (and from the little I read, it's not clear that the author knows much at all about actual dominance and submission play), nor do we practice domestic discipline. We spank for erotic pleasure in our 20-plus year, totally egalitarian, totally feminist marriage.
One final note, all you men out there need to remember that although feminists can and do engage in both giving and receiving spanking, giving anyone a smack on the butt without their permission is assault, no mater how long you've been partners.
Re: “Taking Kink for a Ride!”
Castillo's comment about how people approach the parties as newcomers smacks of disdain. Enjoying and acknowledging fetishes takes time; if she was ready to shove a violet wand up her hoohah the first time out, more power to her.
Re: “The Big Spank!”
I don't understand why you didn't talk to the guy from the "adds" domestic discipline website. I looked at it and he looks like he has a lot of experience and the lady you talked to doesn't
I also agree with Thomas, the last two links don't look like they have anything to do with the subject in this article
I think that as long as what people do is consensual in their private life like what dd looks like from the website, no one should judge if a woman chooses to want their husband to lead their home. And how they do it is up to them.
Re: “The Big Spank!”
I'm Thomas, a spanko who has participated in the scene for about ten years, and who blogs regularly regarding my experiences (http://thomassspankingexploits2.blogspot.com/). I also practice domestic discipline with my girlfriend of several years. (I should also say that I have known lesbian couples who practice domestic discipline, though I'm unfamiliar with any homosexual male couples. This is probably because most homosexual spanko males stay in their own circles, rather than mixing with the general spanko scene, which lesbians have no troubles with.) I have to say that I'm always happy to see elements of spanking and domestic discipline featured in the media in a manner that isn't automatically designed to disgust the common person. However, I do have to take issue with the second-to-last paragraph, regarding the links given. While having a paddle and arnica cream (not whips, I hope) can be part of a domestic discipline relationship, having access to those things would hardly qualify as helping with "domestic discipline issues." Anyone can find a belt or hairbrush to spank with (or just use their hand) and the local nutrition stores sell arnica cream. That's a minor issue, though, compared to describing a "domestic discipline spanking party." Those two ideas, "domestic discipline" and "spanking party," have no place together. Spanking parties are for fun and enjoyable spankings between spankos (any spankos, regardless of being in a relationship), while domestic discipline is about un-fun spanking between partners. While a couple may practice both forms of spanking in their relationship, there is a wall between the two that keeps them separated. So, the very idea of a "domestic discipline spanking party" is a misnomer. At most, this may refer to a party that only permits domestic discipline couples to attend, though I don't know why party officials would limit their attendance so drastically, since this not only turns away spankos who don't do discipline, but also domestic discipline couples that never spank for play. Those must be some small parties, and I've been to a lot of spanking parties to compare them to.
Re: “The Big Spank!”
Thank you for all the research you did preparing for this article Mari. I'm MrBB the writer of the above mentioned A Domestic Discipline Society (ADDS) site. Ms. Haerreras contacted me a few months ago through email and has been trying diligently to understand the widely varied DD lifestyle dynamic and how it fits into the entire lifestyle community. Since DD is a very individual journey and open to interpretation, it is not an easy endeavor for even the most experienced of us to explain definitively. Ms. Herreras efforts are very appreciated and applauded.
Re: “Faces of Buddhism”
Diamond Mountain's aspiration to become a fancy resort sounds like the antithesis of Buddhism and rather more like the misguided efforts of the bourgeois. From DM's own website: "We intend to continue expanding DMU retreat facilities in a Spanish Colonial motif, similar to that of resort facilities in the area, such as the Royal Palms in Phoenix, or Sedona’s Tlaquepaque Center (at right is a photo of the Palms). Our design and administrative teams have already begun work on this effort, the goal being a highly comfortable, “white sheets and oversized pillows” (but still very inexpensive) air-conditioned, retreat experience—with a paid staff that is highly trained in traditional Tibetan retreat arts"
Re: “Off-The-Charts Poor”
I moved to Tucson in 1984, (I left in 2004), it wasn't that easy to find a job back then. I can't imagine what it is like now, it has to be much worse. I still have a home there, and usually visit 2-3 times a year. The city seems more and more destitute each time I visit. It still has it's charm due to the geography and history, but the economics of the town is downright ugly.
There probably isn't an easy answer to the problem, and I even wonder if Tucson's economic problems can be solved on a local level if there are no changes to our national policies. This is an economic trajectory the whole country is on, brought to us by over 30 years of Reagonomics and "free market" thinking. As the economic power of the middle class has deteriorated, Corporate Power has stepped in and put this country in a stranglehold, it seems no changes can be made. Undoing financial deregulation, free trade, and corporate power is a pretty daunting task. Try getting those messages thru the Corporate Media filter, it doesn't work. Maybe there will be a movement towards change sometime soon, but as of now it doesn't seem to be presenting itself.
Re: “How to Beat a Photo Radar Ticket!”
I hate the red light cameras also, but I live with them simply because I stop on red and go at or below the speed limit. I have been all over the country and Tucson is ranked #2 for the worst drivers on my list, after Chicago. The people who are complaining about red light cameras here are the once that break the laws. How about your follow the laws and don't speed next time or run a red light.
Re: “Background Noise”
It seems to me that anyone arguing that background checks are not feasible for sales of guns among individuals is actually furthering the argument for requiring a license to own and operate a gun. A background check could easily be part of the process of obtaining a renewable license to operate a gun (passing a short class covering safe operation and use would be an obvious addition). Then anyone holding a current license should be able to walk into a gun shop or show and buy a gun without the thirty minute wait since the license is proof of having passed the background check.
We already register our cars and get renewable licenses to operate them. We also license many other aspects of our lives. Most professionals, from contractors to engineers to lawyers and doctors, must pass some sort of test and obtain a license or registration to work; all miners take a three to five day safety training (which must be renewed annually) before they can start working and take additional training throughout the year; even recreational scuba divers need to pass a class and get registered in order to rent their oxygen tanks. I don't understand the objection to registering and licensing guns.
Just as we have different tiers for drivers' and pilots' licenses, gun operators could get different kinds of licenses depending on the intended use. For example, instead of a general renewable license, a proficient and frequent operator could seek a hunter's license (for those willing to restrict the kinds of guns they buy and use to a list of guns frequently used for hunting and/or target practice), or a much broader collector's license (with provisions for more frequent buying and trading of guns).
The argument about privacy just doesn't have legs, especially in this day when new phones and new automobiles have GPS units which track information that can be obtained by police. (Hmmm, I wonder what the gun buyers would say to a GPS tracking device in all new guns instead of licensing?)
Re: “Background Noise”
Gun control is not about controlling guns, its about controlling YOU.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/joe-biden-gun-laws_n_2595379.html
Re: “Background Noise”
One more thing, a co-worker of mine was refuse to be sold a gun, with a little research with the FBI, he found out his SSN was used to buy a gun in another state that was used in a crime. The FBI cleared him but they never notified him about it or removed it from his record even though a significant amount of time went by. When asked why was not removed from his record he was basically told it will happen soon, kind of like the checks in the mail.
Re: “Background Noise”
Because they want to force me to pay a FFL dealer $25 so I can sell my gun to somebody else. Make it free and as long as I dont have to tell what kind it is, they got a deal.
But because they do not force employers to use Everify why should I have to perform back ground checks?
Re: “Background Noise”
When my father passed away, I was 58. My mother (then 85, living in a doublewide trailer in Omak, Washington) would have had to pay approximately $400.00 for those guns. My mother died last year and my brother and I would have to pay about $400.00 to transfer those firearms. That would be $800 in taxes for some antique firearms, a JC Higgins 22 pistol (that we remember Grandpa using to kill a rattler in the yard in Alabama) , 4 lever action rifles (including the first one I shot in 1954), and some single action pistols. These types of firearms have never been used in a crime such as mass shootings, and they went to law abiding citizens both who are veterans and one with a Q security Clearance.
I don’t transfer many guns. I sometimes trade them at a cowboy action shoot for another type of gun with performance characteristics that I desire, but that is from one gun owner to another. Background checks there would be only a tax and a waste of time in those cases. I have NEVER been approached by someone I don’t know, saying something to the effect of: “hey, got any guns for sale?” Have you?
MOST of the private transfers are performed in this manner.
Firearms inherited in conditions much like mine and will do nothing to reduce crime and everyone who dies passes their guns on. That is a lot of needless background checks.
Re: “Background Noise”
The reason why most gun owners see this a an infringement of their rights is because the law will be ineffectual on crime and therefore just a burden on taxpayers and gun owners. Most of us are for action that works.
It makes NO sense to me whatsoever to focus our attention on a source of firearms where 1% (or less) of them were used in a crime.
What amazes me is the lack of accurate research that has been performed regarding violent crime. Everyone, on both sides, are quoting different numbers without quoting the sources, and referring to the actual study so it can be independently verified by we, the people. They are having to quote studies performed in the 1990s that in many cases are isolated to a particular area. We have the capability to interview EVERY criminal in incarceration for a gun crime and find out exactly where they got their guns. It can be done in three months. We do not need to interview a few hundred or a thousand in an geographically or culturally isolated area, and then make assumptions based on those low numbers. Why not? Perhaps we really don’t want to know the answers (doesn’t fit our agenda for attention or funds). Another thing that hampers research is the way people twist statistics to suit their agendas. For example alcohol “related” accidents. Alcohol related is usually not defined and varies from state to state. It does not mean that the driver(s) was (were) impaired. It could mean the driver had a glass of wine with dinner or that there was an unopened six pack in the car. The same applies with “in possession with a firearm” or “aggravated.” These terms do not mean that the firearms (or weapons) were used, used to threaten, or brandished. It simply means the person was in possession of a firearm during the arrest. This research needs to be performed by independent researchers that do not know the source of their funds. I have been involved in research where pressure from the client has forced the researchers to “skew” the results in order to “satisfy the client.”
One thing I will agree with the NRA about. We need action that WORKs. Every time someone is hurt by a gun, we gun owners have to defend our rights to purchase, own, and sell our firearms. We also need fringe tolerance. Meaning that there will always be crime. No time in history has mankind been able to suppress it EVEN in prisons! The recently stated concept that EVEN IF ONE LIFE is saved it is worth the effort, is a ridiculous statement. IF THIS WERE TRUE we would immediately stop high school football, that has killed TWICE AS MANY children as are murdered by guns. (I am NOT advocating the removal of guns or football).
For football deaths, see Frederick O. Mueller, Annual Survey of Football Injury Research: 1931-2001, National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research (February 2002) at http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/SurveyofFootballInjuries.htm. For school firearms murders, see Dr. Ronald D. Stephens, "School Associated Violent Deaths," The National School Safety Center Report (June 3, 2002) at http://www.NSSC1.org. In addition to the 22 murders which occurred on school property or at school-sponsored events, there were another two shooting deaths which were accidents and twelve which were suicides.
Re: “Background Noise”
When a Dealer calls in a Background check, they do not learn anything about the person personally, just a Yes or No or maybe, about if they can purchase a Firearm.
© 2013 Tucson Weekly | 3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 | P.O. Box 27087, Tucson AZ 85726-7087 | (520) 294-1200 | Powered by Foundation
Re: “The Big Spank!”
Interesting article! I agree the author did a great job covering a difficult and often hidden topic. I have been practicing domestic discipline for 13 years and while I thoroughly disagree with the A D D S blog I thought the author of this article did a great job presenting the lifestyle as I know it.