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

El_Duderino 09

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.

So you had a casual relationship with a liar and she made a fool of you. And she proved to be a wagon to her actual boyfriend.

You might or might not have noticed that almost everyone who has expressed a nuanced opinion has mentioned that everyone involved should be OK with it before its OK.

Consent is the key and you didn't know so you couldn't consent. I don't think anyone has said it's fine to not tell a guy you're already in a relationship.

El_Duderino 09

Double post

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

That is why you ended it sure but I was not commenting on the ending of it. Just that - whether you ended it or not - you were still wronged. And I can understand how that might color your emotional reaction - which is clearly a strong one - to the general subject going forward.

I might be wrong of course - I often am - but just as I was speculating what the source of your overly emotive reaction might be a story like that happens to pop up. It just fits I guess. But coincidences happen too. Just color me skeptic I guess. But I wonder if you had got the closure of that cathartic beating whether we would be having the same conversation today. Perhaps a lot of your guilt that that guy "made real" for you is the actual source of the emotional responses rather than the cuckolding itself. Never know I guess without having you on the couch for a few sessions

There are few things in the world of sex that illicit the level of emotional ire in me that I could compare with yours here on this thread. But the removal of informed consent for sexual jollies - from rape at one end of the scale to, say, the illicit obtaining of nude photos at the other - is definitely my emotional hot switch.

I am into quite an array of stuff, some maybe messed up. But consent is the one thing not negotiable for me. With the exception of people consenting to be in a situation where consent is removed because they find it hot - done right that can be wonderful too. But a different thing.

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus. That part is more likely the source of my WTF over cuckolding.

I get that sure. As I said that is the common ground with us. We agree that is bad. I think the error you risk is assuming that dynamic is representative of the whole or even the majority - when we do not even know if it is a significant minority. Perhaps it is! Perhaps that is what 99% of people into that are like and I am talking out of my hoop. But I see literally no reason to think so at this time.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure - but what I was commenting on was a _purely_ emotional response firstly with no actual grounding rational content that has yet been shown

I'll give you one(missus!). Very deep level monkey brain rationale. Today we have contraceptives and cures for the clap and paternity tests, but they're relatively recent things in human sexuality. Your monkey brain hasn't quite gotten the memo yet and for all our cerebral notions, the monkey brain still pulls a helluva lot of the levers. To the monkey brain knowing and watching your mate have sex with someone else sets off all sorts of alarm bells, for both sexes. For women they're looking at the possibility of another baby to feed that isn't hers and both economic and emotional resources will be thinned. For men they're looking at the possibility of expending economic and emotional resources raising another man's offspring. That's heavy duty stuff at the damn near DNA level. More wider societal revulsion follows a similar path and sees socially unframed and unfettered couplings as a bad thing, so those following such a path will be seen as "out of bounds".

Reviews and Books Galore

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

An honest answer. Thank god. Most people just skirt around the topic and won't admit having issues with anything related to sexuality.

Wibbs wrote: »

For women they're looking at the possibility of another baby to feed that isn't hers and both economic and emotional resources will be thinned. For men they're looking at the possibility of expending economic and emotional resources raising another man's offspring. That's heavy duty stuff at the damn near DNA level. More wider societal revulsion follows a similar path and sees socially unframed and unfettered couplings as a bad thing, so those following such a path will be seen as "out of bounds".

I dunno Wibbs. Monogomaus non-tribal relationships are a newer thing, and most babies were raised communally in the past. Which, imo, definitely had advantages.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So you had a casual relationship with a liar and she made a fool of you.

Not really. One can only be made a fool of if one is invested. I wasn't. If it had been my girlfriend then you'd be 100% on the ball.

And she proved to be a wagon to her actual boyfriend.

That was the part I thought ah here.

Consent is the key and you didn't know so you couldn't consent.

I "consented" in other cases where I knew.

Deleted User wrote: »

That is why you ended it sure but I was not commenting on the ending of it. Just that - whether you ended it or not - you were still wronged. And I can understand how that might color your emotional reaction - which is clearly a strong one - to the general subject going forward.

Nope, you can dial back the oul freud there, I wasn't wronged. He was wronged and in that particular case I felt bad for the other guy. Which in turn made me cop myself on and stop being a dick and slapper wasting my time with two timing slappers. No more convoluted reason required.

I might be wrong of course - I often am - but just as I was speculating what the source of your overly emotive reaction might be a story like that happens to pop up. It just fits I guess. But coincidences happen too. Just color me skeptic I guess. But I wonder if you had got the closure of that cathartic beating whether we would be having the same conversation today. Perhaps a lot of your guilt that that guy "made real" for you is the actual source of the emotional responses rather than the cuckolding itself. Never know I guess without having you on the couch for a few sessions

Going on your posts on the matter that might work on the bored suburban housewife types who seem shocked somebody listens to them and appears to know what they're saying, but you'd be a pretty lacklustre shrink as you seem locked into looking for what isn't there to justify the positions you already hold. Never mind the old projecting going on re the "overly emotive" stuff. To be fair tone is often lost in text, though I have used smileys. Maybe I should use more, but then no doubt you'd wheel out the old fave of "passive aggressiveness". Can't beat the beaten to death classics of the amateur online shrink.

As pictures paint a thousand words, my "emotional" response to the subject of some guy pulling his wire watching his missus get drilled(or the reverse) is basically along the lines of



and



and with those mental cases getting off on things like scat add in

Zorya

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Meh. I'm probably not the right person to be discussing this with you as I am a bit square, and certainly too square to understand how someone could be detachedly stroking their chin and musing about how many ''small few times'' they would enjoy being cuckolded.

As for the regular accusations flying round the thread re emotive reactions of various people, it just makes me think ''projection''. I don't see any particularly emotional reactions, unless disagreeing with someone is automatically emotional. Which could be a thing. I don't know.

Wibbs

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

An honest answer. Thank god. Most people just skirt around the topic and won't admit having issues with anything related to sexuality.

TBH R, I generally don't give a hoot what people get up to, so long as I don't need to be dealing with it myself. I suppose if I had any issue with sexuality, or how it's often portrayed since the sexual revolution is how the more "alternative" is seen as positive and the conservative seen as backward, even negative. So you will often see promiscuity as OK and it is, whatever floats your boat, but say someone "saving themeless for someone special" is seen as somehow not quite right. I understand why. It's the nature of revolutions, the "old way" is pushed back and seen as a negative. For me the sexual revolution is supposed to bring sexual freedom. To think and do whatever you want, or not to.

I dunno Wibbs. Monogomaus non-tribal relationships are a newer thing, and most babies were raised communally in the past. Which, imo, definitely had advantages.

Actually that's more than a bit of a fallacy R. Though commonly repeated. Up there with they were all dead by 30. Studies of current hunter gatherer tribal societies show monogamous pairings being the vast majority of couplings. Over 90%. The majority are usually arranged couplings by the families or elders. Polygyny makes up a small minority of couplings(that seems to go slightly up after farming gets invented and more resources and resource hoarding kicks off). Even our bodies reflect this setup and tendency to monogamous pair bonding(though duration of same can some into it). We became less physically dimorphic than the other great apes, lost the mating season and display of oestrus, dropped sperm counts, required much longer gestation, offspring support and parental investment, up to weaning anyway. Monogamy, at least for periods of around five years was the go to setup as far as biology goes, but for most it went on for much longer than that. Without contraception kids would come along around three years or so, breast feeding tending to keep that time frame in play and with each child and bonding with same couple bonding kicked off again.

Wibbs

I will edit out the return to pointless personal comments which you have alas returned to having left it briefly and just reply to the actual content in your posts below:

Wibbs wrote: »

I'll give you one(missus!).

I do wonder what role STDs played in our evolutionary past. Your answer here would assume a strong one but it is actually not a subject I have looked into that much. But really the answer you offer here shows a source of perhaps some of your emotional response but not all of it - nor the lack of any rationality being brought to bear on the subject. Remember I did not ask for a reason for any emotional response in the post you just quoted. But specifically a _purely_ emotional response. And your brain _has_ got the memo. At least the conscious rational part of it talking to me now. Because you know all about contraception and STD protection and pregnancy prevention and more. And you can bring that knowledge to bear on the emotional response you have. But I am not seeing that happening.

So I can understand your response here in terms of a low level instinctual response that our DNA might be affording us but not really much more than that. Not the emotional response. Not the _purely_ emotional response with no rationality linked to it. And certainly not the need to question whether the men are even "men" - by some definition not even offered yet - which went to another level entirely in terms of emotional response and in fact was the most interesting aspect of your reaction.

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, you can dial back the oul freud there, I wasn't wronged.

Not sure which aspect of Freud would be relevant there. Or is "Freud" just a placeholder for anything remotely psycho analytical? No one here is claiming to be a shrink. Your comments on other people missing your smileys and you appear not to have noticed mine. You were lied to and used for something without your consent or knowledge. Both of those are a "wrong". I just suspect that any negative feelings you had at the time could potentially but unfairly be linked with cuckolding as a whole. Speculation sure - but I was clear on that when I first said it.

Wibbs wrote: »

As pictures paint a thousand words, my "emotional" response

Is already clear. Pictures or not. It is whether there is any actual useful basis for it that I was exploring and thus far not so much is becoming apparent. It is clear you are biased against it and so far I see no reason why _other_ than an anecdote of a single unverifiable case of it where A) The guy was being treated poorly in it which made you feel bad and You were treated rather maliciously and poorly during it.

As to the images you used. I can only say that for me I can not imagine face palming, laughing and pointing at anyone, or at all judging someone if they are engaging in _any_ sexual activity that they consent to and enjoy. It is is a pedestal neither of us actually have but thankfully only one of us is acting like we do. In fact I have the highest respect for people who know themselves and what they enjoy and stay true to that - regardless of taboo or judgement. So where you find cause for derision and laughter and finger pointing and judgement I see basis for respect.

But as I said twice - but it can not be said enough - you will get no argument from me on just how awful this sexual dynamic is for those not really on board or who feel cajoled into it by force or lack of choice. That can never be good. And they have my compassion and sympathy, not my judgements on their manhood or qualifications for the term "man".

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So you had a casual relationship with a liar and she made a fool of you.

Not really. One can only be made a fool of if one is invested. I wasn't. If it had been my girlfriend then you'd be 100% on the ball.

And she proved to be a wagon to her actual boyfriend.

That was the part I thought ah here.

Consent is the key and you didn't know so you couldn't consent.

I "consented" in other cases where I knew.

How could you consent to being the 'other guy' if you didn't know you were the other guy?
Are you saying you've consented to being the other guy in other cuckolding situations?

Billy86

I dont know anyone into cuckolding (or at least that talks about it), but do know a couple who go to sex clubs very regularly to have sex with other people and engage in orgies which isn't really any different and frankly while it's not my thing I don't see what the big deal is?

They go together and met at one of these clubs.

Zorya

Zorya wrote: »

Meh. I'm probably not the right person to be discussing this with you as I am a bit square, and certainly too square to understand how someone could be detachedly stroking their chin and musing about how many ''small few times'' they would enjoy being cuckolded.

I guess one can never understand something if one is not open to engaging, questioning and exploring with those who do understand or are in a position to explain it. But that of course assumes one is interested in understanding the thing in question. Often many are not. And I have no interest in forcing it on anyone.

Zorya wrote: »

As for the regular accusations flying round the thread re emotive reactions of various people, it just makes me think ''projection''. I don't see any particularly emotional reactions, unless disagreeing with someone is automatically emotional. Which could be a thing. I don't know.

Odd as I thought I specifically pointed out examples of what I was talking about. But I did contrast the responses of two posters as an example. One who apologetically said "I do not understand it it is not for me" as if he was being too judgemental by even saying that. And another who just called them "sad" and questioned whether such men can even be called "men" and that they are "dysfunctional" and "weirdos". And then when this was pointed out - there followed a string of personal insults and derision.

I would see one reaction as being a lot more emotional than the other. No projection required.

Billy86 wrote: »

go to sex clubs very regularly to have sex with other people and engage in orgies which isn't really any different

Yeah the definitions have changed over time. Often it is not clear where open relationships or swinging or cuckolding or anything ends and the other begins. Certainly sharing of partners and extra-relationship sexual interactions is not some weird rarity coming out of nowhere.

Chris_Heilong

All part of the movement to weaken men.

Zorya

Tax AH. for someone who objects repeatedly to pointless personal comments, you can come over as very condescending. Which is personal. You seem to think that just because you have some kind of outre set up and are ''open-minded'' that anyone not gagging to embrace such is some kind of sexual troglodyte. Anyways, shrugs. I know context can be lost in print.

Chris_Heilong

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

All part of the movement to weaken men.

Didn't know any such thing existed.

Not sure they are doing it right though if that is what it is. Taking something taboo many men might have felt shame for - or might have wanted but did not feel able to ask for - and saying "hey that this is actually ok - the taboos are unwarranted and uncalled for" - would seem to be the opposite of weakening them but empowering them.

If I was trying to "weaken men" I think I would want them to feel guilty and wrong and apologetic about more things - not less?

Zorya wrote: »

Tax AH. for someone who objects repeatedly to pointless personal comments, you can come over as very condescending.

I think I return what I get when I get it - but I think there is a difference between mild condescension and outright attacks and insults on a persons character and abilities and intellect. Perhaps we just have a difference in opinion on where the line is between these things.

Zorya wrote: »

You seem to think that just because you have some kind of outre set up and are ''open-minded'' that anyone not gagging to embrace such is some kind of sexual troglodyte. Anyways, shrugs. I know context can be lost in print.

Yet you were the first one to bring that up not me. I did not bring anything of my person or personal situation into this anywhere. Nor has anything I have said had a basis in how open minded or not I think I am.

I think the best example of open minded was Edgecase above. They looked at it - tried to consider it from the perspective of the other - realised there was nothing in it for them and said "Nah not for me" and pretty much left it there. _That_ would be the person I would use as the standard I would judge open mindedness on here - not me.

I would not consider myself open minded because of anything in my "setup". I would consider myself such because I strive to be more like people like that. I consider myself open minded because I do not judge whether a man is a "man" based on whether he likes or dislikes the same things I am or am not into. I do not find it difficult to call someone a "Man" because they are into something that repels me. That is what being open minded entails. The opposite, not so much.

ArchXStanton

Anyone familiar with the Efukt "porn you wish you never saw" website

Under the cuckold category, when it goes wrong... Be prepared to weep for humanity, some sad cases

Zorya

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I return what I get when I get it - but I think there is a difference between mild condescension and outright attacks and insults on a persons character and abilities and intellect. Perhaps we just have a difference in opinion on where the line is between these things.

.

Fair enough. I accept.

Robert Wolfe

Is there anything more shameful than a man who willingly let's himself be cucked?

And now it's being promoted as good and normal and even beneficial?

SMDH, white people are insane.

Zorya

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Anyone familiar with the Efukt "porn you wish you never saw" website

Under the cuckold category, when it goes wrong... Be prepared to weep for humanity, some sad cases

God, another category of woeful porn I am glad not to know about. Just yesterday I heard for the first time of Sissy Hypno porn. :rolleyes: There's no end to the human capacity for invention.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

All part of the movement to weaken men.

Didn't know any such thing existed.

Not sure they are doing it right though if that is what it is. Taking something taboo many men might have felt shame for - or might have wanted but did not feel able to ask for - and saying "hey that this is actually ok - the taboos are unwarranted and uncalled for" - would seem to be the opposite of weakening them but empowering them.

If I was trying to "weaken men" I think I would want them to feel guilty and wrong and apologetic about more things - not less?

Oh there are plenty posters who are not winning the relationship game and blame an effort to "feminise" or "weaken" men. Its nonsense of course.

You might think the man who are so wise to other men being weakened or feminised, would be much more macho by comparison to all the rest. But actually these lads tend to be unsuccessful by their own standards and new someone to blame.

Men who are comfortable in their masculinity don't notice all this guff. The ones who need someone to blame, have what they want. Everyone's a winner.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I do wonder what role STDs played in our evolutionary past. Your answer here would assume a strong one but it is actually not a subject I have looked into that much. But really the answer you offer here shows a source of perhaps some of your emotional response but not all of it - nor the lack of any rationality being brought to bear on the subject. Remember I did not ask for a reason for any emotional response in the post you just quoted. But specifically a _purely_ emotional response. And your brain _has_ got the memo. At least the conscious rational part of it talking to me now. Because you know all about contraception and STD protection and pregnancy prevention and more. And you can bring that knowledge to bear on the emotional response you have. But I am not seeing that happening.
So I can understand your response here in terms of a low level instinctual response that our DNA might be affording us but not really much more than that. Not the emotional response. Not the _purely_ emotional response with no rationality linked to it. And certainly not the need to question whether the men are even "men" - by some definition not even offered yet - which went to another level entirely in terms of emotional response and in fact was the most interesting aspect of your reaction.

Not sure which aspect of Freud would be relevant there. Or is "Freud" just a placeholder for anything remotely psycho analytical? No one here is claiming to be a shrink. Your comments on other people missing your smileys and you appear not to have noticed mine. You were lied to and used for something without your consent or knowledge. Both of those are a "wrong". I just suspect that any negative feelings you had at the time could potentially but unfairly be linked with cuckolding as a whole. Speculation sure - but I was clear on that when I first said it.

[emphasis mine]

And again with your projection stuff about "emotional responses". Hell if I was to go that route it would be easy to suggest your continued reference in your posts to same as more a reflection of your "emotional responses". I wouldn't, because I see it for what it is, deflection and projection, with a large side order of pseudo intellectual claptrap to try to back up your worldview.

You also seem to have a complete blindspot for anything that doesn't fit your particular narrative. QV your continued insistence that that particular woman "wronged" me. Even though I have repeatedly stated she didn't. But I'll be crystal clear about it. She was a fling. No emotional investment involved. I got shot of her because I felt bad for her boyfriend, particularly because he was OK with this. If he had been one of the other blokes in other flings and I found out they found out I'd have walked away too. Her boyfriend being OK with it just made it worse, almost pathetic and I don't kick someone when they're down and I didn't want to be the other guy he was OK with banging his girlfriend.

For all your condescending new age sitting on a toadstool and talk of psychology stuff, you completely missed an obvious part why I might have a WTF about cuckolding, namely this: I had come out of a longtermer that went south and I went a bit south with it as did my moral compass. Maybe the longtermer went south because of cheating and I myself felt cuckolded? It didn't, but that would be where I'd point to if I was looking in. In longtermers I have been cheated on and it did hurt and I was wronged. Though even there looking back in all but one case I and we had dropped the ball on the relationship. I've never cheated myself, but who knows if those relationships had gone on, I might have, they just got in first. In that one case she was just a Grade A Thundering Bitch™ and I was well rid, though at the time for a while I didn't see it, as is often the case.

However all that is feck all to do with my views on someone, man or woman, getting their jollies from watching someone else have sex with their partner. I don't form my disgusted view on scat just because I've had a dose of the galloping trots in my life. I am quite certain that the people who think this fetish is well, more than a bit odd and way off the maps haven't all been cheated on or cheated with someone else. Kinda crazy idea for you. Maybe most people are turned off, even have a major issue with someone having sex with their partners. Mad I know. And they just don't get the whole cuckolding thing to the point of thinking ehhhh, no, WTF? A perfectly reasonable opinion.

On the "Lesser men" part? OK imagine a couple wearing the face off each other in a club. A group of men and women seeing this are told she's cheating on your man in the corner in full view. Their natural reaction is going to be along the lines of "poor bastard/she's a right cow". If they're then told he agrees with it, that likely ramps up the pathos aspect and also the WTF aspect. If they then hear he's agreed to it and playing pocket billiards watching them the reaction is likely to be weird freak. In each case he will be increasingly seen as "weak" and or "weird" and the same would go down if the sexes were reversed.

You also don't seem to get that the monkey brain regularly informs our conscious mind in a shed load of decisions we make on a daily basis. Fear of disease is a big one, fear of the repugnant like decay and excrement another, isn sexual matters, fear of paternity fraud, fear of resource draining, fear of emotional exclusion, fear of sexual exclusion and cheating.

Even obvious every day actions reflect this monkey brain. EG we wipe our bums with toilet paper and are generally fine with that, yet if we got the same amount of poo on our hands or faces we'd be out with the wire brush and Dettol scrubbing to the bone to get it off. A bit of poo at the "dirty" end of things is kinda OK, but our brains go monkey if it's anywhere near the "clean" end of things. Now of course "clean" and "dirty" have cultural influences, like some cultures that eat food with one hand and wipe arses with the other and never the twain should meet, but the basic principle is the same. Another example: we intellectually know that a computer keyboard has more dangerous bacteria and more of them than a toilet seat, but if people were given a choice between eating a sandwich that was on a toilet seat or on a keyboard, which one would most people choose? Your brain _hasn't_ gotten the memo.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How could you consent to being the 'other guy' if you didn't know you were the other guy?
Are you saying you've consented to being the other guy in other cuckolding situations?

Try reading people's posts. I said I was the other guy in other situations where I knew I was the other guy. None involving some eejit pulling his wire in the corner to my bobbing pale bum.

Wibbs

Zorya wrote: »

God, another category of woeful porn I am glad not to know about. Just yesterday I heard for the first time of Sissy Hypno porn. :rolleyes: There's no end to the human capacity for invention.

So not gonna google that...

ArchXStanton

Zorya wrote: »

God, another category of woeful porn I am glad not to know about. Just yesterday I heard for the first time of Sissy Hypno porn. :rolleyes: There's no end to the human capacity for invention.

The video descriptions are the best...

"Plight of the Cuck"
The misadventures of "Cuck Finn" and his stallion, Andrew. Today they breed a mega whale-beast for recreation. Mistakes are made, disagreements are had and boners are killed over some "dumbass pictures"

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

And again with your projection stuff about "emotional responses".

Hardly given I have not been having one, certainly not like yours. So the deflection is only yours. All I mean by these words is that your objection to this kind of sex and the people who engage in it has been emotional with little to no substance. Eventually you reached to some evolutionary commentary on aversion to disease which was at best reaching but certainly does not scale with the bile you flung or your questioning whether you can even call such men "men". Though what definition you are using of "man" is _still_ being kept from us.

Rather than doing any of that you are just making it personal about me. Over and over again. And that too is an emotional response. Again without substance. Just saying "blindspot" does not mean I have one. Just saying "pseudo intellectual claptrap" does not rebut a single thing I said. It just dodges it.

Wibbs wrote: »

your continued insistence that that particular woman "wronged" me.

Which she did. You might not _feel_ wronged or admit to it or any of that. But you were lied to, which was a wrong, and you were used for a sexual agenda you neither knew about nor consented to. Also a wrong. Those things were wrong. You were wronged. All of that is pretty fact based assuming the event ever actually happened. I do not know you - so I do not know if it did.

The rest of it about how that might have colored your strong emotional response to this topic is - as I openly said twice now - pure speculation on my part. But if you had that experience _And_ were cheated on and hurt many times I can certainly understand how this colors your views of non-monogamy of various kinds. No psychological clap trap or appeals to freud required - that is simple human nature. Just like if someone gets mugged once or even twice by specifically black men - they develop a perfectly natural if unwarranted emotional response to specifically black men. This is not deep psychology or fringe stuff. Just basic 101.

Wibbs wrote: »

Kinda crazy idea for you. Maybe most people are turned off, even have a major issue with someone having sex with their partners. Mad I know. And they just don't get the whole cuckolding thing to the point of thinking ehhhh, no, WTF? A perfectly reasonable opinion.

If you say so - I never did or anything even remotely similar. Not crazy or mad. I suspect you are describing the vast majority of people. But I see a huge gulf between being turned off by it or having an issue with it - and having a strong emotional even hateful reaction people who are into it. As if their being into it when you are not means they do not even qualify for the label "man".

So you appear intent on focusing your replies to me on content that has nothing to do with me, my position, anything I have said, or anything I have been highlighting. Which is somewhat unhelpful and I suspect again purely an emotion thing.

So basically you are now responding to me by talking past me by flinging out what you call "crazy ideas" that were in fact already in my posts and entirely already mentioned and acknowledged by me.

Wibbs wrote: »

If they then hear he's agreed to it and playing pocket billiards watching them the reaction is likely to be weird freak.

It is very interesting the "extras" you have to simply invent and add here to color the picture you are drawing. You can not just paint a scenario of someone being non-monogamous and others hearing about it. No to try and deride something you have not yet grounded your derision of you have moved from a discussion of consent based non-monogamy to things you are adding like a guy publicly masturbating which is in fact a crime in many places. Unable to actually support your derision of cuckolding - you are now forced to import all kinds of crazy new elements to an entirely imaginary scenario out of from nowhere - and come up with a rather unrealistic and even illegal scenario to do your absolute best to portray it in a bad light be proxy to things that are themselves bad.

Which is basically what I have seen peppered through the thread. In order to make it look bad - people are selecting or simply just inventing the worst possible aspects of it or people representing it - and acting like this is somehow representative or the majority or even a significant minority when we do not know any of that to be true.

But really all you are doing with this scenario is constructing an artificial argumentum ad populum. Inventing a scenario where you imagine everyone agreeing with your position.

Wibbs wrote: »

You also don't seem to get that the monkey brain regularly informs our conscious mind in a shed load of decisions we make on a daily basis.

IT is amazing how often you pretend I do not get things I have actively acknowledged and included in things I have said before. The sheer quantity of my text you must have to ignore is astounding - especially when you presume to then write nonsense at people like "Try reading other people's posts". Try taking your own unsolicited not actually required advice maybe. But as I said I already know this stuff - but I also know that your conscious mind does "have the memo" on the counter arguments to much of it. There is nothing wrong with the "primitive" (though it is a meaningless distinction, different conversation, but I use it here for distinction) elements of our brain informing us in many ways. It is what we do with that that counts. And it spewing an emotional rejection into consciousness which then runs free without any intellect coming to bear on it at all - would be more the focus of what I "get" here.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How could you consent to being the 'other guy' if you didn't know you were the other guy?
Are you saying you've consented to being the other guy in other cuckolding situations?

Try reading people's posts. I said I was the other guy in other situations where I knew I was the other guy. None involving some eejit pulling his wire in the corner to my bobbing pale bum.

That's what I asked. Your Inability to answer without snark is unfortunate.

Your pale bum notwithstanding, do you have an issue with cuckolding if everyone involved consents?

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

do you have an issue with cuckolding if everyone involved consents?

Nope. But I'll still consider it more than a bit odd.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

do you have an issue with cuckolding if everyone involved consents?

Nope. But I'll still consider it more than a bit odd.

Strange that you'd get so involved in it when you just see it as odd. Men having relationships with men is a bit odd to most men but sure live and let live. No?

Yeah there is a lot of subjectivity in words like "odd". Many things are "odd" to me. But I do not think people who like them less of a man for it or think they are "sad" or "dysfunctional" or "weirdos".

Liking watching golf is "odd" to me for example. Especially on television. And lets not even get started on dressing up as klingons and going to star trek conventions

nullzero

To put things simply...

Encouraging your wife to have sex with other men in front of you in an effort to derive sexual gratification from humiliation isn't normal.

Saying that this is "healthy" isn't responsible. Some people might try this out, be willing to consent and then their opinions can change when they've done the deed. The woman may feel degraded by her spouse, the husband may feel anything but gratified by the experience.

Cuckolding could potentially tear a previously healthy relationship apart, tear families apart. Whilst there are people who can deal with all this entails, it is not responsible to speak about what is essentially the immasculation of the man in the relationship as being "healthy" as if everyone should be open to doing it.

All the other arguments here are null and void beyond that. This is something people can and will do, it is not responsible to say it's "healthy" like it's a thing to do for everyone.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah there is a lot of subjectivity in words like "odd". Many things are "odd" to me. But I do not think people who like them less of a man for it or think they are "sad" or "dysfunctional" or "weirdos".

Liking watching golf is "odd" to me for example. Especially on television. And lets not even get started on dressing up as klingons and going to star trek conventions

Everyone participates in group think, trainspotters, football fans etc etc, all good distractions from life, completely harmless and benign.

When it comes to sex on the other hand, it not nearly as benign...no matter what anyone would like to believe, you are dealing with the type of emotions that can be destructive and do lasting damage to one's life.

Just because people have the freedom to make their own choices does not follow that people will choose wisely, decisions have consequences...it is remiss for people to talk about different sexual lifestyles without talk about the dangers!

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

When it comes to sex on the other hand, it not nearly as benign...no matter what anyone would like to believe, you are dealing with the type of emotions that can be destructive and do lasting damage to one's life.

I 100% agree with everything you wrote. I - like you - have mentioned those risks and dangers and that people need to be cautious. And I stressed quite heavily the importance of consent and communication. Exploring sex and sexuality can be very damaging if done wrong. Even something that sounds innocuous like a couple suddenly deciding to watch porn together can - and I have seen it first hand - end in absolute disaster.

nullzero wrote: »

Encouraging your wife to have sex with other men in front of you in an effort to derive sexual gratification from humiliation isn't normal. Saying that this is "healthy" isn't responsible.

To repeat what I wrote earlier - I certainly am not calling it healthy. I am just not calling it unhealthy either. It is just a part of that person's sex life and in and of itself is neither healthy or not.

The reasons _why_ they might be doing it - that is what decides the relative health of the situation.

The word "normal" for me is a red herring. Much of what we do much of the time as humans is not "normal". What standard of "normal" are we using? If you think about it something mundane like putting a condom on for sex is not "normal".

nullzero wrote: »

Some people might try this out, be willing to consent and then their opinions can change when they've done the deed. The woman may feel degraded by her spouse, the husband may feel anything but gratified by the experience.

Sure but that potential exists in all sexual exploration. You could write that sentence - exactly word for word without a single modification - in a thread about anal sex for example. Or a thread about watching porn together. Or a thread about bondage.

nullzero wrote: »

it is not responsible to speak about what is essentially the immasculation of the man in the relationship as being "healthy" as if everyone should be open to doing it.

Who is doing that though? How many people are actively doing that? I have written a lot on this thread for example and I have not once said people should be open to doing it. I have focused purely on the evaluation by some of the people who _are_ open to doing it.

I am not seeing any emasculation either though. Where are you seeing it?

nullzero wrote: »

it is not responsible to say it's "healthy" like it's a thing to do for everyone.

Again that is true of nearly everything. It is not responsible to say anything is "healthy" like its "a thing to do for everyone". Take a random example. Meditation. I would never say it is healthy and a thing to do for everyone. We have identified classes of people we now believe it would be positively unhealthy for.

But again I ask you who is actually doing it? I never did for example. Take the article that started the thread. Emphasis mine: "Cuckolding can be positive for some couples, study says". They seem to be doing the exact opposite of what your concern is here?

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To repeat what I wrote earlier - I certainly am not calling it healthy. I am just not calling it unhealthy either. It is just a part of that person's sex life and in and of itself is neither healthy or not.

The reasons _why_ they might be doing it - that is what decides the relative health of the situation.

The word "normal" for me is a red herring. Much of what we do much of the time as humans is not "normal". What standard of "normal" are we using? If you think about it something mundane like putting a condom on for sex is not "normal".



Sure but that potential exists in all sexual exploration. You could write that sentence - exactly word for word without a single modification - in a thread about anal sex for example. Or a thread about watching porn together. Or a thread about bondage.



Who is doing that though? How many people are actively doing that? I have written a lot on this thread for example and I have not once said people should be open to doing it. I have focused purely on the evaluation by some of the people who _are_ open to doing it.

I am not seeing any emasculation either though. Where are you seeing it?



Again that is true of nearly everything. It is not responsible to say anything is "healthy" like its "a thing to do for everyone". Take a random example. Meditation. I would never say it is healthy and a thing to do for everyone. We have identified classes of people we now believe it would be positively unhealthy for.

But again I ask you who is actually doing it? I never did for example. Take the article that started the thread. Emphasis mine: "Cuckolding can be positive for some couples, study says". They seem to be doing the exact opposite of what your concern is here?

Again inbyour haste to construct yet another quote tower you're missing the point in fine style.

In article in question is saying that cuckolding is "healthy" and is something people should be open to.
That is irresponsible.
All your other points may stand on their own but the discussion at hand is based on the article posted by the OP.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Which she did. You might not _feel_ wronged or admit to it or any of that. But you were lied to, which was a wrong, and you were used for a sexual agenda you neither knew about nor consented to. Also a wrong. Those things were wrong. You were wronged. All of that is pretty fact based assuming the event ever actually happened. I do not know you - so I do not know if it did.

This kinda sums up your posts. You're cocksure of your position and will never waver and just repeat it ad nauseam. I remember you being completely sure in your insistence that two women who regularly and enthusiastically enjoy having sex with each other were completely straight. Oh and with the little condescending dig at the end of course.

Rather than doing any of that you are just making it personal about me. Over and over again.

Good God man, where is the self awareness in your posts? Seriously?

Though what definition you are using of "man" is _still_ being kept from us.

I've given one a few times over the last year. I'll say this, if you're a bloke getting his rocks off watching another bloke roger his missus, knock yourself out, but you're not something I'd wish to aspire to.

But if you had that experience _And_ were cheated on and hurt many times I can certainly understand how this colors your views of non-monogamy of various kinds. No psychological clap trap or appeals to freud required

And yet you use clap trap to assume many things. Even when I pointed out that when I was cheated on "it did hurt and I was wronged. Though even there looking back in all but one case I and we had dropped the ball on the relationship. I've never cheated myself, but who knows if those relationships had gone on, I might have, they just got in first". Clearly I have a rage boner against "non-monogamy" because of that... Might be a tad hypocritical on my part considering I was the other guy a few times, and knowing I was too.

Inventing a scenario where you imagine everyone agreeing with your position.

I try not to fly in the face of public opinion.

The sheer quantity of my text you must have to ignore is astounding

Actually its getting easier and that's good advice and since we're pages deep into a fuck ton of multiquotes and _emphasis_ which almost certainly means word onanism on both sides and mind numbing boredom for anyone reading, I'm out.

If I woke up tomorrow and decided what I want was to watch my beloved enjoy someone else or be enjoyed by someone else, with the intention that I feel humiliated and (I hate the word) cucked, I'd worry about my psychological health. But as long as everyone consents we're supposed to cool with everything because everyone's kinks are okay, right?

I dunno. When it comes to kinks some seem harmless and that's fine. but if someone can only get off when he's having his testicles exfoliated by a cheese grater, I don't care if everyone (including the grater) is consenting, you need to find out what's shorted your circuit so much that this equals a pleasure for you.

If, for example, you find yourself attracted to any other activity that could reasonably be described as bad for your health or psychological well being, such as the previously mentioned scat, you're probably better off analysing why that is with the help of a health professional instead of indulging it without question. I'm simply not convinced that it's either healthy or ethical to tell people that whatever they're into is just fine, when some things seem so clearly symptomatic of some measure of dysfunction.

I'm sure there are some healthy and well adjusted people who happen to love being humiliated and find it a life affirming act to watch those they love being intimate with others while they cry in the corner, and I'd suspect they're in the minority of those who find themselves involved in either watching their partner (or being the partner out on loan).

Of course questioning any of this is going to invite that most devastating of modern accusations, that of not being open minded. A terrible state to be in, I'm sure. God forbid my mind being so open that any and everything that falls in is accepted without examination.

In reference to the CNN thing, if the people involved found it largely positive, then good for them etc. It most definitely is not for me, and if I found out it was something a partner was keen on, then they would most definitely not be for me either.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Again inbyour haste to construct yet another quote tower you're missing the point in fine style. In article in question is saying that cuckolding is "healthy" and is something people should be open to.

Except not only did I not miss the point, I am the only one of us quoting the article honestly and correctly. The title of the article is "Cuckolding can be positive for some couples, study says"

Other than that - despite your putting the word "healthy" in quotes and claiming the article is saying it is healthy - the word healthy does not actually appear _anywhere_ within the article itself. If you search for the word in fact the only use of it is in fact the word "unhealthy" in the sentence:

"It doesn't appear to be evidence of disturbance, of an unhealthy relationship, or of disregard for one's partner."

If I look for the word "open" to see where it said " something people should be open to" I simply do not find that word there either. So not only can I not find the article saying this at all - I do find the article putting in some _strong_ warnings and cautions about it.

So can you be specific about what you are referring to. Are we reading different links to each other? Or are you just not being honest about the content?

So in your haste to ignore my responses to your post - you have had to simply lie about the article. Strange.

Wibbs

Candie wrote: »

If I woke up tomorrow and decided what I want was to watch my beloved enjoy someone else or be enjoyed by someone else, with the intention that I feel humiliated and (I hate the word) cucked, I'd worry about my psychological health. But as long as everyone consents we're supposed to cool with everything because everyone's kinks are okay, right?

I dunno. When it comes to kinks some seem harmless and that's fine. but if someone can only get off when he's having his testicles exfoliated by a cheese grater, I don't care if everyone (including the grater) is consenting, you need to find out what's shorted your circuit so much that this equals a pleasure for you.

If, for example, you find yourself attracted to any other activity that could reasonably be described as bad for your health or psychological well being, such as the previously mentioned scat, you're probably better off analysing why that is with the help of a health professional instead of indulging it without question. I'm simply not convinced that it's either healthy or ethical to tell people that whatever they're into is just fine, when some things seem so clearly symptomatic of some measure of dysfunction.

I'm sure there are some healthy and well adjusted people who happen to love being humiliated and find it a life affirming act to watch those they love being intimate with others while they cry in the corner, and I'd suspect they're in the minority of those who find themselves involved in either watching their partner (or being the partner out on loan).

Of course questioning any of this is going to invite that most devastating of modern accusations, that of not being open minded. A terrible state to be in, I'm sure. God forbid my mind being so open that any and everything that falls in is accepted without examination.

In reference to the CNN thing, if the people involved found it largely positive, then good for them etc. It most definitely is not for me, and if I found out it was something a partner was keen on, then they would most definitely not be for me either.

Candie, I think I love you and I care not a jot who knows it. Well maybe not your beloved. I bruise easily.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except not only did I not miss the point, I am the only one of us quoting the article honestly and correctly. The title of the article is "Cuckolding can be positive for some couples, study says"

Other than that - despite your putting the word "healthy" in quotes and claiming the article is saying it is healthy - the word healthy does not actually appear _anywhere_ within the article itself. If you search for the word in fact the only use of it is in fact the word "unhealthy" in the sentence:

"It doesn't appear to be evidence of disturbance, of an unhealthy relationship, or of disregard for one's partner."

If I look for the word "open" to see where it said " something people should be open to" I simply do not find that word there either. So not only can I not find the article saying this at all - I do find the article putting in some _strong_ warnings and cautions about it.

So can you be specific about what you are referring to. Are we reading different links to each other? Or are you just not being honest about the content?

So in your haste to ignore my responses to your post - you have had to simply lie about the article. Strange.

I really took liberties with the article didn't I?
Oh its a smear campaign.
Look if you're hapoy to watch yoyr partner get fvcked by someone else thats your choice, groovy.
Back in reality land the rest of us recognise that such behaviour isn't normal for the majority of people.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

This kinda sums up your posts. You're cocksure of your position and will never waver and just repeat it ad nauseam. I remember you being completely sure in your insistence that two women who regularly and enthusiastically enjoy having sex with each other were completely straight. Oh and with the little condescending dig at the end of course. Good God man, where is the self awareness in your posts? Seriously?

If by condescending dig you mean I actually provided evidence, citations and definitions to support my position at the time - while you just went "Nu uh" at it all and eventually ran off - then sure. But the thread still waits if you have finally come back with some arguments of your own at last. You are just derailing this one with that one now to keep getting more and more personal and not replying to anything I have actually written here today. But since we are recollecting the past I also remember you acting on the idea that if you have a dog in the fight of one alternative sexual issue - you must have one in them all. No nuance between issues - it is all one big "alternative" black box for you. Which may explain the lack of substance you can offer on any one particular sub issue within that box.

Wibbs wrote: »

I've given one a few times over the last year. I'll say this, if you're a bloke getting his rocks off watching another bloke roger his missus, knock yourself out, but you're not something I'd wish to aspire to.

So not only have you not given one here you now vaguely refer to a whole year of posts. As if someone should go find it? Classy. But I have not seen any definition of what "man" is - from you or anywhere - that requires a man to be monogamous, his partner to be monogamous - or for him to want his partner to be monogamous.

So if you think that we can not call the men into this "men" then I can only point out _Again_ you are not being upfront and honest with what definition of the word you are operating under. And it _appears_ that the definition at this time may be something like "Anyone into the same stuff I am and not into the stuff I am not".

Wibbs wrote: »

And yet you use clap trap to assume many things.

And yet you have not shown it to be clap trap or shown me to have assumed anything. You just keep calling things clap trap and hoping the word sticks. I have been _very_ clear on when I was making a statement and when I was speculating. Ignoring and dodging that content does not magic it away.

I have said nothing more - and there is no assumption required - than point out the potential that a bad experience with cuckolding people and a bad experience with being cheated on can color ones emotional reaction to cuckolding. That potential is a fact. Whether it actually applies here is speculation. I was abundently clear on which was which and when.

Wibbs wrote: »

I try not to fly in the face of public opinion.

Even some you invented yourself in a fantastical scenario contrived to place cuckolds in the worst possible light? Nice. But again your inability to actually deride it so you have to place practitioners into an actively illegal imaginary scenario in order to try and muddy it by proxy really just places a nice big clear flag in your bias here.

It would be like me decrying homosexuals and when asked to justify it I started saying "Well imagine right, a man in a night club bent over a dirty filthy sink taking 10 guys inside him for kicks" and acting like this somehow answered the question.

Publicly masturbating in the corner of a night club is a bad thing. What the hell you think that has to do with this thread - only you appear to know. If that was the best I had to offer I would pretend to be "out" too and leave the conversation with what little face I had left.

micks_address

Wibbs wrote: »

Candie wrote: »

If I woke up tomorrow and decided what I want was to watch my beloved enjoy someone else or be enjoyed by someone else, with the intention that I feel humiliated and (I hate the word) cucked, I'd worry about my psychological health. But as long as everyone consents we're supposed to cool with everything because everyone's kinks are okay, right?

I dunno. When it comes to kinks some seem harmless and that's fine. but if someone can only get off when he's having his testicles exfoliated by a cheese grater, I don't care if everyone (including the grater) is consenting, you need to find out what's shorted your circuit so much that this equals a pleasure for you.

If, for example, you find yourself attracted to any other activity that could reasonably be described as bad for your health or psychological well being, such as the previously mentioned scat, you're probably better off analysing why that is with the help of a health professional instead of indulging it without question. I'm simply not convinced that it's either healthy or ethical to tell people that whatever they're into is just fine, when some things seem so clearly symptomatic of some measure of dysfunction.

I'm sure there are some healthy and well adjusted people who happen to love being humiliated and find it a life affirming act to watch those they love being intimate with others while they cry in the corner, and I'd suspect they're in the minority of those who find themselves involved in either watching their partner (or being the partner out on loan).

Of course questioning any of this is going to invite that most devastating of modern accusations, that of not being open minded. A terrible state to be in, I'm sure. God forbid my mind being so open that any and everything that falls in is accepted without examination.

In reference to the CNN thing, if the people involved found it largely positive, then good for them etc. It most definitely is not for me, and if I found out it was something a partner was keen on, then they would most definitely not be for me either.

Candie, I think I love you and I care not a jot who knows it. Well maybe not your beloved. I bruise easily.

Candie wrote: »

If I woke up tomorrow and decided what I want was to watch my beloved enjoy someone else or be enjoyed by someone else, with the intention that I feel humiliated and (I hate the word) cucked, I'd worry about my psychological health. But as long as everyone consents we're supposed to cool with everything because everyone's kinks are okay, right?

I dunno. When it comes to kinks some seem harmless and that's fine. but if someone can only get off when he's having his testicles exfoliated by a cheese grater, I don't care if everyone (including the grater) is consenting, you need to find out what's shorted your circuit so much that this equals a pleasure for you.

If, for example, you find yourself attracted to any other activity that could reasonably be described as bad for your health or psychological well being, such as the previously mentioned scat, you're probably better off analysing why that is with the help of a health professional instead of indulging it without question. I'm simply not convinced that it's either healthy or ethical to tell people that whatever they're into is just fine, when some things seem so clearly symptomatic of some measure of dysfunction.

I'm sure there are some healthy and well adjusted people who happen to love being humiliated and find it a life affirming act to watch those they love being intimate with others while they cry in the corner, and I'd suspect they're in the minority of those who find themselves involved in either watching their partner (or being the partner out on loan).

Of course questioning any of this is going to invite that most devastating of modern accusations, that of not being open minded. A terrible state to be in, I'm sure. God forbid my mind being so open that any and everything that falls in is accepted without examination.

In reference to the CNN thing, if the people involved found it largely positive, then good for them etc. It most definitely is not for me, and if I found out it was something a partner was keen on, then they would most definitely not be for me either.

So what would you do if you were happily married for 20 years and your partner brought it up .. would you be open to it or leave them or insist they forget it? Let's say you have kids to..and a dog

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

I really took liberties with the article didn't I?

You did - and I do not think lying about the article content is useful here. The subject appears to be emotive enough fro some without that muddying the water too.

The article appears on the whole to be a good one to me. It points out this stuff _can_ be positive for many people. But it lists a lot of caveats warnings advice and cautions.

It specifies who will likely benefit. Who should stay away. What to know going in. What to watch for as warning signs. It is pretty comprehensive for such a short article.

It is certainly _not_ saying it is healthy over all - for everyone - or that everyone should try it.

nullzero wrote: »

Back in reality land the rest of us recognise that such behaviour isn't normal for the majority of people.

Indeed and back here in reality I have very clearly said _exactly_ that myself a few times. And in divisive topics as I said before common ground is important to find. So it would be remiss of me not to highlight this one. I absolutely recognize this is not normal for the majority of people.

But neither is anal sex. Or rimming. Or ejaculating on someones face. Or Bondage. Or many many other things we can list. When evaluating the health or risks of something - "normal" and "majority" are not measures we should be considering relevant.

micks_address

micks_address wrote: »

So what would you do if you were happily married for 20 years and your partner brought it up .. would you be open to it or leave them or insist they forget it? Let's say you have kids to..and a dog

Things like that don't come from nowhere. I'd argue that if you didn't know your partner after 20 years that you didn't know them well enough to begin with.

If he underwent a major brain trauma, and that's what it would take for him to be at all interested in this kind of scenario (because he finds humiliation a negative thing, like most well adjusted people) and asked me if I'd participate in that kind of scenario, I'd be changing his meds.

micks_address

Candie wrote: »

micks_address wrote: »

So what would you do if you were happily married for 20 years and your partner brought it up .. would you be open to it or leave them or insist they forget it? Let's say you have kids to..and a dog

Things like that don't come from nowhere. I'd argue that if you didn't know your partner after 20 years that you didn't know them well enough to begin with.

If he underwent a major brain trauma, and that's what it would take for him to be at all interested in this kind of scenario (because he finds humiliation a negative thing, like most well adjusted people) and asked me if I'd participate in that kind of scenario, I'd be changing his meds.

What if it were she that brought it up

Wibbs

micks_address wrote: »

What if it were she that brought it up

Same answer.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don’t know what I’m most horrified at. Men playing rent a missus to “bigger” men, or the fact sex is studied like a maths equation

RWCNT

Wibbs wrote: »

mind numbing boredom for anyone reading, I'm out.

**** no, that was absolutely brilliant. Like watching a great tennis match. One minute Im thinking I agree more with Tax, then you rally back, then I reckon I disagree with both of you, then I'm team Tax again and so on. You two should have a barney more often.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You did - and I do not think lying about the article content is useful here. The subject appears to be emotive enough fro some without that muddying the water too.

The article appears on the whole to be a good one to me. It points out this stuff _can_ be positive for many people. But it lists a lot of caveats warnings advice and cautions.

It specifies who will likely benefit. Who should stay away. What to know going in. What to watch for as warning signs. It is pretty comprehensive for such a short article.

It is certainly _not_ saying it is healthy over all - for everyone - or that everyone should try it.



Indeed and back here in reality I have very clearly said _exactly_ that myself a few times. And in divisive topics as I said before common ground is important to find. So it would be remiss of me not to highlight this one. I absolutely recognize this is not normal for the majority of people.

But neither is anal sex. Or rimming. Or ejaculating on someones face. Or Bondage. Or many many other things we can list. When evaluating the health or risks of something - "normal" and "majority" are not measures we should be considering relevant.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assertions made in the article. This "lifestyle" isnt "healthy" for anybody, end of story.
If you want to believe that it is, thats your problem.
If somebody is into this type of thing then there is something wrong with them, all of the time.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assertions made in the article. This "lifestyle" isnt "healthy" for anybody, end of story.

Sure and disagreement is good. But mere disagreement does not make for much conversation on - well a conversation forum The question is can you argue your position and I do not think so far you can.

There are lots of things that do not _seem_ healthy to do those of us not into it. S and M sex for example. But as part of a healthy relationship where all parties are on board - why isn't it?

Same thing here. Inherently other than asserting it is not healthy you have not ultimately offered a single reason why.

nullzero wrote: »

If somebody is into this type of thing then there is something wrong with them, all of the time.

And that is just judgementalism with no basis. They are not like you so there must be something wrong with them. How is that any different from much of the homophobia we see and saw in our world for example?

eagle eye

It's fake news. CNN are known for it, just ask Donald Trump!
If the man brings it up he is either not getting it at home or is just a bit of a legend!
If it's her that wants she is a slut obviously!

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

It's fake news. CNN are known for it, just ask Donald Trump!
If the man brings it up he is either not getting it at home or is just a bit of a legend!
If it's her that wants she is a slut obviously!

What would you call a man who asks his wife to watch him plough other women in front of her?

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

What would you call a man who asks his wife to watch him plough other women in front of her?

Not a man!