Search Results: Dad Son

You are browsing the search results for dad son

Spank me, daddy!


Name: Karla
Gender: female
Age: 32
Location: Quebec
I think I want to try spanking. I never tried it, but it gets me hot thinking about it. I think my partner might be up for it, but I have yet to ask him. I thought I’d ask you first. What are your thoughts about spanking?

If you’ve been a bad girl, Karla, then I think you definitely need a spanking. Have you been naughty, Karla? Precisely how naughty have you been, Karla? Everyone here at Dr Dick Sex Advice wants to know!spank

Spanking is a very popular fetish, one that can be enjoyed with or without sex. At the same time, spanking might be a little risky if you entrust the task to someone who doesn’t know what she or he is doing. Of course, it’s not particularly difficult to learn the basics. So just for you, wayward Karla, I’m gonna offer a brief sexual enrichment tutorial on erotic spanking. YEAH!

Usually a hand or a paddle of some sort is used for spanking. This is different from whipping and flogging, which are much more advanced techniques than your garden-variety spanking. We’ll leave these techniques for another time.

There are two musts in this kind of power play:

  1. The spanker must always inquire about the health of the spankee before the play begins.
  2. Both participants must always agree on a safeword before the play begins. A safeword is a code word that the spankee will use as she is reaching a physical, emotional or moral boundary, or for when she wants the spanker to stop the play.

The safeword will be a word that spankee would not ordinarily use during the play, like “pickles.” This extraordinary word allows the spankee to scream “no, stop”, “Please, don’t!” etc. as much as she/he wants without really meaning it, and still have a way to stop the play when necessary.

435_girlshyspanking.jpgIf you actually get around to enticing your partner to join you for a little spanking entertainment, make sure the first adventure is fun for all. I suggest that the spanking be part of a role-play scenario that you and your BF develop together. Your partner may need lots of positive reinforcement, particularly if he reluctant to join you in your kink. Keep telling him how much fun you’ll both have in the role-play. For example, you could be the naughty schoolgirl and your partner could be the stern headmaster. Really get into your roles; you’ll both need to dress the part, of course. You—sexy short pleated Catholic schoolgirl skirt, anklets and trashy high-heels. Him—the domineering teacher in a drab, no-nonsense grey suit. Get the picture?

The headmaster calls you into his office for a corrective interview. He needs to teach you a lesson. He puts you over his knee. He’ll do lots of bottom rubbing first, as he’s lecturing you on your bad behavior. As he gets into it, he’ll be getting turned on too. “It will be a shame to spank this beautiful bottom of yours,” he’ll coo. “This is going to hurt me as much as it hurts you!”…that sort of thing. He’ll finger your pretty panties, but won’t remove them. He’ll start spanking very gently at first. Light taps on the fleshy part of your ass cheeks. If you want more, start wiggling into the spanking. Remember to stay in character. “No, Mr. Hardwood, that hurts, please don’t touch me there! Grind into his lap. Your body language will communicate your desire for him to continue and possibly intensify the spanking.

To insure the comfort of your partner, set some ground rules for your first play session. Don’t’ do bare-bottom spanking until he readily indicates his willingness to do so. If your partner is a feminist, this whole spanking thing may go against the grain for him. So remind him this is fantasy role playing; not real life.

The more you get into your roles, the more likely he’ll get into his roles — Catholic schoolgirl/Father Flanagan, slutty patient/naughty doctor — you get the idea. The more you please him, the better he’ll please you.

You’ll want to reward your partner for his participation. After the first session take him to dinner. Ask him for his reactions. What could you have done to make the scenario more pleasurable for him? Talk about your reactions. Tell him how much you appreciated his participation. Talk about the scenario and how well he did. Tell him what you liked most about the spanking itself. If you sense that he’s content with events thus far, you could plan for more.

Xcite six spanking stories cover spanked.jpeg bottoms up spanking good erotica guide to spanking     Schoolgirls Spanking

Set aside a couple of role-play evenings in the coming weeks. If he continues to be open and receptive, you can add more and more spanking, different implements, a ruler, a hairbrush, a paddle. If you want spankings on other parts of your body, tits, pussy, and the like introduce those slowly. The intensity of the spanking needs to be adjusted to more sensitive parts of the anatomy. Make sure there’s lots of feedback happening before and after each play session.

Spanking is a full-fledged fetish with loads of spanking associated erotica. It goes from mild to wild. Do some exploring together your BF. Check out some short stories, magazines or videos. You might want to include some of the hot girl-on-girl stuff for his benefit. Always talk about spanking in a positive way as something that is fun and enjoyable for both of you. Remember to also attend to your partner’s fantasies and the things that turn him on too. Who knows, there may be a time when the roles reverse and you could take your turn as the top and he the bottom. How fun would that be?

Like I said at the beginning, spanking is a stand-alone fetish, it may be a part of full-on sex, or it may be just a bonding thing between you and your partner.

In the end, introducing your partner to your kink is one of those — “Give To Get” things. Be attentive to him. Make sure he knows he’s the most special person in your life. The more satisfied he is; the more he’ll be open to pleasing you.


Whoa Daddy!


Name: Kirk
Gender: Male
Location: Belfast
I think my dad is sexy and want to fuck him but am scared to ask! I also fancy my best friend and every time he stays over with me I fantasize sucking his cock and fucking him hard what do I do?

My you’re a randy little bugger, huh Kirk? I see you didn’t include your age when you wrote me. so I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and guess you’re still a lad.

First off, I want to direct your attention to the advice I gave a young man named Jaymie earlier this month. You will find that column HERE! I want you to read this because my words to him apply to you as well. Particularly in terms of your desire to suck your best friend’s cock and fucking him hard. You’re such a charmer!

Second, you should know that you follow in a very long line of gay men who have and do fantasize about boning their hunky dads. This is all very natural and it provides a wealth of extremely tantalizing mental material for our wank sessions. And that, my friend, is where this oughta stay.

Incest, and that’s what we’re talking about, is taboo. And it’s taboo for several really good reasons. The most devastating thing about incest is the secrecy that must surround it. No one violates this universal taboo in the open. The secrecy and the inevitable shame and guilt when found out will, sure as shootin’, destroy a family dynamic. Your old man will know this even if you haven’t grasped this yet yourself.

At the same time, it would be foolish to deny that sexual and erotic tensions often swirl around a family dynamic. It’s unavoidable. A father’s love for his children, a mother’s love for her children can and sometimes does develop an erotic component. A son’s love for his parents, a daughter’s love for her parents can morph into a powerful sexual desire. But like I said, crossing the line from longing to actuality is a loaded gun aimed at the heart of the family. Your dad’s parental responsibilities to you must trump any eroticism he may have toward you. You, on the other hand, have a responsibility to your father not make his job any more difficult than it is.

Here’s the thing, part of being a parent to a teenager is acknowledging and allowing for the teen to practice his or her seduction skills inside the family unit. Girls harmlessly flirt with their fathers and compete with their mothers. Boys harmlessly flirt with their mothers and compete with their fathers. And sometimes this happens toward the same-sex parent too — boys toward their fathers and girls toward their mothers. The adults need to take all of this in stride. They have to believe the flirtation is harmless so they can provide their children with the proper non-seductive environment for their maturation to occur. If the flirting crosses the line into full-on, for real seduction the unspoken agreement between parents and children is shattered. And there will be hell to pay.

The same is true in the reverse. A child must have the confidence that as they mature and develop their sexual identity, they will not unwittingly become the object of their parent’s seduction or worse their predation.

Of course, Kirk, there’s the distinct possibility that your old man doesn’t share your sexual predilections. And coming on to him could easily destroy whatever bond you may share. In fact, your disclosure could easily backfire into a violent response. Your dad could easily knock your block off.

Here’s a tip: if you absolutely must confess or confide your attraction, save it for when you are old enough to have moved out of your parent’s house. That way some of the sting will have gone out of revelation because the family dynamic will have changed. But you can be sure the awkwardness will continue.

Good luck

I’d like to remind you of the toll-free Lick-A-Dee-Split sex advice podcast VOICEMAIL HOTLINE at 866-422-5680. Got a question or a comment? Want to rant or rave for a bit. Or maybe you just gotta talk dirty for a minute or two. Why not get it off your chest and give dr dick a call at (866) 422-5680.


Scott Daddy, Part 2 – Podcast #105 – 03/04/09


Hey sex fans,

We’re back with my friend and colleague, Scott Mallinger, a.k.a. Scott Daddy; the BDSM nasty_pig_chaps2-credit_325x490journalist, lecturer, leather titleholder and Dom extraordinaire, don’t cha know.  This, of course, is Part 2 my of my chat with Scott in this podcast series called Sex EDGE-U-cation.    This series of interviews takes a look at the world of fetish sex, kink and alternative sexual lifestyles.  It touches on topics both familiar and exotic.  And we’ll be chatting with prominent educators, practitioners and advocates of unconventional sexual expressions and lifestyles from all over the world.

If you somehow missed Part 1 of this amusing yet provocative discussion look for last week’s podcast, #103 on Dr Dick’s PODCAST PAGE at the top of my site.  Or simply use the search function; type in the key words: “podcast #103”.  Don’t forget to include the # sign.

Be sure to visit Scott Daddy at his website HERE!

Scott and I discuss:

  • How he began his career as a Dom.
  • His public lectures, demonstrations and presentations.
  • Working with both men and women.
  • Mentoring newbees to the scene.
  • His sexual heroes.

dd2 st_andrew_338x450



Check out The Lick-A-Dee-Split Connection. That’s Dr Dick’s toll free podcast voicemail HOTLINE. Don’t worry people; no one will personally answer the phone. Your message goes directly to voicemail.

Got a question or a comment? Wanna rant or rave? Or maybe you’d just like to talk dirty for a minute or two. Why not get it off your chest! Give Dr Dick a call at (866) 422-5680.


Look for all my podcasts on iTunes.  You’ll find me in the podcast section, obviously. Just search for Dr Dick Sex Advice. And don’t forget to subscribe.  I wouldn’t want you to miss even one episode.

Today’s Podcast is bought to you by:


‘Sex Invades the Schoolhouse’


Fifty years ago, panicked parents helped spread sex-ed programs to schools across the country, even as panicked critics mobilized to stop them.

By Conor Friedersdorf

Earlier this month, The New York Times Magazine published “What
Teenagers Are Learning From Online Porn,” a feature that probed the frontier of sex education: a 10-hour course for high schoolers titled, “The Truth About Pornography.”

The course aims to make teens in this age of ubiquitous porn “savvier, more critical consumers of porn by examining how gender, sexuality, aggression, consent, race, queer sex, relationships and body images are portrayed (or, in the case of consent, not portrayed) in porn,” the Times reports. One of its creators, Emily Rothman, explained that the curriculum “is grounded in the reality that most adolescents do see porn and takes the approach that teaching them to analyze its messages is far more effective than simply wishing our children could live in a porn-free world.”

While the conversation that ensued focused on porn’s place in American life, the story struck me as a useful point of comparison for a look back at sex-ed 50 years ago. In 1968, The Saturday Evening Post ran its own feature on the frontiers of the subject, billed as “The Truth About Sex Education” on the cover and “Sex Invades the Schoolhouse” on the page. The story documented a rapid shift in attitudes.

Until 1965, biology students in Chicago schools “might scarcely have imagined, for all the teachers ever told them, that humans had a reproductive system,” it reported. A principal in Miami said that, only recently, a pregnant pet rabbit couldn’t be kept in the classroom. Superintendent Paul W. Cook of Anaheim, California, was quoted as saying, “Not long ago they’d have hanged me from the nearest telephone pole for what I’m doing.” By 1968, all had formal sex-ed programs.

“America seems to have suddenly discovered an urgent need for universal sex education—from kindergarten through high school, some enthusiasts insist—and is galloping off in all directions to meet it,” the journalist John Kobler reported. “The trend is nationwide. Nearly 50 percent of all schools, including both public and private, parochial and nonsectarian, are already providing it, and at the present rate the figure will pass 70 percent within a year. Clergymen, including many Catholic priests, not only do not oppose sex education, they are often members of the local planning committees.” The impetus behind the change: “parental panic,” he wrote.

Venereal diseases among teenagers: over 80,000 cases reported in 1966, an increase of almost 70 percent since 1956—and unreported cases doubtless dwarf that figure. Unwed teen-age mothers: about 90,000 a year, an increase of 100 percent in two decades. One out of every three brides under 20 goes to the altar pregnant. Estimates of the number of illegal abortions performed on adolescents runs into the hundreds of thousands. One of the findings that decided New York City’s New Lincoln School to adopt sex education was a poll of its 11th-graders on their attitudes toward premarital intercourse: the majority saw nothing wrong with it.

Teen-age marriages have risen 500 percent since World War II, and the divorce rate for such marriages is three times higher than the rate for such marriages contracted after 21. Newspaper reports of dropouts and runaways, drug-taking, sexual precocity and general delinquency  intensify the worries of parents. But these evils are only the grosser symptoms of a widespread social upheaval. Communications between the generations has stalled (“Don’t trust anyone over thirty”), and moral values once accepted by children because Mom and Dad said so have given way to a morality of the relative. In addition, parents’ own emotional conflicts, and reluctance to recognize in their children the same drives they experienced … make it all but impossible for them to talk honestly … about sex.

Giving young people more information suddenly seemed less risky to many than the alternative. And in this telling, many parents preferred to let teachers do the hard part.

In Talk About Sex: The Battles Over Sex Education in the United States, Janice M. Irvine noted that the first calls for in-school sex education came in the early 1900s “from a disparate group of moral reformers including suffragists, clergy, temperance workers, and physicians dedicated to eliminating venereal disease.” They disagreed among themselves about the purpose of sex education, but united against Anthony Comstock and his anti-vice crusaders in arguing that expanding public speech about sex would better advance social purity and retard vice than restricting it.

A similar divide endured as sex-ed began to spread rapidly in the 1960s. Its proponents believed that talking openly about the subject would help cure social ills, as they had since at least 1912, when the National Education Association passed its first resolution calling for the introduction of sex curriculum in public schools.

1960s social conservatives countered that “if we talk to young people about sexuality, it should be restricted so as not to lead to destructive and immoral thoughts and behavior”—and that “controlling or eliminating sexual discussing best allows for the protection of young people and the preservation of sexual morality.”

For them, too much information posed the greater threat.

Some conservatives even saw sex education in schools as a Communist plot, causing local controversies like one in Utica, New York, where a contemporaneous newspaper article reported that “Joseph Smithling of Syracuse, a member of the Movement to Restore Decency, told an Oneida County Patriotic Society meeting that the national sex education movement is part of the ‘International Communist conspiracy.’ He said local teachers are being fooled by a Communist plot to take over this country by getting American children ‘interested in sex, drawing them away from religion and making them superficial and less rugged.’”

The era’s most far-reaching anti-sex-ed pamphlet was published in September 1968. Selling at least 250,000 copies, Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex? took aim at the Sex Education Council of the United States, the biggest and most influential group creating sex-ed curricula and spreading them to public schools.

The pamphlet’s first section portrays its opponents as a bunch of sex-positive relativists who can’t even be counted on to declare premarital sex morally wrong. “The public school is intruding into a private family and church responsibility as it frightens and coerces parents to accept the teaching of sex,” its second chapter begins. One can only imagine how these conservatives would regard media that children are exposed to in 2018 when reading their take on teaching materials circa 1968:

Sex education, as a symbol of curricular innovation, is in the classroom with all of its rawness, its tactlessness, its erotic stimulation. The flood of materials for classroom use includes books, charts, and unbelievably clever models which even include multi-colored plastic human figures with interchangeable male and female sex organs––instant transvestism.

The sexologists, who we cannot help but feel are Johnny-come-lately pornographers, are devoting their full creative powers to inventing sexual gimmickry.

Other passages could as easily be critiques of sex education (and especially porn education) today. “The embarrassing frankness of many sex education programs force the sensitive child to suppress his normal, emotion-charged feelings in listening to class discussion,” the pamphlet’s authors fretted. “This may develop into serious anxieties. On the other hand, he may either become coarsely uninhibited in his involvement in sex, or develop a premature secret obsession with sex.”

The pamphlet ended with a rousing call to parents to resist sex education and the notion that only teachers—“the professionals”—are qualified to decide what kids should be taught. In its telling, “the sex educators are in league with sexologists—who represent every shape of muddy gray morality, ministers colored atheistic pink, and camp followers of every persuasion, from off-beat psychiatrists to ruthless publishers of pornography. The enemy is formidable at first glance, but becomes awesomely powerful when we discover the interlocking directorates and working relationship of national organizations which provide havens for these degenerates.”

While the spread of sex education in the late 1960s undoubtedly changed the socialization of young people, giving progressive educators more relative influence and social conservatives less, claims that the curriculums were “sex positive” or grounded in “moral relativism” were very much exaggerated, as scenes from the Saturday Evening Post feature and other contemporaneous accounts illustrate.

The birth-control pill was deliberately excluded from many curricula. In Evanston, Illinois, which boasted a well-known sex-education program, “a junior high school teacher responds to the frequent question ‘Why is premarital sex wrong?’ by handing around a list of horrifying statistics on venereal disease, illegitimacy, abortion, and divorce,” Kobler wrote. San Diego described its goal as promoting “wholesome attitudes toward boy-girl relationships and respect for family life.”

In Miami, a youth counselor answered a common question posed by ninth-grade girls as follows: “Should a girl kiss a boy on their first date? Certainly not. A kiss should be a token of affection, not a favor freely distributed. Going steady? It’s too easy to slip into an overly close relationship.” In a separate classroom, boys were told, “Don’t you and a girl go pairing off in a corner. It’ll only lead to frustration. You’re not prepared for sex except as animals. Don’t start a relationship you’re not ready for.”

Only the most liberal educators were advocating for co-ed sex-education classes, that no position be taken on the morality of premarital sex, and that students be given “full information.” Fifty years later, Americans remain divided on many of these same questions. One change is that “full information” back then meant a curriculum that covered, for instance, birth control and homosexuality; by the 1990s, advocates of “full information” favored teaching students about masturbation, a taboo that cost Joycelyn Elders her job in the Clinton administration when she forthrightly broke it in response to a question.

And today? That New York Times Magazine story on porn noted a survey of 14-to-18-year-olds. Half said they had watched porn. And among them, “one-quarter of the girls and 36 percent of the boys said they had seen videos of men ejaculating on women’s faces (known as ‘facial’)… Almost one-third of both sexes saw B.D.S.M. (bondage, domination, sadism, masochism), and 26 percent of males and 20 percent of females watched videos with double penetration, described in the study as one or more penises or objects in a woman’s anus and/or in her vagina. Also, 31 percent of boys said they had seen ‘gang bangs,’ or group sex, and ‘rough oral sex.’”

Put another way, if sex educators today are to cover just the terrain that millions of American teenagers have already been exposed to through the Internet, they will be covering acts that even the most liberal sex-education teachers of 1968 would’ve found unthinkable to teach, and that they had more than likely never seen themselves. Imagine the confusion typical adults of that bygone era would feel if told about the content available to today’s teens—and then told that alongside porn’s rapid rise, teen pregnancies, abortions, and STDs have fallen simultaneously and precipitously.

Complete Article HERE!


We Need Bodice-Ripper Sex Ed



Where did you learn about sex?

In my personal pie chart, 10 percent of the credit goes to Mom and Dad, who taught me that sex was for marriage, or at the very least, for a committed, loving, monogamous relationship that would, God willing, occur once I was out of the house.

I’ll credit another 10 percent to sex ed, the junior-high health classes that taught me the names of the body parts and explained what went where in the straight-people intercourse it was assumed we’d all be having. Sex, I learned, was bad news, every act risking pregnancy or disease. Think Coach Carr’s speech in the 2004 movie “Mean Girls” — “Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant, and die.”

Which left 80 percent to be filled in by my friends and pop culture: what I heard on the school bus and at sleepover parties, what I saw in movies and heard on the radio, the glimpses I got of dirty magazines, kept behind brown paper wrappers on the high shelves.

But I was a reader, and most of what I knew came from books, starting with the copy of Judy Blume’s “Forever …” that made the rounds of the cafeteria in seventh grade to the dozens of Harlequin romances I devoured to the best sellers by Judith Krantz, Shirley Conran, Jean Auel, Susan Isaacs and Erica Jong that I snagged from my mom’s shelves.

I’ve been thinking about sex education in light of what must, by now, be the most-discussed bad date in history.

By now, you’ve most likely heard about the encounter between an anonymous 23-year-old photographer and the comedian and actor Aziz Ansari. They met at a party, which led to a dinner date, which led to a sexual encounter that she came to deeply regret, she told a reporter, believing Mr. Ansari ignored verbal and nonverbal cues that she wasn’t into what was happening. Now that she has gone public with her account, everyone seems to have an opinion about what she did, what he did and whether talking about gray-zone sex, where the man believes that everything that happened was consensual and the woman feels otherwise, spells the end of the #MeToo movement.

Reading about it all, I realize how lucky I am that so much of my sex ed came from Harlequins.

The literary establishment doesn’t have much love for women’s fiction, whether it’s romance or erotica or popular novels about love and marriage. Romance novels come in for an extra helping of scorn. Critics sneer that they’re all heaving bosoms and throbbing manhoods, unrealistic, poorly written and politically incorrect.

But those books, for all their soft-core covers and happily-ever-afters, were quietly and not-so-quietly subversive. They taught readers that sexual pleasure was something women could not just hope for but insist upon. They shaped my interactions with boys and men. They helped make me a feminist.

Because these books were written for and consumed by women, female pleasure was an essential part of every story. Villains were easy to spot: They were the ones who left a woman “burning and unsatisfied.” Shirley Conran’s “Lace” features a heroine telling her feckless husband that she’d used an egg timer to determine how long it took her to achieve orgasm on her own and that she’d be happy to teach him what to do.

At 14, I never looked at hard-boiled eggs the same way again.

The books not only covered blissful sex but also described a whole range of intimate moments, from the awkward to the funny to the very bad, including rape of both the stranger and intimate-partner variety. Beyond the dirty bits, the books I read described the moments before and after the main event, the stuff you don’t see in mainstream movies, where zippers don’t get stuck and teeth don’t bump when you’re kissing; the stuff you don’t see in porn, where almost no time elapses between the repair guy’s arrival and the start of activities that do not involve the clogged kitchen sink.

Objectification doesn’t exist just in porn, of course. “So many men cannot get their heads around the idea that women are not first and foremost sexual objects,” the novelist Jenny Crusie told me. “You don’t get that from porn; you get that from a persistent worldview modeled by the men around you that you’ve been taught to admire.”

I have no idea how much, if any, X-rated material Mr. Ansari or his date consumes. Statistically, we know that modern men and women have access to every kind of explicit material, literally in their pockets. And they’re watching: One recent study found that 79 percent of men and 76 percent of women between 18 and 30 look at pornographic websites at least once each month, while another showed that three out of 10 men in that age group were daily viewers.

Sex might be easy, but relationships are hard. And a 400-page novel can teach you more about them than any X-rated clip. Fiction has time to draw a deeper picture, covering the getting-to-know-you stuff, the starts and stops and circling back that take boy and girl from first date to first kiss to the moment where they’re both naked and hopefully into what’s going to happen next.

“Romance novels teach readers that all partners are equal participants in a sexual relationship,” said Bea Koch, the 28-year-old co-owner (with her 25-year-old sister, Leah) of the Ripped Bodice, a bookstore in Culver City, Calif., that exclusively sells romance titles. “They highlight conversations about consent, birth control and myriad other topics that people generally find difficult to talk about. In some instances, it can be a literal script for how to bring up difficult topics with a partner. They give a road map to people wanting to experiment with their sexuality, or even just get in touch with what they want and need in a sexual relationship.”

Porn, necessarily, cuts to the chase: a little less conversation, a little more action.

Talking’s not sexy, people complain.

But when you don’t know how to ask, when you can’t bring yourself to tell, when you don’t possess the language with which to talk about desire, that’s when you can end up with crossed wires, missed signals, mixed messages, a guy who goes to sleep thinking, “That was fun!” and a girl who goes home crying in an Uber.

If we want men and women equally empowered to form real connections, to talk, honestly and openly about who they are and what they want, there are worse places to start than curling up with a good book.

Complete Article HERE!