CNN Writes Article On Cuckolding | Describe it as "Largely Positive"

EdgeCase

I'm probably being highly judgemental here (and make no apology for that) but this thread really makes me appreciate my rather 'boring' approach to sex.

I just don't get linking sex to something negative. I mean for me it's all about mutual pleasure, positivity, snuggles, laughs, walks on beaches, making each other feel amazing.

Life's grim enough at times and it's one area of it that's just pure positive energy for me.

From my point of view, this kind of topic is just like an alien world of hang ups about taboos, fetishes and power politics, notions of ownership of people and all of that. I'm pretty sure it comes from the old conservative notions that sex = dirty / filthy.

Each to their own, but humans really can be weird at times.

dxhound2005

EdgeCase wrote: »

I'm probably being highly judgemental here (and make no apology for that) but this thread really makes me appreciate my rather 'boring' approach to sex.

I just don't get linking sex to something negative. I mean for me it's all about mutual pleasure, positivity, snuggles, laughs, walks on beaches, making each other feel amazing.

Life's grim enough at times and it's one area of it that's just pure positive energy for me.

From my point of view, this kind of topic is just like an alien world of hang ups about taboos, fetishes and power politics, notions of ownership of people and all of that. I'm pretty sure it comes from the old conservative notions that sex = dirty / filthy.

Each to their own, but humans really can be weird at times.

Are you a man or a woman, or something in between?

ArchXStanton

Federal Reserve Meeting wrote: »

I'll explain this one for you. Women are generally not admired for shagging loads of men because it's not very difficult to do, we don't admire someone because they can drink a cup of tea, it's easy.

Now why do some people deride promiscuous women. Let's start with women, women often use sex for power, the more women there are being openly promiscuous the less power sex gives women. This is why women get angry towards openply promiscuous women.

Now why do men deride promiscuous women, well I'd say their derision is much less frequent and with much less intensity than thst of women. If their is derision I think it mostly comes from an instinctual fear of being cuckolded, which makes perfrct sense. Evolutionarily it is catastrophic to raise another man's children for a lifetime.

Indeed women are often the biggest critics of promiscuous women, they lower the value of sex, these hussy's could be out there trying to tempt their boyfriends or husbands

EdgeCase

EdgeCase wrote: »

I'm probably being highly judgemental here

Actually I think you are being the exact opposite. You are being a perfect example of a healthy response to this subject. Looking at it - trying to put yourself in their place to see what they get out of it - failing - and then saying "That is simply not for me".

The is not judgemental at all. That is how I think ideally _most_ human reactions to _most_ human behaviour should be. Humans can be weird at times as you say - and I think that is a _good_ thing. Imagine life if no one was weird at all.

If you were saying however "That is not for me - and that man is less of a man because it is for him" then _that_ would be judgemental.

EdgeCase wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it comes from the old conservative notions that sex = dirty / filthy.

Only if you are doing it right - as the old saying goes

EdgeCase

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Are you a man or a woman, or something in between?

None of your business tbh. I don't see how it's relevant to my post.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Still not covering what I am actually asking though. You are presenting as the explanation for what I am asking, the very thing I am querying. Which is circular. Again - a woman having a large number of sexual partners is either to be derided with words like "slut" or it is not (I personally think it is not). I am not seeing why having relative difficulty in obtaining those partners as being a mediation point for evaluating her having had that number of partners. Either the number of partners is an issue - or it is not.

Eh I explained the difference. I dunno how clear I have to make it for you to understand it. Things that are more difficult to achieve are seen as more positive than things that are easy to achieve. Being a single woman getting lots of sexual partners is easier to achieve than being a woman in a relationship getting lots of sexual partners with the permission/encouragement of her partner. Simple. I can't make it any simpler unless I break out the crayons.

You have just blatantly quoted me saying one thing and then pretended I said something _entirely_ different. Nowhere in the text you just quoted did I say _you_ were unusual. You just fabricated it out of nothingness.

Put the straw away. It is not required here.

Your memory seems to be faulty, maybe your halo of tolerance is too tight for your head. You said: When you start questioning here whether it is valid to call a man a man - then I can only suspect your definition of "man" is rather unusual and-or limited. Given I previously questioned the manhood of a cuckold then my definition according to you is "rather unusual and-or limited". I suggested that my position is not the unusual one. No straw man required on my part.

El_Duderino 09

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't understand any of this

Me neither. I don't understand why someone would enjoy cuckolding and I don't understand why anyone would be upset about it.

If you look through you'll find posters who can't get within an ass's roar of a a relationship, criticising other men for the sex they have in their relationship.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh I explained the difference. I dunno how clear I have to make it for you to understand it. Things that are more difficult to achieve are seen as more positive than things that are easy to achieve.

Again - it is not that you are not explaining it or me not understanding it. It is that you are explaining, and I am understanding, something I am not asking.

Again - all I am saying is that a woman having a large number of sexual partners is an issue, or it is not an issue. If her having had a lot of partners is an issue - then it having been somehow more difficult to get those partners does not change the fact she had a lot of partners.

To frame that better maybe consider _other_ situations where it might be "more difficult" for a woman to obtain the high number of partners. I do not see the same reversal in the dynamic there. So I am only seeing the "difficulty" excuse coming into play in one scenario only. So it does not seem to hold up what you are saying.

So petty crayon comments is not getting at the fact that the only one who needs someone made more basic is you - as you have not yet seemingly understood the focus of my question and are answering something else entirely and acting like I am not understanding the answer.

Wibbs wrote: »

Your memory seems to be faulty, maybe your halo of tolerance is too tight for your head.

Nope only your comprehension is faulty here. I very clearly said that your definition of "man" is unusual. You then blatantly changed this to me having said _you_ were. A statement entirely different o the one I actually made. Please do keep up and maybe actually read what I wrote instead of falling over yourself in your rush to see what petty crayon type personal comments you can throw in to fluff out your posts with.

professore

If everyone involved is happy, then I don't see the problem.

If it's a case of the woman wanting some strange and imposing it on the man, well then it's screwed up.

It wouldn't be for me.

Feisar

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Me neither. I don't understand why someone would enjoy cuckolding and I don't understand why anyone would be upset about it.

If you look through you'll find posters who can't get within an ass's roar of a a relationship, criticising other men for the sex they have in their relationship.

To be fair I wouldn't chaulk up watching someone else having sex in the win column.

El_Duderino 09

Wamsung WS wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Me neither. I don't understand why someone would enjoy cuckolding and I don't understand why anyone would be upset about it.

If you look through you'll find posters who can't get within an ass's roar of a a relationship, criticising other men for the sex they have in their relationship.

Why are you so nasty toward's people, what happened to you to cause you this much pain that makes you want others to feel pain?

I've no issue with cuckolds. It's up to them. I object to people having a pop at those men for nothing.

sbsquarepants

Feisar wrote: »

I'm not concerned however it is interesting. I'd like to know where such desires stem from.

On yer second point I don't think I'd be able to preform with some other lad watching.

Where does any desire stem from? People like what they like.

Personally I can barely think of anything I'd find less arousing or enjoyable than watching some other bloke banjoing my missus, but I wouldn't care about him watching me banjo his, a bit weird but sure fúck it, who am I to judge?

But not that particular one, dear god no!

Wamsung WS

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Where does any desire stem from? People like what they like.

Personally I can barely think of anything I'd find less arousing or enjoyable than watching some other bloke banjoing my missus, but I wouldn't care about him watching me banjo his, a bit weird but sure fúck it, who am I to judge?

But not that particular one, dear god no!

Some people are saying they are sad, is there no section of society that you find sad?

El_Duderino 09

Feisar wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Me neither. I don't understand why someone would enjoy cuckolding and I don't understand why anyone would be upset about it.

If you look through you'll find posters who can't get within an ass's roar of a a relationship, criticising other men for the sex they have in their relationship.

To be fair I wouldn't chaulk up watching someone else having sex in the win column.

Nor would I consider having sec with another man a win for me because I don't want to do that. But I don't want to have go at gays or cuckholds.

If everyone involved is happy they I presume they're winning. That a all that really matters, isn't it?

Zorya

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't understand any of this

Me_Neither! What_is_with_all_the_low_down_dashes???

Zorya

Deleted User wrote: »

Yea I have absolutely no interest in scat either. Not for me at all. And I am good with that. I would be worried if I started describing the men who do like it as something like "sickly little diseased sissys lying in the corner covered in filth" though. Because then I would have moved from no personal interest in it - to an unjustified emotional reaction to it and judgement of those involved.

And it is that transition I think interesting on threads like this. Some people can not simply see "That guy is into things I am not" but have to imagine him as being "flabby" and "in the corner" and a whole string of other things. Even saying he is not even a "man" at all. Basically justifying their own emotional reaction to themselves by building a hateful straw man to represent it.

Human psychology is just in my top 3 areas of interest. And reactions like that are a great example of human psychology in play.

If you are into human psychology you would know that disgust sensitivity is a fairly distinguishing and common personality trait. It's not a good or bad thing - it simply is, and serves a purpose like anything else, so flinching from it (ironically a disgust reaction) seems pointless.
Disgust is also one of six universal human emotions. It's no biggie to figure out its significant evolutionary advantage.

Wibbs

Zorya wrote: »

If you are into human psychology you would know that disgust sensitivity is a fairly distinguishing and common personality trait.

Apparently thinking someone getting their jollies from being defecated on as a bit fecking odd to say the least is an "unjustified emotional reaction to it and judgement". I'd reckon that a fairly rational emotional reaction myself. Colour me judgmental. Like everybody is. Anyone who claims otherwise is deluding themselves or being economical with the truth.

Zorya

Wibbs wrote: »

Apparently thinking someone getting their jollies from being defecated on as a bit fecking odd to say the least is an "unjustified emotional reaction to it and judgement". I'd reckon that a fairly rational emotional reaction myself. Colour me judgmental. Like everybody is. Anyone who claims otherwise is deluding themselves or being economical with the truth.

I'm quite happy to have a fairly sharp disgust sensitivity. I like to think it would have meant me living to be an ancient old crone in the cave days, because I ain't eating that stinky meat, ignoring that odd looking wound or sleeping with that lad who has dipped their wick in every hole between here and Constantinople :pac:

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Again - all I am saying is that a woman having a large number of sexual partners is an issue, or it is not an issue. If her having had a lot of partners is an issue - then it having been somehow more difficult to get those partners does not change the fact she had a lot of partners.

Do you get the context of difficulty here? Apparently not. All you're seeing is some bias against women for having loads of partners and running with that. A bias that certainly exists for all sorts of reasons and a bias that if a guy possesses means he'll not want a bar of either the "slut" or the partner of the cuckold.

Wibbs

Zorya wrote: »

sleeping with that lad who has dipped their wick in every hole between here and Constantinople :pac:

Funny enough on the slut/stud subject, as far as STDs go it's more dangerous for a woman to have sex with a man with loads of partners than the other way around. STD transmission risks are much higher for women and STDs generally have worse physical effects for women too. The promiscuity and disease thing is a regular feature of historical and cultural attitudes to sex. For men the risk with relationships with a woman with loads of partners is more about paternity. Before modern medicine maternity was a fact, paternity was an opinion, so less promiscuous women were generally favoured much more. There could be some deviation from that in some cultures. For example some preferred divorced/widowed women with a child as this meant she was fertile and a proven mother. Of course men's fertility didn't come into it. Look at Henry the eighth, he went through half a dozen women looking for an heir and complained about their fertility, never considering he was the one firing mostly duds.

Oh and it'll always be Byzantium to me.

Frank O. Pinion

nullzero wrote: »

Why do men who get off on seeing their wife getting fvcked by a "superior" man even get married to begin with?

There's nothing healthy about this "lifestyle", if any decent woman was bring pushed in that direction by her spouse the only healthy thing she could do is get a divorce and go out and find herself a man with some reasonable level of dignity.
It's no coincidence in my mind that this has become an issue after years of saturation of internet porn that some blokes just seem to not be able to handle. Porn is fine, but blurring the lines in your relationship to mirror the experience of watching two people having sex is not what marriage or relationships are about.
Women want their men to be confident assertive and strong, not some pile of flab sitting on a chair in the corner of the bedroom masturbating whilst holding a camera as she gets rode by another man. At that stage the relationship is intrinsically broken.

There's women that want and enjoy a cuckold relationship. They still love their husband, but want to f*ck other men, the husband consents to this, and nothing negative has occurred, except confusing some strangers not involved in the relationship. You're just looking at it from the husband's POV. Some cuckolds don't even watch the act, just listens to his wife describe what happened afterwards.

"Why do men who get off on seeing their wife getting fvcked by a "superior" man even get married to begin with?"

In many cases, the married man wasn't aware that he's into the cuckold fetish before getting married. When a cuckold relationship goes well and works, the husband and wife go on a sexual journey together.

Cuckoldry doesn't have to consume a couple's relationship. It's something they might only do once a month, or a few times a year. It's something they might move on from after a few years and not do again, but stay happily married. A kink/fetish they tried and moved on from. For other couples it might be a long-term lifestyle choice.

terryduff12

Does this mean when and if i ever go to the red light district in Amsterdam and bring a wife, i can bring her in and let her watch me have sex with another woman and be cool about it and so will all the other liberals?.

Frank O. Pinion

terryduff12 wrote: »

Does this mean when and if i ever go to the red light district in Amsterdam and bring a wife, i can bring her in and let her watch me have sex with another woman and be cool about it and so will all the other liberals?.

If your wife agrees to it, that would be called "cuckqueaning", and most liberals probably aren't interested in your sex life.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Do you get the context of difficulty here? Apparently not.

Do you get that I not only get it but gave a specific counter argument based on it? Apparently not.

As I clearly said but you edited it out - I see plenty of other situations where difficulty of one sort or another is in play - but only this context where I thought it was relevant.

But having thought about it for a few minutes I have realized where my actual error is. Thinking it was relevant. I just scanned and sped read over some threads on this topic and some literature on it. And the concept is one pretty much only you is expressing.

So my error here was asking you to explain a move that appeared nonsense and baseless to me - without noticing the move was based on a premise that appears equally nonsense and without basis. My query was misdirected entirely.

Wibbs

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

In many cases, the married man wasn't aware that he's into the cuckold fetish before getting married.

annnd that's why we invented divorce. Takes all sorts I suppose. *shrug*

Zorya

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough on the slut/stud subject, as far as STDs go it's more dangerous for a woman to have sex with a man with loads of partners than the other way around. STD transmission risks are much higher for women and STDs generally have worse physical effects for women too. The promiscuity and disease thing is a regular feature of historical and cultural attitudes to sex.

Makes sense. The inward harbouring the bugs. I know people scoff at homeopathy, and God knows I could never get it to work for me, but the theories there on the generational effects of ancient venereal diseases in weakening the constitutions of descendants and underlying chronic disease makes some sense to me - epigenetically speaking.

Frank O. Pinion

Wibbs wrote: »

annnd that's why we invented divorce. Takes all sorts I suppose. *shrug*

Sure...

Or the husband and wife find out together it turns them both on, both enjoy it, and stay happily married, with no need for a divorce.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you get that I not only get it but gave a specific counter argument based on it? Apparently not.

Your ego is strong I'll give you that, and coming from me that's not a good observation.

The other factor you seem to have completely missed with all your scanning and speedreading(and suggests a sense of tone/humour bypass) is my original post that seems to have you all revving up your _word salad_: To the girlfriends and wives in that setup, getting ridden like a horse into battle with your blokes permission and encouragement? I say kudos ladies. Well played. Note the smiley. Unlike yourself not all of us are going for pseudo deep examinations of the "psychology" of throwaway comments all the time.

To be fair I took your meagre bait on this and really shouldn't have bothered for both our sakes, so that's on me. It's not as if it's my first rodeo.

Zorya

Zorya wrote: »

If you are into human psychology you would know that disgust sensitivity is a fairly distinguishing and common personality trait. It's not a good or bad thing - it simply is

That would be my position too. In fact I have been following the studies at the level of the brain on disgust. It is interesting how evolution reuses existing modules. For example when someone is rejecting an idea - many of the same brain areas light up as used when experiencing physical disgust.

What is the focus of what I have been saying on the thread is one step above the disgust. It is an interest I have in how people process it. Take for example the user who considered the idea above and realised he can not understand it and it was not for him. And he was almost apologetic in case he was being too judgemental.

Now contrast that with the people with a not at all cerebral but entirely emotive reaction to this subject. They can not be merely disgusted by it and move on.

No they have to question whether such men are even "men" at all, and describe such men in the most negative terms. Words like flabby to portray them as unattractive. Words like "in the corner" to impart that impression of a timid little animal. Words like "clutching the camera" rather than merely holding it to convey an impression of desperation and need.

So they have this need to almost justify their own emotional negative reaction by portraying the focus of it in negative ways that do not even have to track with reality in any way. We saw someone comment on similar on the Gilette thread for example where someone there noted how some people could not just say feminist. But it had to come with some physical description like "batty old" or "withered".

So the people with the thought out measured responses are almost apologetic for it. The people with the completely emotional responses without any though in contrast act like it is someone else who would benefit with some time around crayons.

So yes I know all about disgust. It is the point of my posts. I am interested in how people process it. Because I think it is genuinely interesting. As I said I am disgusted by "scat" and the idea of it and of ever engaging with it. I never once felt the need to comment on the physical attributes of thsoe who are into it, or question whether they are "men" or not.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Wibbs wrote: »

annnd that's why we invented divorce. Takes all sorts I suppose. *shrug*

You'd wonder does the married man in these situations have much of a say in the matter. ''Oh ya honey of course I'm into seeing other guys fck you''.

A fetish doesn't usually just materialise out of thin air at mature age. They're usually seeded a lot earlier than that.

qwerty ui op

Deleted User wrote: »

Some people be horny. Some people be hornier than others. Some people don't like that.

Think that sums it up

I agree, but I think it's more that the less horny people don't have any understanding about more horny people.
Put people into 3 groups
Low horny
Mid horny
high horny

The 33% of high horny's have a much better vantage point, they can see their own kind and those who are not where their at when it comes to physical attraction.

Low horny's, can only go on hearsay, and take peoples word for it, but a low horny will be more willing to admit the don't understand any of it.

Mid horny's are the problem! this 33% get horny every now and again and feel very aroused at the appropriate time. So they think the know about hornyness, when they don't **** or haven't experienced ****. what it is to be a high horny

Reviews and Books Galore

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh I explained the difference. I dunno how clear I have to make it for you to understand it. Things that are more difficult to achieve are seen as more positive than things that are easy to achieve. Being a single woman getting lots of sexual partners is easier to achieve than being a woman in a relationship getting lots of sexual partners with the permission/encouragement of her partner. Simple. I can't make it any simpler unless I break out the crayons.

You know, you're pretty negative towards this in comparison to your other opinions on boards.

Is it because the article is potraying niche activities as common, it is potraying submissive male behaviour as progressive, or another reason that has nothing to do with any other option?

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Your ego is strong I'll give you that, and coming from me that's not a good observation.

And again the personal comments. You really cant help yourself. But as you say it is indeed comedy. My error, and mea culpa for it as I said, was that I questioned the move based on the premise when I missed the fact I should have questioned the premise as no one appears to hold it really despite your subsequent attempts to defend it and now back pedal into calling it comedy. And it created a useless tangent. Not my first rodeo either. My bad.

But I _do_ find the psychology of this interesting. I do find it interesting that one might question whether a man is even a man just because he has a sexual interest you don't. I do find it interesting than when questioned on that, and what an unusual definition of "man" you must be using you totally pretended I said something I did not. Then when called on that in turn, let it drop behind a veil or rather childish and entirely uncalled for personal comments.

Take homophobia for example. How many people find homosexual sex and the idea of it disgusting and think "That is not for me, I can not see why they like it" - and how many then had to go on and "other" the homosexual for it and create a hateful and hated image of homosexuals in their head to get there. How are your posts so far much different from that?

You might not find it interesting. I do. I find it interesting that one user merely considered the idea and said it is not for him in almost apologetic tones. While another user has the most emotive responses to it to the point of questioning whether they are even "men" by a definition of "men" they appear unable to even offer.

But the more extreme the difference in opinion the more important I think it is to flag common ground. There _are_ some very unhealthy relationships where cuckolding occurs. And the men in it are too weak, or timid, or scared, or love struck, or whatever to stand up for themselves. I think we are both reacting to that. Me with compassion and sympathy. You, it seems, with derision, bile, and questioning whether we can even call them men. But we can entirely agree this is not _at all_ a good thing.

But there are very healthy people in very healthy relationships into this too. And they are every bit as much "men" if not more so than your good self.

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair I took your meagre bait on this and really shouldn't have bothered for both our sakes, so that's on me. It's not as if it's my first rodeo.

You cant help yourself. You are likely about to do it again...... 3 2 1 and all that....

Wibbs

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You'd wonder does the married man in these situations have much of a say in the matter. ''Oh ya honey of course I'm into seeing other guys fck you''.

A fetish doesn't usually just materialise out of thin air at mature age. They're usually seeded a lot earlier than that.

+1. Knowing as I have many couples where the man or woman was in the "do as your told dear" setup, that wouldn't surprise me at all. I suppose I have some angle on this cuckold stuff because many moons back I was seeing this woman in a pretty casual way and it was mostly just sex. Casual to the point of me starting to wonder what more was going on. Then she tells me she has a live in boyfriend of many years that she said she loved and that "he's OK with this". Apparently she told him of her exploits. I wasn't OK with this and so off she was told to sod. Somewhat more politely put. Somewhat. A few years later I actually bumped into them both and it was very clear to see by those present that the poor bastard was firmly in the "do as you're told dear, you're lucky to have me" dynamic. I've known more women in that kinda setup though. Going along with all sorts of stuff, with the pretence of consent going on.

I've zero doubt there are couples were this is fully consensual and whatever floats your boat, but I will still have an attack of the face palms about some guy(or gal) getting off on watching or hearing about their partner getting nailed to the mattress by somebody else. And would consider those into scat as just plain weird and retch inducing.

sbsquarepants

Wamsung WS wrote: »

Some people are saying they are sad, is there no section of society that you find sad?

There is of course. I find junkies sad for example.

I find quite a lot of sexual behaviour quite weird - I have very plain tastes!

I have over the years had the occasional kinky partner and whereas I'd usually be happy enough to give most things a try, I never really felt the appeal of any of it, I'd view this as much the same. I don't see the appeal, but if somebody else does well then fine, let them at it - why should I or anyone else care.

I'm very much a live and let live kinda guy. (apart from scat - those freaks can fúck right off:eek:!)

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Then she tells me she has a live in boyfriend of many years that she said she loved

I as wondering why your reaction to it was so emotional. As did another user just a couple of posts ago. Now it seems you were lied to and wronged and used in a pretty dishonest and awful way. That certainly connects a few missing dots. I am sorry this happened to you.

I can see why, unjustifiable as it is, a single hurtful anecdote could color your emotional response to an entire group of people and something they are genuinely into. I am all for the potentials of alternative sex, including cuckoldary. I am not at all in support of people who get their jollies by lying to and using others.

I love sex. Both doing it and as a subject or academic interest. I try to have sex a lot. I think about it even more. I love it. But above all in sex, consent for me is the key axiom around which all else is formed. Nothing else is more important than that and I would rather live 1000 years of no sex than have anything to do with sex without all round consent.

You were wronged. Those people suck. I hope some form of justice finds them.

RWCNT

The famous essayist TaxAHCruel right back at it again.

RWCNT

RWCNT wrote: »

The famous essayist TaxAHCruel right back at it again.

I hope for your sake you never get into a conversation with Oldrnwisr

My posts are the mere contents of fortune cookies in comparison.

El_Duderino 09

terryduff12 wrote: »

Does this mean when and if i ever go to the red light district in Amsterdam and bring a wife, i can bring her in and let her watch me have sex with another woman and be cool about it and so will all the other liberals?.

What a strange question. If you, the prostitute, and your wife are all happy about it then why would you need liberals' approval? You might have to pay the prostitutie extra for your wife to watch. But that's between you, and the prostitute.

Strange question though.

El_Duderino 09

Double post

Zorya

Deleted User wrote: »

That would be my position too. In fact I have been following the studies at the level of the brain on disgust. It is interesting how evolution reuses existing modules. For example when someone is rejecting an idea - many of the same brain areas light up as used when experiencing physical disgust.

What is the focus of what I have been saying on the thread is one step above the disgust. It is an interest I have in how people process it. Take for example the user who considered the idea above and realised he can not understand it and it was not for him. And he was almost apologetic in case he was being too judgemental.

Now contrast that with the people with a not at all cerebral but entirely emotive reaction to this subject. They can not be merely disgusted by it and move on.

No they have to question whether such men are even "men" at all, and describe such men in the most negative terms. Words like flabby to portray them as unattractive. Words like "in the corner" to impart that impression of a timid little animal. Words like "clutching the camera" rather than merely holding it to convey an impression of desperation and need.

So they have this need to almost justify their own emotional negative reaction by portraying the focus of it in negative ways that do not even have to track with reality in any way. We saw someone comment on similar on the Gilette thread for example where someone there noted how some people could not just say feminist. But it had to come with some physical description like "batty old" or "withered".

So the people with the thought out measured responses are almost apologetic for it. The people with the completely emotional responses without any though in contrast act like it is someone else who would benefit with some time around crayons.

So yes I know all about disgust. It is the point of my posts. I am interested in how people process it. Because I think it is genuinely interesting. As I said I am disgusted by "scat" and the idea of it and of ever engaging with it. I never once felt the need to comment on the physical attributes of thsoe who are into it, or question whether they are "men" or not.

It's natural for people to root their emotional responses in strong emotive language as it reinforces them, and emotional responses can exist for very good reasons, just as instinctual responses do. There is some overlap between strong instinct and strong emotion.

To be overly cerebral can be an impediment by times - it has advantages and disadvantages, just as have emotional responses. I do not really see the necessity for a strict hierarchy in ordinary life - the ''step above''. Perhaps in a laboratory or analytical setting, but even there instinct can be more useful than expected.

The one rationalising their disgust and confused by the emotive response of another is also engaging in an emotive response, just a more muted, controlled one. Nothing wrong with that either.

As for the depiction of the flabby guy in the corner clutching his camera - well, it is more likely to my imagination - and I know it is my magination - that the man watching his wife being screwed silly by someone else is less likely to be a confident, calm, rational man sitting upright in his chair, considering the photographic angles. Sure, there may be some Patrick Bateman types that would assume that position and be utterly detached, or cerebrally turned on. I would say the description of the cuckold as being cowered and cowering, or in at least some fundamental sense pathetic, is more likely to be true. Not always, of course! Thus the people describing the scene as such are more likely to be hitting in or around the actuality.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. Knowing as I have many couples where the man or woman was in the "do as your told dear" setup, that wouldn't surprise me at all. I suppose I have some angle on this cuckold stuff because many moons back I was seeing this woman in a pretty casual way and it was mostly just sex. Casual to the point of me starting to wonder what more was going on. Then she tells me she has a live in boyfriend of many years that she said she loved and that "he's OK with this". Apparently she told him of her exploits. I wasn't OK with this and so off she was told to sod. Somewhat more politely put. Somewhat. A few years later I actually bumped into them both and it was very clear to see by those present that the poor bastard was firmly in the "do as you're told dear, you're lucky to have me" dynamic. I've known more women in that kinda setup though. Going along with all sorts of stuff, with the pretence of consent going on.

I've zero doubt there are couples were this is fully consensual and whatever floats your boat, but I will still have an attack of the face palms about some guy(or gal) getting off on watching or hearing about their partner getting nailed to the mattress by somebody else. And would consider those into scat as just plain weird and retch inducing.

Jaysus I can see why you ended it, that would seriously piss me off.

Most honourable men do not want to do the dirt with another fella's missus (whether he consents or not), she was very wrong not to tell you.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Surely consent is key to anyone who isn’t a scumbag?
Also what is scat

super_furry

If everyone involved is into it and consenting, then I guess they're going to enjoy it. Wouldn't be for me and I struggle to understand the appeal at all, but it's no skin of my nose what people do in their own bedrooms either way.

Wibbs

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

You know, you're pretty negative towards this in comparison to your other opinions on boards.

Is it because the article is potraying niche activities as common, it is potraying submissive male behaviour as progressive, or another reason that has nothing to do with any other option?

Much of the above, though I would consider submissive female behaviour as equally off putting. To be fair R that's more my personality. I find submissive types in general off putting to the point of irritation. The increasing portrayal of niche activities as common would certainly be in the mix, especially coming from "sexperts", a demographic that are well known for bullshit being passed off as research and fact, all the way back to Kinsey. Shere Hite another. The list is long.

qwerty ui op wrote: »

I agree, but I think it's more that the less horny people don't have any understanding about more horny people.
Put people into 3 groups
Low horny
Mid horny
high horny

Well on your scale I'd be very much in the "high horny" category. I've had relationships go south over it. And yet I'd be fetish free, to an abnormal degree actually. Even basic really vanilla stuff like lingerie does absolutely nada for me. If that sorta thing makes her happy and aroused, then I'm happy, but I can take or leave it. Enthusiastic naked woman is where it begins and ends for me and for my gentleman's gentleman.

What I have found down the years of knowing a fair few folks into the alternative/kink/fetish scene to varying degrees; from low level burlesque folks, through "tantra" folks(pretentious edging. Speaking as a guy who can have actual multiple organisms *ahem* where bullets leave the gun each time, I know the difference), through subs/doms, to is that a cattle prod in your bottom or are you just pleased to see me folks, is that they're not particularly horny at all. No more than background non kink folks and about as variable as them in their drives. The main difference I noted was they were very much more into the theatricality of sexuality and the lifestyle. The theatrically was a huge part of it and fair enough. And like any special interest group pretty convinced that their way was better than the "norms" and they talked about it all more openly and more often. Oh and contrary to popular belief they weren't all "liberal progressives" either. Their social and political views had the same kinda spread as background there too.

qwerty ui op

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Jaysus I can see why you ended it, that would seriously piss me off.

Most honourable men do not want to do the dirt with another fella's missus (whether he consents or not), she was very wrong not to tell you.

Most mens honour, depends on what her ass looks like

DEFTLEFTHAND

qwerty ui op wrote: »

Most mens honour, depends on what her ass looks like

Sadly true.

Very few men of honour left in this day and age.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I as wondering why your reaction to it was so emotional. As did another user just a couple of posts ago. Now it seems you were lied to and wronged and used in a pretty dishonest and awful way. That certainly connects a few missing dots. I am sorry this happened to you.

I can see why, unjustifiable as it is, a single hurtful anecdote could color your emotional response to an entire group of people and something they are genuinely into. I am all for the potentials of alternative sex, including cuckoldary. I am not at all in support of people who get their jollies by lying to and using others.

I love sex. Both doing it and as a subject or academic interest. I try to have sex a lot. I think about it even more. I love it. But above all in sex, consent for me is the key axiom around which all else is formed. Nothing else is more important than that and I would rather live 1000 years of no sex than have anything to do with sex without all round consent.

You were wronged. Those people suck. I hope some form of justice finds them.

Sorry T, nope, though I do appreciate your sentiment and it's perfectly understandable to think that without me going into more detail. I ended it not because I felt I was wronged, but because I felt sorry for the other poor bastard. And I had no emotionals with her and TBH I had another iron in the fire at the time anyway.

Bit of background of one period in my life. DEFTLEFTHAND notes "Most honourable men do not want to do the dirt with another fella's missus" and rightfully. However in this particular phase I was the less than honourable man, quite happy to be the "other man" as far as hookups went. I had come out of a longtermer that went south and I went a bit south with it as did my moral compass. I didn't want any sort of relationship beyond a bit of in and out and being the other guy covered all the bases for me. I've known a couple of "other women" who took the same view.

I avoided married women of course and didn't purposely set out to be the other man, but it happened more than one might think. I was no doubt selecting for them. They generally never mentioned the boyfriend and a mutual silence sufficed. A few did and it was clear they were looking for either a new guy to jump to without being single in the middle, or they were looking for a guy in between the old and the next relationship. Most seemed to be just bored really. It was kind of interesting from a social and psychological point of view. Needless to say I justified it all to myself.

My reaction to the particular woman I mentioned with the "cuckold" boyfriend was actually what pulled me out of that phase. It and the other poor bastard simply became more real to me. I couldn't self justify that, even though she said he was OK with it. In some ways that made it worse. TBH I'd rather have some enraged boyfriend beat seven bells outa me for doing what I was doing. At least that would be somehow cathartic for both of us. But to see a submissive broken boyfriend who loved her and thought he could do no better "agree" to it? Jesus. That part is more likely the source of my WTF over cuckolding.

Briar Wrong Tribune wrote:

Also what is scat

People who get aroused by poo basically. Yep.

Zorya

Zorya wrote: »

It's natural for people to root their emotional responses in strong emotive language as it reinforces them

Sure. I do it myself. But I think that is a very different thing to what I was describing above. There is quite a difference between portraying an emotional response in emotional language, and willfully constructing a physical and mental image of "the other" merely to process an emotional response to something they very much like - which another very much does not.

Zorya wrote: »

To be overly cerebral can be an impediment by times - it has advantages and disadvantages, just as have emotional responses.

Sure - but what I was commenting on was a _purely_ emotional response firstly with no actual grounding rational content that has yet been shown - and then processing that through a derisive construct of "the other" in order to self justify it.

Zorya wrote: »

it is more likely to my imagination - and I know it is my magination - that the man watching his wife being screwed silly by someone else is less likely to be a confident, calm, rational man sitting upright in his chair

I think both equally likely myself. Take me for example. I am somewhat interested in exploring the issues on this thread in reality. I am in the middle ground here as A) I have not done it yet and I only want to explore it a small few times not as an ongoing life style like some do.

I would certainly fit closer your description here than the other one. I do not really subscribe to any of the definitions people have for what they think a "real man" is - most of it is nonsense and made up of attributes that would be just as relevant in women - but having said that I do not know a definition I have heard which I do not mostly fit. I certainly have never had anyone question my manhood or suggest attributes of it I lack. In some contexts quite the opposite.

The problem here is - we simply do not know. We have articles - quite a few of them if you google them - interviewing people into this and they do not conform to the negative stereotypes on this thread at all from what I have seen. Even a little bit. But that could be a self selecting as the timid shy types probably would not present for interview in great numbers so those interviewed are likely to fit that second description more often.

Then we have porn. And of course that plays up to the level of caricature the humiliation and submission aspects so people there are _more_ likely to conform to that stereotype. And since porn is so popular and prevalent that is going to invariably color the stereotypes in play.

Then we have documentaries which seem to select small numbers of that type too. One was discussed on boards not that long ago and the people selected for it were - not good. The guys were clearly quite miserable with it all. And there was that netflix docurecently about a guy spending a _lot_ of money on a web cam girl to the point she traveled to meet him briefly. Her boyfriend was in it and I have never seen someone pretending to be ok with something who was that clearly absolutely not really ok with it. Pain was all over his face literally every moment he was shown.

But we have not much actual general data on interest in this subject in the general population. And what data there is is not really focused on these attributes. So the moment we - and I include my own statements above regarding it being equally likely - start commenting on how likely one is over the other we are doing it almost purely on - as you rightly said yourself - imagination. There is no _actual_ basis being shown here for expecting one over the other at all.

Wibbs

qwerty ui op wrote: »

Most mens honour, depends on what her ass looks like

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Sadly true.

Very few men of honour left in this day and age.

I'm not so sure guys. I'd reckon the majority of men and women aren't like that. Depends on age too. More likely to see that sorta thing when people are younger and even then it's a minority. I've known slightly more women to cheat at the end of a relationship as a way to reinforce it's over or a way to line up the next relationship, but again that's more a younger folks thing. I'd reckon with older age groups and where opportunities come up it's the men that are slightly more like to cheat, or try to.