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

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!

El_Duderino 09

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

How much time would you spend putting down men who go to star trek conventions?

Exactly my point Zero time at all. Because I can distinguish between things that are odd _to me_ and things that make the people into them odd or worthy of judgement or derision. And certainly not worth of having their very identify questioned.

A lot of things fall under category 1. Very few under category 2. Clearly from this thread we see that this varies wildly for some other people though.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.



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?

Comparing judgement of what is in essence a psychological disorder with homophobia is a massive stretch in the taking the moral high ground stakes.
The fact is that this behaviour isn't normaland cannot be described as "healthy" at any point in time.
The men who are turned on by this would be better served seeking psychiatric help than having their strange obsession validated by a so called professional.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Comparing judgement of what is in essence a psychological disorder with homophobia is a massive stretch

Well no. Declaring it a psychological disorder is what is the massive stretch. Seeing as you appear to be doing it from absolutely no basis whatsoever other than your own personal issues with the practice.

What I am comparing is peoples "othering" of people with different sexual interests for no other reason _but_ them being different. And in fact you make that point for me because for a long time people called homosexuality a disorder too - based on nothing there either - solely to justify their judgements of it. So rather than rebut my comparison - you are kinda highlighting why I made it!

nullzero wrote: »

The fact is that this behaviour isn't normal

So you keep saying but then you keep ignoring my replies to that very point. "Normal" is not a useful measure here. Very many things we do - which are perfectly benign or even healthy - are not "normal". Do you even think in the greater scheme of things and our evolutionary history that you and I having this conversation on an electronic message board is "normal"? is anal sex "normal"?

What standard of "normal" are we even using therefore? And why is "normal" being equated with good and the opposite bad - as if they are somehow direct synonyms of each other?

The normality of it is a complete red herring meal.

nullzero wrote: »

and cannot be described as "healthy" at any point in time.

Which as I keep saying is not what I am doing. What I _am_ doing is time and time again pointing out that I think it is wrong to call it healthy _or_ unhealthy. But no matter how many times I say that you ignore it and simply repeat the same things at me again. This is not how conversation works. I am talking with you - and you are talking at me.

Think of the whole "part of a calorie controlled diet" phrase that was popular for awhile. The purpose of that phrase was not to say X was healthy or unhealthy. But that it can be part of a controlled diet that was itself healthy.

I say the same thing about this topic. The thing itself is not healthy or unhealthy. But can itself be part of a sex life that itself is healthy or unhealthy. It all comes down to why people are doing it - how - and to what ends and effects.

nullzero wrote: »

The men who are turned on by this would be better served seeking psychiatric help than having their strange obsession validated by a so called professional.

In your - and solely in your - opinion.

JohnnyFlash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Exactly my point Zero time at all. Because I can distinguish between things that are odd _to me_ and things that make the people into them odd or worthy of judgement or derision. And certainly not worth of having their very identify questioned.

A lot of things fall under category 1. Very few under category 2. Clearly from this thread we see that this varies wildly for some other people though.

You come across as odd. Not odd as in, ‘oh he seems interesting, and has some alternative views on the world’. Odd as in a bit creepy and not half an enlightened and worldly as you think you are. Bang of desperation off you.

Feisar

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

You come across as odd. Not odd as in, ‘oh he seems interesting, and has some alternative views on the world’. Odd as in a bit creepy and not half an enlightened and worldly as you think you are. Bang of desperation off you.

Ah Johnny, I only popped back in as I seen you had posted. Was looking forward to some humour.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well no. Declaring it a psychological disorder is what is the massive stretch. Seeing as you appear to be doing it from absolutely no basis whatsoever other than your own personal issues with the practice.

What I am comparing is peoples "othering" of people with different sexual interests for no other reason _but_ them being different. And in fact you make that point for me because for a long time people called homosexuality a disorder too - based on nothing there either - solely to justify their judgements of it. So rather than rebut my comparison - you are kinda highlighting why I made it!



So you keep saying but then you keep ignoring my replies to that very point. "Normal" is not a useful measure here. Very many things we do - which are perfectly benign or even healthy - are not "normal". Do you even think in the greater scheme of things and our evolutionary history that you and I having this conversation on an electronic message board is "normal"? is anal sex "normal"?

What standard of "normal" are we even using therefore? And why is "normal" being equated with good and the opposite bad - as if they are somehow direct synonyms of each other?

The normality of it is a complete red herring meal.



Which as I keep saying is not what I am doing. What I _am_ doing is time and time again pointing out that I think it is wrong to call it healthy _or_ unhealthy. But no matter how many times I say that you ignore it and simply repeat the same things at me again. This is not how conversation works. I am talking with you - and you are talking at me.

Think of the whole "part of a calorie controlled diet" phrase that was popular for awhile. The purpose of that phrase was not to say X was healthy or unhealthy. But that it can be part of a controlled diet that was itself healthy.

I say the same thing about this topic. The thing itself is not healthy or unhealthy. But can itself be part of a sex life that itself is healthy or unhealthy. It all comes down to why people are doing it - how - and to what ends and effects.



In your - and solely in your - opinion.

I have to hand it to you, you really do crank out a lot of long winded nonsense, which is 90% repetition and hot air.
This behaviour is at odds with normal human mating habits, it isn't something that can be compared to homosexuality.
A lot of what forms the nucleus of this fetish is a man forcing his fetish upon his partner and often a very tangible amount of racism.
People can choose whatever lifestyle they like but it doesnt follow that their choices are something to be celebrated because we all need to be open minded.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

I have to hand it to you, yoy really do crank out a lot of long winded nonsense, which is 90% repetition and hot air.

I have to hand it to you, you really do dodge and ignore most of what I say with throw away non comments like this.

But if you want me to stop repeating myself at you - then stop repeating your points which I have already addressed, but you ignored the responses to. If you keep saying 2+2=5 then you will find I keep coming in and repeating that it is actually 4. The power to stop me repeating myself is quite literally in your hands.

nullzero wrote: »

This behaviour is at odds with normal human mating habits, it isn't something that can be compared to homosexuality.

Well homosexuality is at odds to normal human mating habits too. Unless you are aware of events of homosexual sex that resulted in conception. So once again while rubbishing the comparison you make the comparison yet more valid.

But I was not comparing it on that basis so you are going rather tangential now. I was comparing peoples responses to it.

• Othering the people into sex different to what they are - comparison checks.
• Pretending based on nothing that is is a "disorder" - comparison checks.
• Simply calling it not "normal" as if "normal" is relevant - comparison checks.
• References to how it does not conform to reproductive drives of biology - comparison checks.

Wanna add more? You are doing well so far making my point for me.

Further though - we have risen above being slaves to reproduction in how we explore our sex and sexuality. Condoms. Anal Sex. Homosexuality. These are all not conducive to "normal mating habits" either. And this is a _good_ thing. We are not slave to - or beholden to - our biological evolutionary past. Nor should we be. We now control it for the most part.

nullzero wrote: »

A lot of what forms the nucleus of this fetish is a man forcing his fetish upon his partner and often a very tangible amount of racism.

Nope none of that is true. You are appealing to representations of it in porn - not in actuality. If your sole source of your opinions about this topic if coming from representations of it in pornography then I can see why a lot of what you say about it is such nonsense.

The potential for someone to force a sexual desire on their partner exists in any sexual interest. And it is not a good thing. No matter what the desire. Many people do not like oral sex or anal sex for example. But they can find their partners forcing the issue, compelling them, cajoling them, bribing them and generally doing all they can to get them to do it. And this is never a good thing I think.

But no one indicts oral sex with that because it would be ridiculous to. Yet you make that ridiculous move here. What you are doing is failing to shows any negatives from cuckolding so you are taking the worst behaviours of those who might want it - and indicting it by proxy. You could do that with _any_ sexual interest. It just screams your bias at us though. Much like the user who could not show cuckolding itself in the negative so he had to invent a fantastical scenario with some guy publicly masturbating in the corner of a public dance venue. The sheer desperation of this is palpable.

nullzero wrote: »

People can choose whatever lifestyle they like but it doesnt follow that their choices are something to be celebrated because we all need to be open minded.

And again - who is doing that? I seem to have to keep asking you that a lot. You say people should not be doing or saying a particular thing - that no one generally appears to be actually doing or saying.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have to hand it to you, you really do dodge and ignore most of what I say with throw away non comments like this.

But if you want me to stop repeating myself at you - then stop repeating your points which I have already addressed, but you ignored the responses to. If you keep saying 2+2=5 then you will find I keep coming in and repeating that it is actually 4. The power to stop me repeating myself is quite literally in your hands.



Well homosexuality is at odds to normal human mating habits too. Unless you are aware of events of homosexual sex that resulted in conception. So once again while rubbishing the comparison you make the comparison yet more valid.

But I was not comparing it on that basis so you are going rather tangential now. I was comparing peoples responses to it.

• Othering the people into sex different to what they are - comparison checks.
• Pretending based on nothing that is is a "disorder" - comparison checks.
• Simply calling it not "normal" as if "normal" is relevant - comparison checks.
• References to how it does not conform to reproductive drives of biology - comparison checks.

Wanna add more? You are doing well so far making my point for me.

Further though - we have risen above being slaves to reproduction in how we explore our sex and sexuality. Condoms. Anal Sex. Homosexuality. These are all not conducive to "normal mating habits" either. And this is a _good_ thing. We are not slave to - or beholden to - our biological evolutionary past. Nor should we be. We now control it for the most part.



Nope none of that is true. You are appealing to representations of it in porn - not in actuality. If your sole source of your opinions about this topic if coming from representations of it in pornography then I can see why a lot of what you say about it is such nonsense.

The potential for someone to force a sexual desire on their partner exists in any sexual interest. And it is not a good thing. No matter what the desire. Many people do not like oral sex or anal sex for example. But they can find their partners forcing the issue, compelling them, cajoling them, bribing them and generally doing all they can to get them to do it. And this is never a good thing I think.

But no one indicts oral sex with that because it would be ridiculous to. Yet you make that ridiculous move here. What you are doing is failing to shows any negatives from cuckolding so you are taking the worst behaviours of those who might want it - and indicting it by proxy. You could do that with _any_ sexual interest. It just screams your bias at us though. Much like the user who could not show cuckolding itself in the negative so he had to invent a fantastical scenario with some guy publicly masturbating in the corner of a public dance venue. The sheer desperation of this is palpable.



And again - who is doing that? I seem to have to keep asking you that a lot. You say people should not be doing or saying a particular thing - that no one generally appears to be actually doing or saying.

What s load of self righteous nonsense.

ancapailldorcha

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

You come across as odd. Not odd as in, ‘oh he seems interesting, and has some alternative views on the world’. Odd as in a bit creepy and not half an enlightened and worldly as you think you are. Bang of desperation off you.

Banned for a day.