Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > Authors' Hangout

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 02-24-2014, 08:02 PM   #126
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
 
sr71plt's Avatar
 
sr71plt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mid-Atlantic, USA
Posts: 33,962
You seem a little defensive on the selective reasoning point. I'll stick with the fetishists bastardizing the original definition to the point of turning negative into positive and thus just being ignorant of the existing definition and/or too lazy and unimaginative to find their own word for their concept. And, again, it's a tiny subculture--so pffft. Beating this thread to death isn't going to change that.
__________________
______________________


  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2014, 08:10 PM   #127
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
 
lovecraft68's Avatar
 
lovecraft68 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Closer than you think.
Posts: 19,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr71plt View Post
You seem a little defensive on the selective reasoning point. I'll stick with the fetishists bastardizing the original definition to the point of turning negative into positive and thus just being ignorant of the existing definition and/or too lazy and unimaginative to find their own word for their concept. And, again, it's a tiny subculture--so pffft. Beating this thread to death isn't going to change that.
Guess what? If the definition continues to be "bastardized" your precious dictionary will turn around and update the definition-or add another one- to suit the bastardization.

Why? Because the dictionary reflects cultural changes and adapts along with what people are saying/doing.

Unlike you it is an ever changing pliable tool

You're just a stubborn tool.

Not to mention you continue to pick at people who have experience while you yourself have none yet you keep telling them what they are or are not.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2014, 07:31 AM   #128
elfin_odalisque
Literotica Guru
 
elfin_odalisque's Avatar
 
elfin_odalisque is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: if I'm not all there, I must be here.
Posts: 5,285
Cuckold is, nowadays, a derogatory and disparaging term for a weak husband who enjoys the humiliation a strong wife can put him through. Feminine, "cuckquean".

In the fetish, rudely described as a subculture, there is a term for a macho husband who wants to enjoy other men having sex with his attractive and sexually aggressive wife. This is "hotwifing". The couple search for men, termed "bulls", to service the wife.

You find both in LW. This gives a good explanation;

http://www.multiplematch.com/2013/11...eigns-supreme/

The dictionary gives a myriad of definitions for "gay", one of the most prominent is, 'given to pleasure, dissolute, immoral, engaging in prostitution'. It is uncertain whether the new meaning includes lesbians. It certainly stands the old definition on it's head. I like the change.

As adultery becomes less and less used as grounds for divorce - 'irretrievable breakdown' is much easier - the word is becoming archaic.

If you want to check current sexual vocabulary, not dusty dictionary stuff, there is nothing better than the madcap Urban Dictionary.
__________________
Elfin's Emissions
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2014, 09:06 AM   #129
policywank
Really Really Experienced
 
policywank's Avatar
 
policywank is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 325
just another twist

Sexual desire is primal…..it isn't optional. We may choose to avoid or resist giving in to temptation, but we have little to no ability to turn off the desire.

Our inclination to act on these desires is a function of intensity, opportunity and consequences.

I don't mean to get all strident here, but the term cuckold is an integral part of society's need to control women's sexuality with negative consequences. The mere utterance of the word is a powerful incentive for a man to "get his woman under control" by any means necessary.

Why is there no equivalently derogatory term for a woman whose man is cheating? Obviously a complex question but I think it is largely because women recognize the primal urge for what it is. It is a regular part of our relationships to be concerned about our mate's sexual satisfaction (reduce the intensity of his urges by attending to them) even to the point of turning a blind eye to it in some cultures (reducing consequences). We also provide negative consequences to keep our men faithful, but it isn't the only mechanism. More importantly, we don't try to pretend the desire doesn't exist.

Conversely men put most of their emphasis on creating negative consequences to keep their partners from cheating - shame and violence top the list. The intensity with which these mechanisms are applied suggest that men know damn well we have sexual desire. Yet these mechanism have been applied so successfully that men sometimes convince themselves that we just aren't interested or that they are so truly satisfying that we could never want another……which brings me back to my opening point. The desire exists. You can't turn it off. And if you force us to pretend otherwise under threat of shame or violence you simply encourage us to do a better job of hiding and provide the perfect justification for doing so (self-preservation).

The term cuckold is but one of many mechanisms designed to force women into submission. It is aimed at men, but its primary purpose is to shame them into controlling women.

Indeed the fetishists have absconded and often missed the term cuckold. However, I am ok with that. To me it is similar to reclaiming words like slut to strip away the negative connotation. I don't want to rewrite the language, but I am all for neutering words of oppression.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2014, 09:14 AM   #130
BuckyDuckman
Not one of the cool kids
 
BuckyDuckman's Avatar
 
BuckyDuckman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by policywank View Post
Why is there no equivalently derogatory term for a woman whose man is cheating?
I believe it's more a holdover from the etymology of the word and the behavior of the female cuckoo bird.
__________________
Now giving even less than fuck than ever before. That's right, nearly 50% less fuck giving than ever!

My stories.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2014, 09:26 AM   #131
ProxyAccount
Really Experienced
 
ProxyAccount is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfin_odalisque View Post
Cuckold is, nowadays, a derogatory and disparaging term for a weak husband who enjoys the humiliation a strong wife can put him through. Feminine, "cuckquean".

In the fetish, rudely described as a subculture,
How is "subculture" rude?

subculture
1a : a culture (as of bacteria) derived from another culture
1b : an act or instance of producing a subculture
2: an ethnic, regional, economic, or social group exhibiting characteristic patterns of behavior sufficient to distinguish it from others within an embracing culture or society <a criminal subculture>

Do those embracing a fetish create a separate "lifestyle" for themselves that differs from the mainstream/majority of individuals? If so, they are a subculture. There is nothing "rude" about such a designation.

Quote:
there is a term for a macho husband who wants to enjoy other men having sex with his attractive and sexually aggressive wife.
Give your statement that a "cuckold" is "a weak husband", he is clearly not "macho". By your definition, a "cuckold" is "emasculated", not masculine or macho.

Quote:
This is "hotwifing". The couple search for men, termed "bulls", to service the wife.

You find both in LW. This gives a good explanation;

http://www.multiplematch.com/2013/11...eigns-supreme/

The dictionary gives a myriad of definitions for "gay", one of the most prominent is, 'given to pleasure, dissolute, immoral, engaging in prostitution'. It is uncertain whether the new meaning includes lesbians. It certainly stands the old definition on it's head. I like the change.

As adultery becomes less and less used as grounds for divorce - 'irretrievable breakdown' is much easier - the word is becoming archaic.
I take it that you're from the U.K., right? Part of proving that a marriage has 'irretrievably broken down" is by providing evidence of one the following:
1. adultery or intolerability
2. unreasonable behaviour
3. desertion for at least two years
4. mutually agreed separation for at least two years
5. not living together as husband and wife for at least five years

In the U.K., adultery has long been one of the top causes of divorce (primary reason in 25% of cases), finally topped in a 2011 survey by "falling out of love".

In my opinion, adultery is really more of a symptom of a marriage headed towards divorce than a cause, however it is probably the straw that often breaks the camel's back. A recent U.S. survey found that it was the third most common reason (behind 'lack of commitment' and 'too much arguing') with 55% of respondents saying infidelity caused their split. So even if it isn't the reason for divorce, most divorces occur due to, in part at least, to adultery. So it remains a significant issue in the minds of most married couples, whether it is called adultery, cheating (a relatively new application for the term), an extramarital affair, or infidelity.

Quote:
If you want to check current sexual vocabulary, not dusty dictionary stuff, there is nothing better than the madcap Urban Dictionary.

Last edited by ProxyAccount : 02-25-2014 at 12:04 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2014, 09:54 AM   #132
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
 
sr71plt's Avatar
 
sr71plt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mid-Atlantic, USA
Posts: 33,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProxyAccount View Post
I take it that you're from the U.K., right?
Naw, the more you read of Elfin's posts, the more you'll realize that Elfin is from another planet altogether. (She also makes her "research" up, as has been revealed time and time again on the forum.)
__________________
______________________


  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2014, 10:02 AM   #133
Dyslexicea
Literotica Guru
 
Dyslexicea's Avatar
 
Dyslexicea is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by policywank View Post
Sexual desire is primal…..it isn't optional. We may choose to avoid or resist giving in to temptation, but we have little to no ability to turn off the desire.

Our inclination to act on these desires is a function of intensity, opportunity and consequences.

I don't mean to get all strident here, but the term cuckold is an integral part of society's need to control women's sexuality with negative consequences. The mere utterance of the word is a powerful incentive for a man to "get his woman under control" by any means necessary.

Why is there no equivalently derogatory term for a woman whose man is cheating? Obviously a complex question but I think it is largely because women recognize the primal urge for what it is. It is a regular part of our relationships to be concerned about our mate's sexual satisfaction (reduce the intensity of his urges by attending to them) even to the point of turning a blind eye to it in some cultures (reducing consequences). We also provide negative consequences to keep our men faithful, but it isn't the only mechanism. More importantly, we don't try to pretend the desire doesn't exist.

Conversely men put most of their emphasis on creating negative consequences to keep their partners from cheating - shame and violence top the list. The intensity with which these mechanisms are applied suggest that men know damn well we have sexual desire. Yet these mechanism have been applied so successfully that men sometimes convince themselves that we just aren't interested or that they are so truly satisfying that we could never want another……which brings me back to my opening point. The desire exists. You can't turn it off. And if you force us to pretend otherwise under threat of shame or violence you simply encourage us to do a better job of hiding and provide the perfect justification for doing so (self-preservation).

The term cuckold is but one of many mechanisms designed to force women into submission. It is aimed at men, but its primary purpose is to shame them into controlling women.

Indeed the fetishists have absconded and often missed the term cuckold. However, I am ok with that. To me it is similar to reclaiming words like slut to strip away the negative connotation. I don't want to rewrite the language, but I am all for neutering words of oppression.
You go girl!
__________________
"If male homosexuals are called 'gay,' then female homosexuals should be called 'ecstatic!'" - Shelly Roberts

PROUDLY QUEER! HAPPILY LESBIAN!

“Some women can't say the word lesbian...even when their mouth is full of one.” - Kate Clinton


My AH Profile.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2014, 10:29 AM   #134
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
 
sr71plt's Avatar
 
sr71plt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mid-Atlantic, USA
Posts: 33,962
I can see that context. It only emphasizes that a small subculture has bastardized the term too far. They want to see it as a fun game.
__________________
______________________


  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2014, 11:53 AM   #135
BuckyDuckman
Not one of the cool kids
 
BuckyDuckman's Avatar
 
BuckyDuckman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr71plt View Post
I can see that context. It only emphasizes that a small subculture has bastardized the term too far. They want to see it as a fun game.
Terms get bastardized. Words fall in and out of favor. Grammar and punctuation styles change. Who are we to say when it's too far? As wordsmiths, we either accept the subtle changes taking place or (to repeat an earlier analogy) we risk believing homosexuality ran rampart in the Gay '90s.

These changes create interesting problems. Consider this 2011 article about substituting the "N" word with the word "slave" for an edition of Twain's "Huck Finn" and "Tom Sawyer."

The article stars with this Twain quote: "the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter."

As much as we might regret a shifting definition, holding fast to an antiquated definition of "cuckold" (or any number of other words) without acknowledging its evolving meaning would be sloppy writing.
__________________
Now giving even less than fuck than ever before. That's right, nearly 50% less fuck giving than ever!

My stories.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2014, 01:09 PM   #136
ProxyAccount
Really Experienced
 
ProxyAccount is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckyDuckman View Post
Terms get bastardized. Words fall in and out of favor. Grammar and punctuation styles change. Who are we to say when it's too far? As wordsmiths, we either accept the subtle changes taking place or (to repeat an earlier analogy) we risk believing homosexuality ran rampart in the Gay '90s.
Until about 2002, "gay Paree" clearly referred to the city as being a happy place. The change had more to do with adoption of the new definition of "gay" by news articles.

Quote:
These changes create interesting problems. Consider this 2011 article about substituting the "N" word with the word "slave" for an edition of Twain's "Huck Finn" and "Tom Sawyer."

The article stars with this Twain quote: "the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter."
It's more of a political correctness issue, not a new definition. The crazy thing is that "African-American" (a 19th century term) seems to be waning in usage amongst many black professionals, in favor of "black" or even "negro". Terms fall in and out of favor. That is nothing new.

Quote:
As much as we might regret a shifting definition, holding fast to an antiquated definition of "cuckold" (or any number of other words) without acknowledging its evolving meaning would be sloppy writing.
The definition is shifting amongst whom? A small fetish subculture. Genuine news articles that use it, do so in the defined sense of a man whose wife commits adultery (or a woman whose husband commits adultery).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...e-strayed.html
(2009 article)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...y-camelot-myth
(2013 article)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/ma...ternity-t.html
(2009 article)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Sep4.html
(2004 article)

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...23341295531582
(2010 article)

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7479996/#.UwzaOlPLfOs
(2005 article: "Lover in closet charged with killing cuckold")
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2014, 10:36 PM   #137
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
 
lovecraft68's Avatar
 
lovecraft68 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Closer than you think.
Posts: 19,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by policywank View Post
Sexual desire is primal…..it isn't optional. We may choose to avoid or resist giving in to temptation, but we have little to no ability to turn off the desire.

Our inclination to act on these desires is a function of intensity, opportunity and consequences.

I don't mean to get all strident here, but the term cuckold is an integral part of society's need to control women's sexuality with negative consequences. The mere utterance of the word is a powerful incentive for a man to "get his woman under control" by any means necessary.

Why is there no equivalently derogatory term for a woman whose man is cheating? Obviously a complex question but I think it is largely because women recognize the primal urge for what it is. It is a regular part of our relationships to be concerned about our mate's sexual satisfaction (reduce the intensity of his urges by attending to them) even to the point of turning a blind eye to it in some cultures (reducing consequences). We also provide negative consequences to keep our men faithful, but it isn't the only mechanism. More importantly, we don't try to pretend the desire doesn't exist.

Conversely men put most of their emphasis on creating negative consequences to keep their partners from cheating - shame and violence top the list. The intensity with which these mechanisms are applied suggest that men know damn well we have sexual desire. Yet these mechanism have been applied so successfully that men sometimes convince themselves that we just aren't interested or that they are so truly satisfying that we could never want another……which brings me back to my opening point. The desire exists. You can't turn it off. And if you force us to pretend otherwise under threat of shame or violence you simply encourage us to do a better job of hiding and provide the perfect justification for doing so (self-preservation).

The term cuckold is but one of many mechanisms designed to force women into submission. It is aimed at men, but its primary purpose is to shame them into controlling women.

Indeed the fetishists have absconded and often missed the term cuckold. However, I am ok with that. To me it is similar to reclaiming words like slut to strip away the negative connotation. I don't want to rewrite the language, but I am all for neutering words of oppression.
You know why there is no derogatory name for men who cheat?

because its no big deal if they do. They are expected to and the wife is expected to tolerate it.

When the women do it they're seen with scorn and the man must be seen with scorn as well because no real man would let his wife cheat.

real men do the cheating, get it?

In reality real men keep it within their marriage and their wives do as well because a real man can satisfy their wife.

Men who cheat losers who still think their worth is determined in how many women they can lay. Men who cheat are sleazy cowards who think its funny to fuck another man's wife.

Oh, wait, sorry men who cheat are heroes and studs.

I forgot what type of site I'm on. Can't make all the real men here uncomfortable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2014, 12:12 AM   #138
ProxyAccount
Really Experienced
 
ProxyAccount is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecraft68 View Post
You know why there is no derogatory name for men who cheat?
And what is the derogatory name for women that cheat? As far as I am aware, males are adulterers and females are adulteresses. All other terms, such as masher and lecher, have nothing to do with being married.

Quote:
because its no big deal if they do. They are expected to and the wife is expected to tolerate it.
Actually, a number of states still have laws against adultery... I don't believe that they have exceptions for men.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/us...ooks.html?_r=0

Quote:
When the women do it they're seen with scorn and the man must be seen with scorn as well because no real man would let his wife cheat.

real men do the cheating, get it?

In reality real men keep it within their marriage and their wives do as well because a real man can satisfy their wife.
Really? Because infidelity is just about sex?

Quote:
Men who cheat losers who still think their worth is determined in how many women they can lay. Men who cheat are sleazy cowards who think its funny to fuck another man's wife.

Oh, wait, sorry men who cheat are heroes and studs.

I forgot what type of site I'm on. Can't make all the real men here uncomfortable.
There are primarily two separate strategies for targeting married women and the one chosen is dependent upon the women. Sometimes it's about excitement--the woman is bored with her life, bored with kids, and bored with her husband. She wants some excitement in her life and can be enticed by using excitement as the lure. Most of the time it's about rapport--the woman is emotionally frustrated with her life, her family, or her husband. She wants to talk about her feelings with someone and that is how she is lured into a relationship. Can other strategies be used? Sure, but excitement and rapport are probably the two biggest that can draw in a woman. Giving attention can get the woman to flirt with you, but that's about as far as most will go if it's only about attention-seeking. A husband can satisfy his wife in the bedroom, but if he doesn't address the emotional needs of his wife, she might still be vulnerable. Of course, if she isn't prone to being faithful, it probably doesn't matter if he's the best husband in the world.

Sex with married women is usually a matter of coincidence or a desire to avoid commitment (convenience), not sport. These days, many affairs involve people that are met at or through work/travel. For example, a married women might meet men (married or not) looking for a one-night stand while she's traveling. Or she might be working with men (married or not) that find her attractive and are just looking for sex, not any long-term entanglement. When I was just a single guy OCONUS or, later on, traveling for work, many of my hookups were with female professionals or with women that just happened to be staying nearby or at the same hotel that I was (usually a three to four star). I didn't look to target married women, but neither did I ask if they were married. I simply assumed that if she didn't wear a ring, or of if she gave me signals that she was amenable to mutual company for the night, she wasn't in a committed relationship. Maybe it was just 'plausible deniability' on my part.

Last edited by ProxyAccount : 02-27-2014 at 12:14 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 08:36 AM   #139
policywank
Really Really Experienced
 
policywank's Avatar
 
policywank is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecraft68 View Post
You know why there is no derogatory name for men who cheat?

because its no big deal if they do. They are expected to and the wife is expected to tolerate it.

When the women do it they're seen with scorn and the man must be seen with scorn as well because no real man would let his wife cheat.

real men do the cheating, get it?

In reality real men keep it within their marriage and their wives do as well because a real man can satisfy their wife.

Men who cheat losers who still think their worth is determined in how many women they can lay. Men who cheat are sleazy cowards who think its funny to fuck another man's wife.

Oh, wait, sorry men who cheat are heroes and studs.

I forgot what type of site I'm on. Can't make all the real men here uncomfortable.

Oh please. Bias, judgement, presumption and opinion recycled and presented as fact.

Cheating - being intentionally dishonest or hiding something that you know your spouse would disapprove of - is wrong. Beyond that sexual preferences are personal and there is no universal definition of "real men" or "real women" or a "good marriage."
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 09:46 AM   #140
BuckyDuckman
Not one of the cool kids
 
BuckyDuckman's Avatar
 
BuckyDuckman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecraft68 View Post
In reality real men keep it within their marriage and their wives do as well because a real man can satisfy their wife.

Men who cheat [are] losers who still think their worth is determined in how many women they can lay. Men who cheat are sleazy cowards who think its funny to fuck another man's wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by policywank View Post
Oh please. Bias, judgement, presumption and opinion recycled and presented as fact.

Cheating - being intentionally dishonest or hiding something that you know your spouse would disapprove of - is wrong. Beyond that sexual preferences are personal and there is no universal definition of "real men" or "real women" or a "good marriage."
Policywank? It would appear you missed LC's point and his sarcasm. It would appear to this reader that you and he are in agreement about the value of cheating.

I would agree with LC's dismissal on men who cheat as a way of expressing their virility. I once had a friend who believed men cheating wasn't the same as women cheating because men understood how to cheat "for the fun and sport of it." (His actual words to me.) In his shallow, world-view: cheating women too often got their emotions wrapped up into the act.

Not sure I would agree with LC's later thought: "In reality real men keep it within their marriage and their wives do as well because a real man can satisfy their wife." Only because my wife and I have been in the lifestyle for quite some time and we have several friends who are, too. Suggesting marriage requires monogamy doesn't fly with me. However, I DO believe marriage requires honesty and its value extends far beyond the bedroom.
__________________
Now giving even less than fuck than ever before. That's right, nearly 50% less fuck giving than ever!

My stories.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 10:01 AM   #141
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
 
sr71plt's Avatar
 
sr71plt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mid-Atlantic, USA
Posts: 33,962
Like every other hard judgment LC makes (except for his own fetishes) there isn't just one man doing all of this. There's a wide range of circumstances involved; they can't all be as neatly packaged as LC does. Besides which, I'm sure that cheating men don't really give a shit what LC thinks about it in his own twisted, two-faced morality. (Personally, I think anyone who lusts after his sister is cheating on family values and is weak and sleazy, but I don't push anyone else to have to think that.)
__________________
______________________


  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 02:24 PM   #142
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
 
Hypoxia's Avatar
 
Hypoxia is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: behind the door
Posts: 2,714
Cheating involves breaking rules. Humans do not live by just one set of fixed rules. What's cheating for some, isn't for others -- and rules can change, be renegotiated, evolve. I explore this in WHAT IS CHEATING?

And I can't help but think of Ferron's song AIN'T LIFE A BOOK:

"But life don't clickety-clack down a straight line track;
It comes together and it comes apart."

That's entropy: Everything put together, sooner or later falls apart. Welcome to life.
__________________
.
Hypoxia's Literotica postings - "You write well, so STFU and do more writing. Wimp." -JAMESBJOHNSON, bullshitter

A Fall of Stardust (Nude Day / SF) - "Hagh. cha' qab entries vaj contest. 'ej batlh cha' tlhIH suck, ghewmey, jaj Qu'lIj'e' bup chaH." -Anon
Jenny Be Fair 02 (incest-humor) - "Total shit - smug, shit-eating, stupid and up-your-own ass... No stars." -Anon
What Is Cheating? (essay) - "Rumblin', stumblin', bumblin' BARF! I don't think an editor would help this mess. Was there a point? There certainly didn't seem to be a storyline." -Anon
Under His Eyes (LW / satire) - "YOU ARE A SICK FUCK. WHY WOULD YOU WRITE THIS HORRIBLY VILE STORY. THIS IS HUMANITY AT ITS WORST. I ONLY SKIMMED TO SEE WHAT CRAP IT WAS. YOU NEED TO BE LOCKED AWAY FROM ANYONE YOU COULD HURT FOR REAL. MINUS 1 BILLION ISN'T ENOUGH. DON'T WRITE ANYMORE." -Anon

NEW: Like A Hole In The Head (Fetish)
(Summer Lovin' contest) Prickly Pairs (LW)
A Taste of Incest: Lemonade (Incest)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 02:26 PM   #143
ProxyAccount
Really Experienced
 
ProxyAccount is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckyDuckman View Post
Not sure I would agree with LC's later thought: "In reality real men keep it within their marriage and their wives do as well because a real man can satisfy their wife." Only because my wife and I have been in the lifestyle for quite some time and we have several friends who are, too. Suggesting marriage requires monogamy doesn't fly with me. However, I DO believe marriage requires honesty and its value extends far beyond the bedroom.
Any relationship which requires commitment, requires trust. From my perspective, if you don't intend to remain mutually exclusive, why get married? There's a reason why infidelity is a black mark in getting and keeping a security clearance. If your wife can't trust you to keep it in your pants, then why should the government trust you to keep your mouth shut? If you want to fuck around, you should stay single. I've been a serial monogamist for decades, and while I might not be happier than my married friends, I'm certainly happier than the ones that got divorced. :-D

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr71plt View Post
Like every other hard judgment LC makes (except for his own fetishes) there isn't just one man doing all of this. There's a wide range of circumstances involved; they can't all be as neatly packaged as LC does. Besides which, I'm sure that cheating men don't really give a shit what LC thinks about it in his own twisted, two-faced morality. (Personally, I think anyone who lusts after his sister is cheating on family values and is weak and sleazy, but I don't push anyone else to have to think that.)
There's a level of selfishness and ego-stroking involved in cheating, but a lot of it has to do with getting a thrill from the risk-taking. (Studies indicate that individuals with the same gene thought to be responsible for risk-taking/thrill-seeking are about three times more likely to cheat.)

As for incest, I don't have any issue with two healthy adults in a 100% consensual relationship, there are two very valid reasons for prohibiting it in real life, even between consenting adults:
1) Abuse of power/influence - For example, the power dynamic between a father and daughter is unequal, with the father having authority over the daughter from the very start, thus being a coercive element in initiating and maintaining the relationship. A healthy relationship, at least from the modern perspective, usually requires that it contains a relatively balanced power dynamic, without coercive elements.
2) Genetic defect - While there is a very low chance of defect simply from close consanguinity, the problem lies in whether there is a genetic defect shared by both individuals. If so, there is a higher chance of that defect being transferred to offspring of those two individuals. Genetic testing should be done before any couple (consanguineous or not) has children, to ascertain the risks of transferring a genetic defect to a child and the possibility of disease expression.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 02:49 PM   #144
ProxyAccount
Really Experienced
 
ProxyAccount is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
Cheating involves breaking rules. Humans do not live by just one set of fixed rules. What's cheating for some, isn't for others -- and rules can change, be renegotiated, evolve.
So if you agree to a contract, is it perfectly fine if the other party changes the terms unilaterally? Probably not, right? Even when ignoring legal and religious issues, if someone cheats, they are violating the terms of the social contract created between themselves and another. Whether it is a contract for 100 acres of farmland, a car, a bet, an engagement, or a marriage, there are consequences to cheating. If you break a contract by cheating, you are no longer entitled to that which was promised in exchange. Moreover, you are losing the trust of the individual(s) that you formed the contract with, and possibly a level of trust that others might have in you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 03:42 PM   #145
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
 
Hypoxia's Avatar
 
Hypoxia is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: behind the door
Posts: 2,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoxia View Post
Cheating involves breaking rules. Humans do not live by just one set of fixed rules. What's cheating for some, isn't for others -- and rules can change, be renegotiated, evolve. I explore this in WHAT IS CHEATING?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProxyAccount View Post
So if you agree to a contract, is it perfectly fine if the other party changes the terms unilaterally?
A unilateral change isn't a renegotiation, now is it?
__________________
.
Hypoxia's Literotica postings - "You write well, so STFU and do more writing. Wimp." -JAMESBJOHNSON, bullshitter

A Fall of Stardust (Nude Day / SF) - "Hagh. cha' qab entries vaj contest. 'ej batlh cha' tlhIH suck, ghewmey, jaj Qu'lIj'e' bup chaH." -Anon
Jenny Be Fair 02 (incest-humor) - "Total shit - smug, shit-eating, stupid and up-your-own ass... No stars." -Anon
What Is Cheating? (essay) - "Rumblin', stumblin', bumblin' BARF! I don't think an editor would help this mess. Was there a point? There certainly didn't seem to be a storyline." -Anon
Under His Eyes (LW / satire) - "YOU ARE A SICK FUCK. WHY WOULD YOU WRITE THIS HORRIBLY VILE STORY. THIS IS HUMANITY AT ITS WORST. I ONLY SKIMMED TO SEE WHAT CRAP IT WAS. YOU NEED TO BE LOCKED AWAY FROM ANYONE YOU COULD HURT FOR REAL. MINUS 1 BILLION ISN'T ENOUGH. DON'T WRITE ANYMORE." -Anon

NEW: Like A Hole In The Head (Fetish)
(Summer Lovin' contest) Prickly Pairs (LW)
A Taste of Incest: Lemonade (Incest)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 04:03 PM   #146
BuckyDuckman
Not one of the cool kids
 
BuckyDuckman's Avatar
 
BuckyDuckman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProxyAccount View Post
Any relationship which requires commitment, requires trust. From my perspective, if you don't intend to remain mutually exclusive, why get married? There's a reason why infidelity is a black mark in getting and keeping a security clearance. If your wife can't trust you to keep it in your pants, then why should the government trust you to keep your mouth shut? If you want to fuck around, you should stay single. I've been a serial monogamist for decades, and while I might not be happier than my married friends, I'm certainly happier than the ones that got divorced. :-D
I reject your quaint notion that marriage requires exclusivity as being as antiquated as prohibiting two women or two men from marrying. Society at-large doesn't get to pick my positioning in the bedroom, whether she's on top or I am and who might be watching, helping or stuck between us.

To me, the inherent value of the marriage contract exceeds the bedroom play. One would be better served finding a true life partner with whom they can grow old together. A partner with whom they can laugh, share adventures and know that at least one person will always fight by their side, cover their back or jump in front and take one in the chest as the slings and arrows of life requires. This sort of fierce loyalty and deep friendship is what I have found with my wife and what is extended to hers. We're partners in business and in sin. I would not expect her to refuse the joy of another person's company any more or less than she should expect me to refuse that joy as well.

Note how I worded that, please. "refuse the joy of another." A friend that makes her laugh doesn't threaten my sense of humor. A dining companion whose conversation gives her reason to pause and consider life doesn't lessen our ability to have deep and meaningful conversations. Indeed, in both examples, her experience may well enrich our time together when she comes home with a new joke to tell, thought to ponder or technique to share in the bedroom.

I don't believe our marriage is a "one-size-fits-all" proposal. However, suggesting we're somehow less than happy because our marriage isn't always monogamous is a folly. You may take your puritanical morals and enjoy them yourself. Meanwhile, please don't push your vision of which God we should love and how we should love Him on us. And when it all ends, we'll find out whom was right and whom was wrong.

For this couple - our faith in each other, our trust in each other and our openness remains our strengths.
__________________
Now giving even less than fuck than ever before. That's right, nearly 50% less fuck giving than ever!

My stories.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 04:19 PM   #147
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
 
lovecraft68's Avatar
 
lovecraft68 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Closer than you think.
Posts: 19,074
If a marriage is openly open and both parties are fine with the other playing then that is not infidelity or cheating.

Its when one partner strays and plays behind the others back that it is cheating. And of the man knows his wife plays and is not overly happy but deals with it then we have a cuck.

If the husband strays and the wife knows and isn't happy....we have the natural order of things according to a certain type of ignorant male.

What I have never understood is this and we have all seen it.

A man or woman fooling around with a married person then that married person leaves their spouse to be with the person they were cheating with.

Now that person thinks the cheat will now be loyal to them? Explain that to me.

Once a cheat always a cheat.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 04:35 PM   #148
jezzaz
Really Experienced
 
jezzaz is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckyDuckman View Post
I reject your quaint notion that marriage requires exclusivity as being as antiquated as prohibiting two women or two men from marrying. Society at-large doesn't get to pick my positioning in the bedroom, whether she's on top or I am and who might be watching, helping or stuck between us.

To me, the inherent value of the marriage contract exceeds the bedroom play. One would be better served finding a true life partner with whom they can grow old together. A partner with whom they can laugh, share adventures and know that at least one person will always fight by their side, cover their back or jump in front and take one in the chest as the slings and arrows of life requires. This sort of fierce loyalty and deep friendship is what I have found with my wife and what is extended to hers. We're partners in business and in sin. I would not expect her to refuse the joy of another person's company any more or less than she should expect me to refuse that joy as well.

Note how I worded that, please. "refuse the joy of another." A friend that makes her laugh doesn't threaten my sense of humor. A dining companion whose conversation gives her reason to pause and consider life doesn't lessen our ability to have deep and meaningful conversations. Indeed, in both examples, her experience may well enrich our time together when she comes home with a new joke to tell, thought to ponder or technique to share in the bedroom.

I don't believe our marriage is a "one-size-fits-all" proposal. However, suggesting we're somehow less than happy because our marriage isn't always monogamous is a folly. You may take your puritanical morals and enjoy them yourself. Meanwhile, please don't push your vision of which God we should love and how we should love Him on us. And when it all ends, we'll find out whom was right and whom was wrong.

For this couple - our faith in each other, our trust in each other and our openness remains our strengths.
What he said.

Although I will also say that I couldn't deal with anything less than monogamous myself. But know *I* can't doesn't mean *everyone else* shouldn't.

If you can make it work, more power to you. Society is set up to _not_ allow this, but society is changing and that's as it should be. That which doesn't not change stagnates.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 04:37 PM   #149
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
 
lovecraft68's Avatar
 
lovecraft68 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Closer than you think.
Posts: 19,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by jezzaz View Post
What he said.

Although I will also say that I couldn't deal with anything less than monogamous myself. But know *I* can't doesn't mean *everyone else* shouldn't.

If you can make it work, more power to you. Society is set up to _not_ allow this, but society is changing and that's as it should be. That which doesn't not change stagnates.
It will only be acceptable if Webster's acknowledges it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2014, 04:45 PM   #150
Dyslexicea
Literotica Guru
 
Dyslexicea's Avatar
 
Dyslexicea is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProxyAccount View Post
Any relationship which requires commitment, requires trust. From my perspective, if you don't intend to remain mutually exclusive, why get married? I've been a serial monogamist for decades, and while I might not be happier than my married friends, I'm certainly happier than the ones that got divorced. :-D
Let me state up front, I'm married but we are not sexually monogamist, although we don't have an open marriage. I'll leave you to figure that out all by yourself.

This is just your opinion, we all know the saying about opinions. Many couples are not sexually monogamist and still have successful long term relationships, many sexually monogamist couples get divorced.

Only between fifteen to eighteen percent of divorce cases are due to sexual infidelity. In cases involving cheating by the wife, most cheated because her relationship was already broken, staying in her marriage do to children and financial reasons. In most of these cases the wife had an affairs for emotional intimacy and support rather than sexual satisfaction, although I'm sure the sex was a bonus.

Research done about the success of AshleyMadison.com found that most women who used the site did so because of her emotionally broken marriage. Who knows maybe some marriages were saved because Ashley Madison allowed the wife to discreetly seek the emotional and physical intimacy she needed while getting her marriage back on track. Maybe some marriages were saved because her husband was just a god awful fuck but she loved the guy anyway. It could be she's married to a man like you, one who believes in serial monogamy, but she can't live that life, Ashley Madison gives her a way to stay sane and keep her marriage.

Preach your morals all you want dude but it doesn't mean we all have to live by your rules. In my opinion there are times when cheating is morally acceptable, just like there are times when lying is the only moral choice.

Just a side note to some of you here about the term Real Men.
According to surveys and the experiences of many of my straight and bi girlfriends, not all 'real men' sexually satisfy their wives. Put that in your pipe and smoke it the next time you complain about not getting enough sex at home.
__________________
"If male homosexuals are called 'gay,' then female homosexuals should be called 'ecstatic!'" - Shelly Roberts

PROUDLY QUEER! HAPPILY LESBIAN!

“Some women can't say the word lesbian...even when their mouth is full of one.” - Kate Clinton


My AH Profile.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:52 PM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.