Article on cuckold fantasies

ProxyAccount said:

Once you accept that life isn't sacred at all, that it can extinguished by the force of emotions, by the force of law, the force of economics, or by sheer random chance, pro-choice and pro-life becomes pretty meaningless. We need to deal with the reality of our choices and the consequences to them. In biomedical engineering there is the issue of modifying and cloning life. Are we ready to handle these ethical issues? Not really, but we are often forced to when we play god with life.

Click to expand...

This is not the place to get into a debate about god(please note small g), nor my right or any other women's to choose what happens to our bodies. Worry about your own choices and and your own body and leave mine alone.

Hold on for a second. The individual being cheated upon is being demeaned by his or her cheating partner. His or her situation is, by its nature, demeaning. Isn't it simply honest to use a term that has negative connotations ("cuckold" or "cucquean")? Or should people use the generic term "victim" out of some sense of political correctness? Example: "She was a victim of his infidelity." Should we eventually start referring to those cheated upon as "survivors of infidelity", rather than the 'demeaning' descriptor of "victim"?

Click to expand...

I see you're into victim blaming. We women are often blamed when we're the victims of abuse and sexual violence. A few years ago two lesbians were shot on a beach in Florida, one died. The victim blamers started by claiming it was their own fault because they happened to have been holding hands and had exchanged a few innocent kisses. Perhaps you would blame them too.

I may live in a world where the victims are blamed but I refuse to meet evil with evil, so no I don't ever blame the victim, nor would I use a derogatory term to refer to one.

Dyslexicea said:

This is not the place to get into a debate about god(please note small g), nor my right or any other women's to choose what happens to our bodies. Worry about your own choices and and your own body and leave mine alone.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the ethical issues facing biomedical engineering, particularly as it pertains to creating or modifying life. Culturing organisms in situ determines the current policy, but I can see a time where we'll have laws governing the rights of cultured organisms.

I see you're into victim blaming.

Click to expand...

Hardly. I'm into declaring what is, is. A man or woman made cuckold/cucquean is exactly that. Somebody was psychologically harmed. Why are we running away from what is?

We women are often blamed when we're the victims of abuse and sexual violence. A few years ago two lesbians were shot on a beach in Florida, one died. The victim blamers started by claiming it was their own fault because they happened to have been holding hands and had exchanged a few innocent kisses. Perhaps you would blame them too.

Click to expand...

Oh please. I don't agree with you, therefore I must blame victims or women in general for whatever befalls them? It's an absurd position for you or anyone else to take.

A beating is a beating and the person is a battered person. Not merely a "survivor of domestic violence", but a battered man or woman. A raped person is a raped individual, not a "survivor of sexual assault". A murder is a murder and those that are murdered are murdered men or women, not simply "deceased".

I may live in a world where the victims are blamed but I refuse to meet evil with evil, so no I don't ever blame the victim, nor would I use a derogatory term to refer to one.

Click to expand...

The world has ugliness in it and people do society no favors by using euphemisms to cover the vileness that individuals inflict upon one another. It certainly doesn't do the victims any good, because they have to face the painful reality of what was done to them (assuming that they even survived what was done to them). I suspect that the usage of euphemisms is a way that some can cover up the ugliness, whether they are spectators or the very perpetrators of that harm. You're not helping anyone beside yourself, no matter how you pretend otherwise.

ProxyAccount said:

Hardly. I'm into declaring what is, is. A man or woman made cuckold/cucquean is exactly that. Somebody was psychologically harmed. Why are we running away from what is?

Click to expand...

What your advocating is to do more psychological harm, assuming actual psychological harm, by referring to him as a cuckold. In short you are saying he's not a 'real man' because he couldn't satisfy nor could he control his wife, which puts all the blame for his wife's cheating on him. Not only is that wrong, it is a patriarchal view of life, the man has control of his wife. I assure you women do have a free will and we do decide our own actions. None of you 'real men' can truly know if you've been cheated on and I assure you many of you 'real men' have been cheated on and are never going to know.

Oh please. I don't agree with you, therefore I must blame victims or women in general for whatever befalls them? It's an absurd position for you or anyone else to take.

A beating is a beating and the person is a battered person. Not merely a "survivor of domestic violence", but a battered man or woman. A raped person is a raped individual, not a "survivor of sexual assault". A murder is a murder and those that are murdered are murdered men or women, not simply "deceased".

The world has ugliness in it and people do society no favors by using euphemisms to cover the vileness that individuals inflict upon one another. It certainly doesn't do the victims any good, because they have to face the painful reality of what was done to them (assuming that they even survived what was done to them). I suspect that the usage of euphemisms is a way that some can cover up the ugliness, whether they are spectators or the very perpetrators of that harm. You're not helping anyone beside yourself, no matter how you pretend otherwise.

Click to expand...

The paradigms you've used are as illogical as your argument, a woman can be a 'rape victim' and at the same time 'a survivor of rape', not all women survive rape, even if they're still alive after the rape, the terms survivor of rape or survivor of sexual violence is very meaningful to those who have survived and I assure you it is important to the survivors and helps with physiologically healing. The same goes for domestic violence survivors. You might like the term 'battered woman', cut the crap no one uses 'battered person' nor do they use the term 'battered man'. By the way the term 'domestic violence' covers a much broader spectrum than 'battered woman', domestic violence doesn't mean just physical violence.

Dyslexicea said:

This is not the place to get into a debate about god(please note small g), nor my right or any other women's to choose what happens to our bodies. Worry about your own choices and and your own body and leave mine alone.

Click to expand...

I think you interpreted that part of the post too narrowly. Even though the terms pro-choice and pro-life are used, and they are loaded terms, I don't think PA was particularly taking about fetuses or pregnancies. To me, PA was saying that since life can end any about any time for any reason, taking those kind of sides is meaningless. I'm not saying I agree, but that was how it read to me.

I also do think that just because one describes a person as a "cuckold," for example, does not mean you think they are weak or otherwise flawed. Many will think that, but on the other hand, that is the word in our language to describe a man whose wife has cheated on him and he does not know.

But language is tough and as you point out, someone can be both a victim and survivor of something. If you're shot, you are a victim (i.e., someone injured you) but you are also a survivor if you come through the event.

I wonder if the problem with this desire on the part of some men to see their wife/partner with another man is that some people see it as volunteering to be a victim, even if the person with the fantasy doesn't see it that way at all.

PennLady said:

I also do think that just because one describes a person as a "cuckold," for example, does not mean you think they are weak or otherwise flawed. Many will think that, but on the other hand, that is the word in our language to describe a man whose wife has cheated on him and he does not know...

I wonder if the problem with this desire on the part of some men to see their wife/partner with another man is that some people see it as volunteering to be a victim...

Click to expand...

If a "cuckold" is defined as a guy who does not know he has been cheated on, then how can he be seen as volunteering to be a victim? Am I misunderstanding something about your statements?

littlecordelera said:

If a "cuckold" is defined as a guy who does not know he has been cheated on, then how can he be seen as volunteering to be a victim? Am I misunderstanding something about your statements?

Click to expand...

I think you are. PL is saying that the strictest dictionary definition, a cuckold is unknowing. Hence the original definition, where another bird raises a cuckoo's eggs. It's unknowing, just doing it because the egg is there.

PL is saying that the definition - particularly on Lit - has changed, to basically mean a man who is willing for his wife to mess around with someone else as well as the original definition, based around the unknowing raising of someone else's children.

In the case of the willing man, maybe it's because he gets off on it, maybe it's because he's doing it himself, maybe he just doesn't care. Whatever.

The biggest problem most people have is substituting cuckold for wimp. The two are not the same. It's possible for a man to be very happy his wife is getting whatever, but will still generate respect and the other man will defer to him.

It's not a very common occurrence in Lit stories, it has to be said, but it's possible. Cuckold != wimp, even though popular parlance is starting to push the word that way. By definition in terms of usage, cuckold = man you cannot respect, since he's not man enough to hold onto his wife and stop her going elsewhere.

That's why you have threads where pendants argue the original meaning of the word, and the rest argue the effective use of the word. Much like the word "Organic" - that means "Made with cells", so calling non accelerated foods "organic" really means nothing at all in the strictest sense of the language, but the effective use of it these days means non GM and not sprayed with pesticides and enhancing chemicals.

littlecordelera said:

If a "cuckold" is defined as a guy who does not know he has been cheated on, then how can he be seen as volunteering to be a victim? Am I misunderstanding something about your statements?

Click to expand...

Yes, you are. You're equating things and I didn't say that.

The old/traditional/usual/whatever you want to call it definition of a cuckold is a man whose wife cheats on him and he does not know it. The wife is "cuckolding" him by having sex with someone else.

However, there is a sexual fetish or preference or whatever where some men *want* their wives to have sex with other men. This is called a "willing cuckold," at least by some people. Many people don't get this, at least on an emotional level (and you can count me among them).

I'm just guessing, but I think it's possible that these people see a "willing cuckold" as someone who is "volunteering to be a victim," especially if the man is into the humiliation aspect, and that doesn't sit well.

Here are some definitions, old and new, of "cuckold" from various places:

Wikipedia

Urban dictionary This one probably is most useful when discussing the fetish.

Vocabulary.com

Merriam-Webster

PennLady said:

... I think it's possible that these people see a "willing cuckold" as someone who is "volunteering to be a victim," especially if the man is into the humiliation aspect, and that doesn't sit well.

Click to expand...

I prefer "willing wimp".

PennLady said:

The old/traditional/usual/whatever you want to call it definition of a cuckold is a man whose wife cheats on him and he does not know it. The wife is "cuckolding" him by having sex with someone else.

However, there is a sexual fetish or preference or whatever where some men *want* their wives to have sex with other men. This is called a "willing cuckold," at least by some people. Many people don't get this, at least on an emotional level (and you can count me among them).

I'm just guessing, but I think it's possible that these people see a "willing cuckold" as someone who is "volunteering to be a victim," especially if the man is into the humiliation aspect, and that doesn't sit well.

Click to expand...

Oh, okay. That makes sense.

I had never heard the definition in which the wife cheats and her husband doesn't know, until I saw a movie that had it that way. (Don't remember the movie title. It had Steve Carell in it as the "cuckold.") I was like, "What?" It still makes no sense to me. Why give a title to someone for an action in which they took no part? That's just weird.

PennLady said:

I also do think that just because one describes a person as a "cuckold," for example, does not mean you think they are weak or otherwise flawed. Many will think that, but on the other hand, that is the word in our language to describe a man whose wife has cheated on him and he does not know.

But language is tough and as you point out, someone can be both a victim and survivor of something. If you're shot, you are a victim (i.e., someone injured you) but you are also a survivor if you come through the event.

I wonder if the problem with this desire on the part of some men to see their wife/partner with another man is that some people see it as volunteering to be a victim, even if the person with the fantasy doesn't see it that way at all.

Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring the first part of your post I may have taken ProxyAccount's meaning wrong, it's not the first time I've made that mistake. I have to admit I sometime do it intentionally with Pilot just to needle him.

Wouldn't volunteering to be a victim tie in with the desire to be humiliated? For some of us, at least done in the right way, humiliation can be arousing. As I see it, humiliation is used as a tool for arousal and is rather common in the D/s community, although for the most part it seem to be the women who get off on it. That said, willing cuckolding also seem to be a part for some in the D/s community. Could it be for those men the humiliation of being a knowing and willing cuckold is also arousing, even though as you've said they don't see it that way?

jezzaz said:

cuckold = man you cannot respect, since he's not man enough to hold onto his wife and stop her going elsewhere.

Click to expand...

This is it. This is what it all boils down to. Some people believe that they have a responsibility and the capability to control their spouse.

What a miserable way to go through life.

littlecordelera said:

This is it. This is what it all boils down to. Some people believe that they have a responsibility and the capability to control their spouse.

What a miserable way to go through life.

Click to expand...

I think you are jumping to a conclusion there.

Me providing my wife with an environment where she doesn't feel the need to go find a bigger cock or making sure she understands there are consequences is not about me trying to control her. If she's going to go off and find one anyway, then there are cracks in our relationship regardless.

It's not about control, it's about respect. I respect my wife enough and love her enough and understand possible consequences enough that I don't mess around, and I would expect the same of her, because that's what a loving relationship - to me - is based on. It's not about control - it's about doing something (or, in this case, not doing something) because you want to, and you want to make your spouse happy.

Any one interested in why the article's author made the word choices he did? I was and I reached out to him. He was nice enough to reply:

Hi, Bucky.

Thanks for your email. I’m glad to hear that the Playboy article stimulated a lot of interesting discussion!

I used the word “cuckold” to describe these types of fantasies because that’s the actual terminology men who have these fantasies have adopted—it’s what they search for online, and it’s how a lot of these porn videos are described on websites. You’re absolutely right that this doesn’t fit with the classical definition of a “cuckold”—but my use of the word was simply to describe a phenomenon with the language that people are actually using today, even though it might not technically be correct.

As for the use of the word “cheating,” especially in the title of the piece, that wasn’t actually my doing—in fact, I don’t see cuckold fantasies are representing “cheating” because the wife's or girlfriend’s sexual activity with other men is sanctioned by her husband or boyfriend. Most media outlets have headline writers whose job is to bring in readership, and they come up with the headlines independently. If it were up to me entirely, “cheating” would not have appeared in the headline for this piece.

I hope this helps clarify things. Thanks again for your note and your interest in this work.

Best regards,
Justin

littlecordelera said:

Oh, okay. That makes sense.

I had never heard the definition in which the wife cheats and her husband doesn't know, until I saw a movie that had it that way. (Don't remember the movie title. It had Steve Carell in it as the "cuckold.") I was like, "What?" It still makes no sense to me. Why give a title to someone for an action in which they took no part? That's just weird.

Click to expand...

There are titles for lots of things for people that are no fault of their own. I'm my parents' daughter, though I didn't ask to be born, or born to them. I'm a cousin to many people, though that was not an action in which I took part. I know, it's not quite the same because of blood relations, etc., but it's not entirely wrong, either. So if a woman cheats on her husband, that man is a cuckold, whether he knows it or not. He has been cuckolded.

Dyslexicea said:

Wouldn't volunteering to be a victim tie in with the desire to be humiliated? For some of us, at least done in the right way, humiliation can be arousing.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not quite what I mean. Some men are into this but *not* for the humiliation aspect. I think many of those who don't get this desire/kink/fetish SEE it as volunteering to be a victim even when that isn't true.

Dyslexicea said:

As I see it, humiliation is used as a tool for arousal and is rather common in the D/s community, although for the most part it seem to be the women who get off on it. That said, willing cuckolding also seem to be a part for some in the D/s community. Could it be for those men the humiliation of being a knowing and willing cuckold is also arousing, even though as you've said they don't see it that way?

Click to expand...

And yes, the humiliation could factor in even if those men don't realize it. I wouldn't say otherwise. All I am saying is that it seems some men are into this idea for other reasons, and humiliation is not one of them.

littlecordelera said:

This is it. This is what it all boils down to. Some people believe that they have a responsibility and the capability to control their spouse.

What a miserable way to go through life.

Click to expand...

But this isn't quite right either, and I think it has to do with misplaced perceptions. No one is necessarily looking for control.

If a man who can't take the idea of his wife having sex with someone else sees someone else who does enjoy it, he may get defensive about that. He'll project that the man with the kink isn't "man enough" to satisfy his wife, when that may not be the case at all. Perhaps he is but the wife doesn't care; perhaps libidos are mismatched; perhaps it's a mutually-agreed upon option; perhaps a lot of things.

Yes, trying to control someone else is lousy, but that's a different topic.

jezzaz said:

I think you are jumping to a conclusion there.

Me providing my wife with an environment where she doesn't feel the need to go find a bigger cock or making sure she understands there are consequences is not about me trying to control her. If she's going to go off and find one anyway, then there are cracks in our relationship regardless.

Click to expand...

The last sentence is very true. I'd also hope that your wife, in the interest of equality and all that, is providing you with the reciprocal environment.

jezzaz said:

It's not about control, it's about respect.

Click to expand...

That doesn't jibe with your statement that a "cuckold = man you cannot respect, since he's not man enough to hold onto his wife and stop her going elsewhere." Right? "Stop her from going elsewhere" is control.

Not to mention, if there are cracks in the relationship and she goes elsewhere anyway, then that would alleviate the guy from any responsibility of being "man enough to hold onto his wife." Unless it is only the guy's responsibility to prevent any cracks in the relationship.

So based on what you wrote, I don't think I jumped to conclusions. The predominate attitude is just what you initially wrote: "cuckold = man you cannot respect, since he's not man enough to hold onto his wife and stop her going elsewhere."

jezzaz said:

I think you are jumping to a conclusion there.

Me providing my wife with an environment where she doesn't feel the need to go find a bigger cock or making sure she understands there are consequences is not about me trying to control her. If she's going to go off and find one anyway, then there are cracks in our relationship regardless.

It's not about control, it's about respect. I respect my wife enough and love her enough and understand possible consequences enough that I don't mess around, and I would expect the same of her, because that's what a loving relationship - to me - is based on. It's not about control - it's about doing something (or, in this case, not doing something) because you want to, and you want to make your spouse happy.

Click to expand...

What is it with guys and bigger cocks? For most women a bigger cock would be the last reason in the world to cheat, take that from a lesbian who uses dildos larger than most men. I'm not interested in men but if I was his cock would not even factor in my reason for having a relationship with him.

Using consequences is a way of controlling people! Not only that but it puts one in a box if the worst does happen, it's hard to forgive if you've already stated what is going to happen if your spouse does such and such.

Good relationships are based on love, respect, trust and communication. If you have those there is no need to use consequences to control the behavior of the other person.

Edited to add: A spouse should know if the other believes in monogamy and he/she should know that violating that would hurt the other person If they truly do have a good relationship it's my opinion both do honor that.

PennLady said:

No one is necessarily looking for control.

If a man who can't take the idea of his wife having sex with someone else sees someone else who does enjoy it, he may get defensive about that. He'll project that the man with the kink isn't "man enough" to satisfy his wife, when that may not be the case at all. Perhaps he is but the wife doesn't care; perhaps libidos are mismatched; perhaps it's a mutually-agreed upon option; perhaps a lot of things.

Yes, trying to control someone else is lousy, but that's a different topic.

Click to expand...

No argument with that. I was only elaborating on your point "he may get defensive about it" (Those guys who don't like it.) They do get defensive about it. In fact, "terrified" is a better word, and as a result, they state that a cuckold is not a man because he cannot control his wife. Having made the mistake of posting in Loving Wives, I was provided comments to that effect, complete with numerous disgusting adjectives and nouns, several hundred times.

Dyslexicea said:

What is it with guys and bigger cocks? For most women a bigger cock would be the last reason in the world to cheat, take that from a lesbian who uses dildos larger than most men. I'm not interested in men but if I was his cock would not even factor in my reason for having a relationship with him..

Click to expand...

In general, for a man, the penis is the representation of his manhood and virility. I follows the bigger the better. It's also one area he cannot improve (size-wise). You can learn to last longer and use it more effectively, however, you gots what you gots, nothing more or less.

When you think about the physical make-up of a man, his penis protrudes always and even more so when he's excited. It's in the middle of his body (well, technically, just south of his middle). How can it not be the object of his reverence and, in some instances, the object of his sexual self-esteem?

Dyslexicea said:

What is it with guys and bigger cocks? For most women a bigger cock would be the last reason in the world to cheat.

Click to expand...

Boy! Ain't that the truth! And I can't believe any woman, in her right mind, would actually leave her spouse because she found someone better in bed. But good grief! That seems to be the overwhelming male threat.

littlecordelera said:

That doesn't jibe with your statement that a "cuckold = man you cannot respect, since he's not man enough to hold onto his wife and stop her going elsewhere." Right? "Stop her from going elsewhere" is control.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I'm going to try reframing this a little, because I think you're misinterpreting. I think this is what jezzaz means (but correct if I'm wrong).

Example: Abe is married to Becky. Charlie is married to Darlene. The couples are friends. Abe discovers Darlene is cheating on Charlie, and Charlie doesn't know. Abe now *sees* Charlie as a cuckold, and lacks respect for Charlie because *Abe feels* Charlie is not man enough to sexually satisfy his wife, which would stop her from going elsewhere, because if Charlie could satisfy her, she wouldn't feel the need to have sex with someone else.

This is more a statement about Abe's reaction to the situation than anything else, and especially not about Charlie's or Darlene's, who are directly involved. Abe sees Charlie as less of a man because Charlie is (apparently) not sexually satisfying his wife. If Darlene was satisfied, that would "stop her from going elsewhere."

littlecordelera said:

Not to mention, if there are cracks in the relationship and she goes elsewhere anyway, then that would alleviate the guy from any responsibility of being "man enough to hold onto his wife." Unless it is only the guy's responsibility to prevent any cracks in the relationship.

Click to expand...

No, it certainly isn't. And yes, if the relationship is failing in other areas, then probably no amount of bedroom play would stop either spouse from having an affair.

littlecordelera said:

Boy! Ain't that the truth! And I can't believe any woman, in her right mind, would actually leave her spouse because she found someone better in bed. But good grief! That seems to be the overwhelming male threat.

Click to expand...

But "better in bed" and "bigger cock" don't necessarily go together. I think a lot of guys *think* they do, but from a woman's POV, they don't. However, as Bucky says, this *does* tie in to what a lot of men think goes into being a man. It's not like it's new for guys to insult other guys for having small cocks, whether they do or not. It's one thing a man can't control, and so if he is insulted that way, it's not like he can lose weight or buff up or whatever.

So yeah, in a lot of LW stories, I get the impression that the woman goes for a guy with a bigger cock because that equals better lover. As with so many things, that's not (necessarily) true IRL.

Dyslexicea said:

Using consequences is a way of controlling people! Not only that but it puts one in a box if the worst does happen, it's hard to forgive if you've already stated what is going to happen if your spouse does such and such.

Click to expand...

Again, not to speak directly for jezzaz, but I don't think he meant it that way. I think most of us have consequences like that. We know if we cheat on our partner, there will be consequences, just as we (and hopefully they) know if they cheat on us, there will be consequences. I can see it as control, but to me it's sort of an external control.

Now, if a guy is repeatedly telling his wife "If you cheat on me, there will be consequences!" then there's a different and uglier problem of control.

PennLady said:

Abe now *sees* Charlie as a cuckold, and lacks respect for Charlie because *Abe feels* Charlie is not man enough to sexually satisfy his wife, which would stop her from going elsewhere, because if Charlie could satisfy her, she wouldn't feel the need to have sex with someone else.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see that.

On the other hand, if Abe likes to read first person stories in Literotica's Loving Wives about how masculine the "man" is and how handsome he is and how he he drives a sports car and how he finally got even with his cheating wife and then found the most faithful, beautiful, and loving woman ever created, then that Abe will write an anonymous letter (because he's so manly and everything) to Charlie which says, "Your a fucking wimp basturd what can't not control his own wife! You worthless peace of shit!"

That's the Abe I'm talking about. He lives here in Literotica's Loving Wives. I think all of them do.

littlecordelera said:

This is it. This is what it all boils down to. Some people believe that they have a responsibility and the capability to control their spouse.

What a miserable way to go through life.

Click to expand...

indeed. The whole "man enough" thing is misplaced. The statement assumes a very narrow definition of manhood and a singular nature for all women.

If a man cheats it is because he is a douche but if a woman cheats it is because her man is not "man enough." Seriously? It would be comical if not so sad that men choose to see other men this way.

policywank said:

indeed. The whole "man enough" thing is misplaced. The statement assumes a very narrow definition of manhood and a singular nature for all women.

If a man cheats it is because he is a douche but if a woman cheats it is because her man is not "man enough." Seriously? It would be comical if not so sad that men choose to see other men this way.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of guys who think its the "real men" who cheat and guys like me who keep their dick at home aren't "man enough"

When it comes to this people will spin the definition to suit them pure and simple.