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

dxhound2005 · 30-01-2019 02:52PM

Feisar wrote: »

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

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

You have the internet. You could start with Wikipedia. Also a recurring theme in Shakespeare. Nothing new under the sun.

El_Duderino 09 · 30-01-2019 02:53PM

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fascinating that this article would get under so many people's skin. given the solidarity I saw when Gillette were perceived to have had a go at men, now some of the same posters having a go at men who are Into a different type of sex.

Oh here you go. Again. You must wear drum skins out at a rapid rate with all the banging.

Here's an article highlighting awareness of a different type of sex that some men enjoy. Instead of celebrating men being encouraged to do as they want with consenting adults, men calling otheren cucks and talking them down.

Apparently according to the article a third of women fantasise about the same thing. If they're actively doing the same thing, inviting other women to hop on their bloke and getting off on the "humiliation" or whatever I'd regard them in the same way. No gender politics required.

It's easy to keep banging the drum as I have a consistent point. It might be difficult if I had to keep flitting from being outraged at someone having a go at men, to having go at men myself.

I'm reference to the last point; How would you regard them?

30-01-2019 02:56PM

nullzero wrote: »

Thats a lot of waffle. Marriage is what marriage is.

Ah "waffle" is an easy word to deride something without actually addressing it I guess. Maybe you not understanding something or agreeing with it is not the measure of "waffle"?

Yes marriage is what marriage is. Agreed. I just do not think it is what you do. I think marriage is for people who want to spend _their_ life together _their_ way. Perhaps too many people think that marriage is for other people to spend _their_ life they way they would if they were living that life. Which is perhaps the problem.

nullzero wrote: »

Im this day and age there is no pressure for people to get married like in the past, if you want to involve yourself in this behaviour then marriage isn't for you.

Except the people married who do involve themselves in it seem to disagree entirely. So perhaps as I said they are not living _their_ marriage by _your_ standards? Nor should they. And vice versa.

But yes I agree marriage appears to be less and less the option people take. Not necessarily a bad thing. I think I know more people in long term relationships, including kids, without marriage than I know people married. And I can not say I see any difference in their general happiness or standard of life - or that of their children - on any level.

nullzero wrote: »

I don't feel people shouldn't be allowed to do what they like, but this behaviour is not conducive to marriage, particularly if their are children involved.

I am genuinely unsure why children is relevant at all though. Most of us appear to keep our sex lives entirely out of the orbit of our children. Whether it includes kinks or variations or not. If you find your sex life affecting your children then that itself would be a concern - even if your sex life is entirely vanilla.

nullzero wrote: »

In short, stay single, watch other men bang your girlfriend as much as you like, but once you're married you are choosing to be monogamous, it's pretty simple.

Once _you_ get married _you_ might be choosing to be monogamous. That does not mean everyone does or should hold to the same standards. The only people who should be setting most of the boundary conditions for a relationship is the people _in_ that relationship.

Feisar · 30-01-2019 02:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the problem with answering that question is that there are just too many answers to it. I could give you 1 and miss 10. Or give you 10 and miss 1000. There are likely _loads_.

I can tell you mine for example. There are a few. I can tell you some I have read in online articles and interviews with people into this kind of thing. There is loads of those too!

But then I might not even have scratched the surface of how many there may be.

But the negativity it engenders in people judging it is similarly interesting. They can not just say it is not for them or they find it a bit unusual. No they have to question whether the "man" is even a "man" any more. Or when they describe him they have to invent his whole appearance as "some flabby guy in the corner". Pure emotive responses permeate everything they write about it. And that too is interesting.

I've a few likes that wouldn't be main stream so no judgement here vocally at least however in my head cuckholding is synonymous with pathetic men. I can't help that. I'd have as much interest in it as scat.

30-01-2019 02:56PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't understand any of this

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

Think that sums it up

dxhound2005 · 30-01-2019 02:59PM

Feisar wrote: »

I've a few likes that wouldn't be main stream so no judgement here vocally at least however in my head cuckholding is synonymous with pathetic men. I can't help that. I'd have as much interest in it as scat.

Wikipedia says that psychologists regard it as a branch of Masochism. You could call them pathetic, or it could be a case of their brains working different to yours.

30-01-2019 03:00PM

Feisar wrote: »

I've a few likes that wouldn't be main stream so no judgement here vocally at least however in my head cuckholding is synonymous with pathetic men. I can't help that. I'd have as much interest in it as scat.

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

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

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

nullzero · 30-01-2019 03:01PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Think that sums it up

If only all your posts were so concise.

30-01-2019 03:02PM

nullzero wrote: »

If only all your posts were so concise.

Hehe they would be only then they get accused of being without substance or evidence or backup.

Damned if you do damned if you don't

Some subjects do not lend themselves to the one liner preferences of the twitter generation though.

dxhound2005 · 30-01-2019 03:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Hehe they would be only then they get accused of being without substance or evidence or backup.

Damned if you do damned if you don't

No, I definitely prefer brevity.

EdgeCase · 30-01-2019 03:03PM

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

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

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

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

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

dxhound2005 · 30-01-2019 03:06PM

EdgeCase wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArchXStanton · 30-01-2019 03:06PM

Federal Reserve Meeting wrote: »

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

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

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

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

30-01-2019 03:07PM

EdgeCase wrote: »

I'm probably being highly judgemental here

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

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

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

EdgeCase wrote: »

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

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

EdgeCase · 30-01-2019 03:12PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

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

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

Wibbs · 30-01-2019 03:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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

Put the straw away. It is not required here.

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

El_Duderino 09 · 30-01-2019 03:54PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't understand any of this

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

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

30-01-2019 03:58PM

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

professore · 30-01-2019 04:04PM

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

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

It wouldn't be for me.

Feisar · 30-01-2019 04:13PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

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

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

El_Duderino 09 · 30-01-2019 04:17PM

Wamsung WS wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

sbsquarepants · 30-01-2019 04:19PM

Feisar wrote: »

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

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

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

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

But not that particular one, dear god no!

Wamsung WS · 30-01-2019 04:20PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

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

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

But not that particular one, dear god no!

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

El_Duderino 09 · 30-01-2019 04:23PM

Feisar wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Zorya · 30-01-2019 04:23PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't understand any of this

Me_Neither! What_is_with_all_the_low_down_dashes???

Zorya · 30-01-2019 04:30PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Wibbs · 30-01-2019 04:39PM

Zorya wrote: »

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

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

Zorya · 30-01-2019 04:43PM

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

Wibbs · 30-01-2019 04:51PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Wibbs · 30-01-2019 05:01PM

Zorya wrote: »

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

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

Oh and it'll always be Byzantium to me.

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

Comments