Tuesday, May 23, 2023

Controllable desires

They're not a substitute for more traditional methods of marital control, of course, but they can help a husband get over those difficult first few weeks when he still has silly notions about freedom and suchlike.

Anyway, lightening never strikes twice, right?

She has strong views on the importance of self-esteem in education too - far too much of it around these days, for her taste.

Oooh - exciting!  I wonder where you're off to?

I myself am often tempted to wear my wife's clothes, especially on really cold days, but I know it's wrong and would only upset her.






  1. I'm pretty sure you've made the "only one who's officially been found not to" etc. joke before.

    1. Goodness, you must be paying curiously careful atention, Ma'am.

      Yes, that wouldn't surprise me. It's not original anyway. It comes, in effect, from one of the old black and white St Trinians movies, with which all British perverts should be familiar (gymslips!). At one point, the Headmistress Miss Fritton refers to a certain time she spent 'convalescing', or 'taking a rest cure' or some such and then cheerfully points out that this resulted in her becoming the only Headmistress of a major English school with a certificate actually attesting to her sanity.

      It's odd running a blog where readers can remember the contents better than I can. But I do have only a male brain, so perhaps it's to be expected.

      Best wishes


    2. I believe that in UK law, if there is a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of a crime, then the jury is expected to issue a verdict of "not guilty". In a relatively private crime such as the one discussed here, there are many sources of reasonable doubt.

      The principle is: "it is better for a thousand guilty castratrices to go free than for one woman to be wrongfully imprisoned."

    3. Thank you, Mr A. Yes, I think that's only fair. Justice needs to be done and seen to be done, and where would we be if any man could simply accuse a woman of what is (slightly oddly) considered a serious crime, just by turning up one day without any testicles? I man, who's to say he did not cut them off himself, just to create an imagined grievance?

      Plus, I understand, sensible judges will insist on the principles of habeas testes as if the supposedly removed items are nowhere to be found, how could anyone be sure there was a pair to be cut off in the first place?

      All in all, it is quite hard to bring a prosecution for castration, especially as most lady barristers will refuse to take such cases, so the more intelligent half of the profession is unavailable to begin with.

      Best wishes