Can someone explain why they like being cucked?

[SlutAddicted]

You hit the nail on the head here. Men need to know that their children are their own, because why else should they care for them (from evolutionary perspective, that is). The woman will always care for the offspring, because the offspring will always be hers.

However, if it were a part of the "construct" that women were allowed to sleep around, then men would have to work much, much harder in order to be able to provide. (Again, from an evolutionary perspective. In the age of birth control, yadda yadda yadda...)

(I'm not sure what you mean by "ways to manage [paternity]")

Let's frame the reference point. The efforts to ensure paternity by enforcing sexual exclusivity has proven to be highly imperfect. Women still cheat - maybe less than they would have otherwise but when they do they are more likely to keep it a secret.

Now compare that to responsible non-monogamy. Keep in mind that this is possible. Just because a person isn't monogamous doesn't mean they are carelessly and non-discriminating. In an open situation in which the woman has no incentive to lie it would be quite easy to establish the premise that the husband does not want to raise another man's child and agree to a process whereby the wife goes off of birth control and exclusive with her husband for the short period of time until she is pregnant. Likewise other people involved in non-monogamy may suspend outside sexual activities altogether during child rearing years.

To people committed to enforcement and control that will sound anathema. But remember enforcement and control has not proven to be that effective. And as in many others aspects of life it is often a response to mistrust or insecurity. In this context it is put up as the reason for enforcing monogamy on the premise that the man needs to control his wife to ensure paternity. But to come to that conclusion he must actively preclude the option of communicating openly about her outside sexual activity. There is no reason to preclude that option other than because he doesn't want to embrace it for other reasons.

Why would men have to work harder to be able to provide if women are non-monogamous? My wife and I are a couple who support each other and share resources just like any monogamous couple. The other men she has sex with are carefully managed and do not intrude on our life. They are not my competition. And they don't put a burden on our relationship any more so than any other outside connection we have (family, friends, etc.).

Go back to the notion of "sleeping around". Too often these things are couched in the false binary that a man is either faithful or completely loose and careless in every way. That is contrived to push them back towards monogamy because the alternative is genuinely dangerous in many ways (emotional connections, STDs, pregnancy, etc.)

I don't know why you say they have more sexual opportunity, unless it is because they are pursuees instead of pursuers. I'm also not sure I even agree, because they are the ones that carry the burden of gestation. If anything, don't they have less sexual opportunity? (Again, evolutionary perspective.)

They have more opportunity because men are more willing to engage in sex on the woman's terms. We are past the stage where gestation is the primary factor at play. If it was I would agree with you. But in the modern world women have embraced sex for pleasure and have the means to indulge that pleasure with limited fear of pregnancy. Like the silly bird analogy - the cage is now 20 feet off the ground, outside away from the cats and they bird has almost immediately taken advantage of these new circumstances to fly. Only looking at how it behaved in the room full of cats is not sufficiently rigorous.

Also, I'm a little fuzzy on whether or not you believe in equality of outcome or equality of opportunity. Both can be argued against, but I don't see how a person could believe in both of them.

I believe in equality of opportunity. There is no reason one person should be held back or another should be given a leg up just to get equal outcomes. This is a very politically sensitive topic these days. Beyond our current topic the argument for aiming at equality of outcomes is, in my opinion, limited to situations where we cannot really excise all the existing bias and ingrained advantages/disadvantages so we use equality of outcomes as a flawed proxy for equal opportunity. This may be a necessity, but it should be done away with as soon as we can develop a real level of confidence that equal opportunity exists.

Not to excavate more sensitive material but here I go. It is pretty clear that minorities and women don't get equal opportunity in many walks of life. Just changing the rules/laws doesn't ensure equal opportunity as long as all the decisions are still made by the people who benefit from inequality and either intentionally or sub-consciously make decisions that preserve the status quo. So there is a logic to tilting the scales a bit to get them back to even. But once they are even (I have no idea how we will know that but we need to at least embrace the possibility) we need to revert to a philosophy of equal opportunity knowing that it will not lead to equal outcomes because people have different capabilities and affinities.

Are you saying that most (or many) male cucks also cuck their spouses, or otherwise have other partners on the side?

I'm not saying that at all, but maybe I don't understand the question. I am not sure where you would have gotten that.

........

Overall, it seems like you are saying that we should rebel against our instincts and DNA, and that the "construct" of which you speak is simply the "awareness" of the instinctual, genetically predispositioned behavior that led us to where we are today. Is that accurate?

No. What I am saying is that a lot of what you call "nature" is in fact "nurture". The things that you say are in our instincts and DNA are not necessarily so. Many of those behaviours are the result of environment and the pressures put upon us. Much of evolution is the result of adaptation to our environment. If this was a few decades ago you might have been able to argue that notwithstanding the fact that female behaviour has evolved in response to a controlling patriarchy those behaviours have nonetheless become ingrained and are now part of their nature. But female behaviour over the last few decades suggests quite the opposite and the rapidity with which women have moved beyond those things that are supposedly in their nature suggests that is not true.

Recent data suggests that women are more inclined to be receptive to an open marriage than men and are at least as likely as men to cite seeking a better or more varied sexual experience as the reason for stepping outside their marriage. It also suggests that women in the early decades of adulthood are more or less as likely as men to step outside of their marriage.

I haven't studied evolution so much as statistics. However, I do know that statistics is a key part of most scientific study. And one of the key factors in creating good statistics is you need a valid control group to isolate key factors. In order to say that certain behaviours are the result of someone's intrinsic nature rather than their environment you need a control group with a different environment. When we observe female activity historically we don't have a good control group where women weren't subject to a controlling patriarchy so we can't isolate nature from nurture. All we have is a relatively small sample (historically speaking) of maybe a couple generations that have started to become free of that patriarchy and what we are seeing is that they do not conform to previously assumed parameters.

 

[dasgoodshit]

I think we're straying a bit far from the original point, which is why people (male OR female) like being cucked. Even if everything that you are saying is 100% true, it does not explain why women would like to be cucked. Mind you, I enjoy the discussion, but it has taken a narrow focus.

Basically, what's going on here is that we have two different philosophies, so I don't see how we're ever going to find any common ground if the focus is singularly upon men being cucked as opposed to anyone being cucked. That being said, it's always good to understand other's perspectives. I'll respond to the larger ideas that you brought up.

Just like how can we make conclusions about what a woman needs or desires to be cared for when we intentionally cut off all of her options by denying her any rights, including the right to earn a living, and threaten to ban her to the fringes of society if she doesn't pair up with a man? How can we conclude that she has evolved to want this when (in evolutionary timeframes) women almost immediately started to throw off the mantle of needing (as opposed to wanting) a man as soon as they acquired the capacity to make a living?

I actually never said that women needed men, just that they act as the primary caregivers in the same way that every other species does that has similar birthing characteristics.

But you bring up a good point. I don't want to have to earn money to survive; I need to. That doesn't mean that I don't follow along with civilization and instead go live off the grid somewhere so I'm not under the thumb of Big Brother. There are many things that I do every day that I don't want to do, but I do them because I want to survive. As you said later in your post, we don't have the data to support any conclusions about needing/wanting during prehistory, so for all we know, women readily accepted the fact that they had to feed their child their milk, and while they were caring for children, it only made sense to continue doing so. What's the economic principle called, where a business that is good at one thing is most likely to stay in business if they continue doing that one thing instead of various... things? (It's been a long day- I'm nearly braindead lol.)

Why would men have to work harder to be able to provide if women are non-monogamous?

Because of... babies! Condoms break, penises leak precum, and not every woman can take birth control (or even have access to it). However, I will concede that, in modern times, if a man knows that his wife/gf/whatever is on birth control and doesn't want to have kids, then in select cases there may be men that are ok with their partner sleeping around. If there were voluntary cucks before birth control, holy cow, I don't even know how I could wrap my mind around that.

This conversation keeps switching back and forth from pre birth control to post birth control. Birth control is part of our environment now, which would be Nurture. Our modern environment is peeling back the veil of Nature, which is what I asked at the end of my post yesterday. Because our environment allows cucking, people are revolting against Nature.

(Again, I'm not trying to win an argument or anything- I just want to understand the psychological aspect.)

There is no reason one person should be held back or another should be given a leg up just to get equal outcomes.

Nor should there be any reason why a person should be held back because another person was given "minority points" on an application for a promotion. I'm not ashamed to say that I don't believe in equality of opportunity; I've been in the corporate world for too long to not be disgusted by it. Every disabled person, veteran, woman, etc.,... it's frankly disgusting, especially when you consider that there is a lot of data on a European country (I forget which- it's northern Europe, possibly Scandinavian), in which 50/50 m/f splits were mandated from the government in every job in the country. This backfired extremely hard in positions such as engineering and education, etc., where it's more like 90/10 naturally.

I'm paraphrasing, but the philosopher Alan Watts is famous for saying:

"Let it happen. Let it happen naturally. Your heart beats by itself, your food digests by itself. Try to breathe real hard, and you find that you get all clutched up in your breathing... If you said to someone, 'You must love me,' well that's just ridiculous, that would never work... Don't try to force anything in life...."

Basically, my philosophy is that Nature is not meant to be fucked with.

While I agree that there is a problem with prejudice, the issue extends even to people of color. In the Pulitzer prize winning newspaper series of the late 80s titled, "The Color of Money," it was revealed that black bank managers (in Atlanta, I think), would prejudicially refuse loans to black clients that had similar income, etc., than that of white clients that were approved for the same size loan. The long and short of it is that there's no way to guarantee equality of opportunity without fucking over an actual qualified person, unless the entire process is electronic with names, ages, sex, "race," and other demographic information removed from the application. But that isn't possible in the workplace, because you have to interview them at some point, and even if you don't see them, you'll hear their voice, and you'll know what they are, and your prejudice will be a part of your decision.

I'm not saying that at all, but maybe I don't understand the question. I am not sure where you would have gotten that.

Because you said:

If a man could have a little outside fun and not have it invade the home life why shouldn't a woman do so as well.

I was wondering why a man would be allowed to have a little outside fun. I actually don't know any women that are ok with their man sleeping around, or men that claim their lady is ok with it, unless you count thirdhand stories. Maybe this is a large part of our disconnect, because you think that women overwhelmingly approve of it because they want to be able to sleep around also?

Much of evolution is the result of adaptation to our environment.

Actually, ALL of evolution is adaptation to our environment, it's literally the definition.

All we have is a relatively small sample (historically speaking) of maybe a couple generations that have started to become free of that patriarchy and what we are seeing is that they do not conform to previously assumed parameters.

I was once in the military. I also lived through covid. Want to know what those two experiences have in common? I'll tell you.

When I was in the military, if any one person ever fucked up hard enough, thousands of people would pay the price along with the guy that fucked up. If someone got drunk and broke into someone's home and fell asleep on their couch because they thought it was their home, well, everyone in that geographical area would have their hands slapped right along with the idiot that was now sitting in jail. I'm not talking about getting reprimanded, or not being served dessert with dinner that night, I'm talking about full-on motherfucking lockdown. Grounded. Not allowed to leave base. Not allowed to drink, even in your own room. And this would go on for weeks or months sometimes.

Guess what happened the first day that lockdown was lifted? Yup, every motherfucker and their brother went out in town and got hammered, and a few idiots would get the cops called on them, and lockdown would be reinstated the next day. Rinse and repeat until your fingertips fall off.

After the covid vaccine, everyone started going to sporting events again. What happened? People went fucking crazy. Got in all kinds of fights at basketball games, airports, restaurants, you name it. They. Went. Fucking. Nuts. Sure, not everybody did, but enough did to notice a trend.

This is what happens naturally when freedoms are "granted." The bra burning days of the 70s are over, and believe it or not, not every woman wants to work. They are now told that they have to work, because after women entered the work force, wages plateaued for men and prices rose until the market demanded that women work in order to survive, but I digress...

What each of these situations have in common isn't that Nature or Nurture had some role to play- it's that people rebelled against what they were told they couldn't do. It wasn't that women were told that they couldn't have multiple partners until the 70s, they were told that they couldn't work or get an education. So, in my opinion, the Counter Culture of the 60s/70s had fuckall to do with fucking (although there was a lot of it due to birth control and legalized abortions, so the fucking was really more of a byproduct of the times, not that this is particularly relevant to a woman enjoying being cucked), and everything to do with simply not being told what to do. Hot on the heels of the Vietnam war and the dodgy explanation for JFK's assassination, etc., Counter Culture included: draft dodging, LSD, the women's rights movement, as well as making sure to give Hunter S. Thompson plenty to write about.

------------

In any event, it'd be great if the conversation could steer away from m/f, and towards the center, to get to the idea of why anyone, regardless of sex, would want to be cucked.

 

[GeorgiaGuy48]

For me, I met the woman whom is my wife now, who was seeking a cuckold relationship, at first I wasn't on board at all, but after some time, I conceded to it, because we got a long so well, she was and still is the hottest woman I ever had the opportunity to spend time with and be with, she was into things sexually that I was into. She was fun, she was easy going, easy to please. Fun to be around. Dressed in risque clothing, I felt like I was on top of the world. Then I was informed by some mutual friends that she had been married multiple times and divorced because of infidelity, I confronted her about it, and she informed me straight to my face as to what she wanted. It took about a month to come to terms with what her requests of me were, so I agreed.

So fast forward to a year after we were married, after lots of discussions and experimentation into fantasies and discussions about fantasies, we settled on a FLR type relationship, as I like to experience femdom, and that seemed to fit into her thoughts on cuckolding, and her expectations of a cuckold.

It has checked a lot of boxes in the sexual bucket list, discovered things that I never thought I would enjoy.

Our relationship is nothing like the porn videos of the humiliation. It is just pure naughty sexual fun.

 

[Bbl87]

So, I am not one who is into cuckolding BUT I have thought that I would enjoy swapping, and part of that would obviously involve seeing my wife fuck another man. Not that it is 100% analogous, but in that case I think I would sincerely enjoy watching her pleasure and excitement. Our sex life has kind of lacked in excitement over the years, so seeing that spark in her again would be wonderful.

That being said, I am interested in the cuckold dynamic as well BUT it would be from the perspective of the boyfriend/bull/etc.. Not in a situation to act on it with my marriage and all, but I think it would be enjoyable to provide that for a couple.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Part of the reason I have taken a circuitous route to the original question is in a way to question the question. I don't mean that in the sense of undermining your thread. What I mean is that this type of question is usually aimed at something that we consider abnormal because whatever it is that we think of as normal needs no explanation. Why do we assume monogamy is normal and everything is abnormal and needing explanation?

So why the evolutionary psychology tangent? Because if we hold the view that evolutionary psychology has led women to naturally want monogamy then their propensity to want sex outside the marriage is presented as abnormal. But if we view evolutionary psychology in the context of men creating an environment in which monogamy is women's only viable choice then we are led to the opposite conclusion that it is normal for women to want sex outside of the marriage - that is why the environment in which they have existed was contrived to suppress that natural urge. Likewise why the discussion of pre vs post birth control? Because if we hold the view that women are fundamentally wired to prefer monogamy and only view sex as a means of procreation then (aside perhaps from some brief rebellion) their behaviour would not have changed materially once they got access to birth control. But if we hold the view that women's views on sex were dictated by consequences and they are in fact interested in sexual variety and sex for pleasure then they would take advantage of access to birth control to fundamentally alter their behaviour long past the rebellious days of the 60's. In modern times the data fairly clearly shows that women are just as interested in sexual variety as men. In fact, some studies indicate that women get bored in their primary sexual relationship easier then men do and that they express a greater willingness to have an open marriage than men do.

Ok, so what is the point of all that? It is to address one side of the cuckolding relationship. We all understand why a man would want to have outside lovers while his wife remains faithful - regardless of what we think of the ethics or practical implications none of us has any great difficulty understand why JFK was banging Marilyn Monroe when he had a beautiful elegant wife at home. The basic premise that women are somehow wired differently and would not have a similar desire for another man is flawed. They are different to be sure, but have the same sort of urges and that is their natural normal state of being.

So what about the other side why would a man (or woman) want to remain faithful while their partner has outside lovers? The answer for me buried in my lengthy earlier response is two-fold.

Firstly, having a sexually satisfied, engaged, adventurous and highly sexual wife is superior to all of the available alternatives. My experience with her is better than it was when we were monogamous and all other women (in my eyes) pale in comparison to her. We had a good sex life when we were monogamous. But her desire for variety is natural and normal and having the freedom to explore that is stimulating which benefits both of us.

Secondly, I found that clinging to all of the contrived (and false) stereotypes we have of female sexuality and male sexual adequacy was exhausting and insecurity inducing. And letting go of them was liberating. For instance, if you cling to the view that women are inherently monogamous and would never stray if they were getting what they need at home then any desire your wife has for other men becomes a failure on your part (whether or not they act on that). Beside being liberating for me, letting go of that notion is a pre-requisite to prioritizing her pleasure.

Once one embraces these factors then the possibility opens up to enjoy the things that others here have said. When you remove the premise that exclusivity is paramount and the absence thereof is a negative reflection on yourself or your relationship the other things start to feel quite natural. Why wouldn't I want to see my wife enjoying herself if her pleasure is no threat to me?

Here is a sort of simplistic non-sexual example. My wife and I play tennis. We often play together. But she plays with others as well including club level competition in mixed doubles and house league singles against women and men. She likes the variety and the challenge of playing against different players including me. Meanwhile I am just not as enthusiastic so I mostly play her and occasionally a few other people, but I only do so on a "pick-up" basis, not as part of a league or in competitions. Just how juvenile would it be if I insisted that she only play me or get jealous because the fact that she wants to play others must mean I am not good enough? By not being juvenile and jealous I let her optimize her experience, I don't put that emotional burden on myself and I open myself to the genuine pleasures of watching her play and compete in a way that I know brings her pleasure.

Obviously the analogy isn't perfect. Extra-marital sex involves different and potentially more concerning consequences, but they aren't as severe or unmanageable as we have been taught to believe. And the analogy isn't so imperfect. That tennis situation couldn't exist in Saudi Arabia because of severe rules constraining gender relations. A woman playing tennis with a man wearing western style skirt etc. might be quite literally just as severe of an offence as it would be in the west if she was having sex with that man at centre court. Why do they feel that way? Because they have been told to feel that way and subjected to ongoing conditioning to maintain that paradigm. It is an artificial construct. Our rules of conduct in the west may be less severe, but we still maintain artificial constructs to dictate behaviour.

 

[Katch123]

I don't get it. I'm just trying to broaden my horizons- I haven't read any of the psychological aspect of it in the stories I've read about it (but maybe I've read the wrong ones)...

My advice is , if it's not for you forget it. I don't think anyone can explain why they like it in a way you can relate, so why bother?

Consider it another unsolvable mystery for men, right next to Women.

 

[policywank]

My advice is , if it's not for you forget it. I don't think anyone can explain why they like it in a way you can relate, so why bother?

Consider it another unsolvable mystery for men, right next to Women.

It is a little like saying "why do you like chocolate pudding" isn't it? I mean you can talk about texture or sweetness or whatever but then that just leads to why do you like that particular characteristic. Eventually it is just down to what resonates with you on a visceral, emotional or sensory level.

 

[Katch123]

Who can't relate to chocolate pudding? Great Analagy!

 

[policywank]

Part of the reason I have taken a circuitous route to the original question is in a way to question the question. I don't mean that in the sense of undermining your thread. What I mean is that this type of question is usually aimed at something that we consider abnormal because whatever it is that we think of as normal needs no explanation. Why do we assume monogamy is normal and everything is abnormal and needing explanation?

So why the evolutionary psychology tangent? Because if we hold the view that evolutionary psychology has led women to naturally want monogamy then their propensity to want sex outside the marriage is presented as abnormal. But if we view evolutionary psychology in the context of men creating an environment in which monogamy is women's only viable choice then we are led to the opposite conclusion that it is normal for women to want sex outside of the marriage - that is why the environment in which they have existed was contrived to suppress that natural urge. Likewise why the discussion of pre vs post birth control? Because if we hold the view that women are fundamentally wired to prefer monogamy and only view sex as a means of procreation then (aside perhaps from some brief rebellion) their behaviour would not have changed materially once they got access to birth control. But if we hold the view that women's views on sex were dictated by consequences and they are in fact interested in sexual variety and sex for pleasure then they would take advantage of access to birth control to fundamentally alter their behaviour long past the rebellious days of the 60's. In modern times the data fairly clearly shows that women are just as interested in sexual variety as men. In fact, some studies indicate that women get bored in their primary sexual relationship easier then men do and that they express a greater willingness to have an open marriage than men do.

Ok, so what is the point of all that? It is to address one side of the cuckolding relationship. We all understand why a man would want to have outside lovers while his wife remains faithful - regardless of what we think of the ethics or practical implications none of us has any great difficulty understand why JFK was banging Marilyn Monroe when he had a beautiful elegant wife at home. The basic premise that women are somehow wired differently and would not have a similar desire for another man is flawed. They are different to be sure, but have the same sort of urges and that is their natural normal state of being.

So what about the other side why would a man (or woman) want to remain faithful while their partner has outside lovers? The answer for me buried in my lengthy earlier response is two-fold.

Firstly, having a sexually satisfied, engaged, adventurous and highly sexual wife is superior to all of the available alternatives. My experience with her is better than it was when we were monogamous and all other women (in my eyes) pale in comparison to her. We had a good sex life when we were monogamous. But her desire for variety is natural and normal and having the freedom to explore that is stimulating which benefits both of us.

Secondly, I found that clinging to all of the contrived (and false) stereotypes we have of female sexuality and male sexual adequacy was exhausting and insecurity inducing. And letting go of them was liberating. For instance, if you cling to the view that women are inherently monogamous and would never stray if they were getting what they need at home then any desire your wife has for other men becomes a failure on your part (whether or not they act on that). Beside being liberating for me, letting go of that notion is a pre-requisite to prioritizing her pleasure.

Once one embraces these factors then the possibility opens up to enjoy the things that others here have said. When you remove the premise that exclusivity is paramount and the absence thereof is a negative reflection on yourself or your relationship the other things start to feel quite natural. Why wouldn't I want to see my wife enjoying herself if her pleasure is no threat to me?

Here is a sort of simplistic non-sexual example. My wife and I play tennis. We often play together. But she plays with others as well including club level competition in mixed doubles and house league singles against women and men. She likes the variety and the challenge of playing against different players including me. Meanwhile I am just not as enthusiastic so I mostly play her and occasionally a few other people, but I only do so on a "pick-up" basis, not as part of a league or in competitions. Just how juvenile would it be if I insisted that she only play me or get jealous because the fact that she wants to play others must mean I am not good enough? By not being juvenile and jealous I let her optimize her experience, I don't put that emotional burden on myself and I open myself to the genuine pleasures of watching her play and compete in a way that I know brings her pleasure.

Obviously the analogy isn't perfect. Extra-marital sex involves different and potentially more concerning consequences, but they aren't as severe or unmanageable as we have been taught to believe. And the analogy isn't so imperfect. That tennis situation couldn't exist in Saudi Arabia because of severe rules constraining gender relations. A woman playing tennis with a man wearing western style skirt etc. might be quite literally just as severe of an offence as it would be in the west if she was having sex with that man at centre court. Why do they feel that way? Because they have been told to feel that way and subjected to ongoing conditioning to maintain that paradigm. It is an artificial construct. Our rules of conduct in the west may be less severe, but we still maintain artificial constructs to dictate behaviour.

I think that there is a visceral component that sort of defies explanation and can only be felt and appreciated through direct experience. It is a bit like asking what it is like to orgasm. I am sure we could talk at length about the various sensations but I don't know that we could ever get the essence of it across without providing direct experience. The counter to that visceral element is the reality of jealousy, insecurity and possessiveness. In many ways it is simply a matter of which force - that driving you towards cuckolding or that driving you away from it - is more powerful.

Most people never seriously consider it because the emotions pushing them away from it are strong and self-evident and the forces that might pull them towards it are not known. So they see only the negative and think "well why would I do that?" I suspect that is why a lot of people who embrace the notion of being cuckolded first experienced it without their consent - they were cheated on. Typically their immediate response is usually hurt, but once that passes the undefinable eroticism of their partner being with someone else creeps in - now they can see and feel the forces pulling them towards cuckolding and the forces pushing them away have weakened because they are no longer the unknown.

I find that the nature versus nurture dynamic is mostly a matter of academic interest. Those emotions are very real regardless of how they came to exist. But exploring that distinction does help us understand why we feel certain ways and that exploration can lead us to revisit some of our assumptions. The big one for me is the premise that if a partner was sexually satisfied at home they would not desire sex with other people. I believe that is total nonsense for both genders. It may be the case for some individuals, but the idea that it is that way for all people or all women or all men is bullshit. That doesn't mean one should embrace cuckolding, but it does help address the flawed premise that doing so reflects negatively on the cuckold.

 

[bjlatx]

My wife is at a hotel with one of her bulls right now and has a date with a new one next Thursday. She's meeting yet another prospect this week. We spoke this week and basically she has no restrictions on when or who she fucks. The only rule is that she tells me about it and I can reclaim her if I want and am present to when she gets home. Since we got into the lifestyle, she has had sex with seven different men. It's working out well for us.

 

[dasgoodshit]

My wife is at a hotel with one of her bulls right now and has a date with a new one next Thursday. She's meeting yet another prospect this week. We spoke this week and basically she has no restrictions on when or who she fucks. The only rule is that she tells me about it and I can reclaim her if I want and am present to when she gets home. Since we got into the lifestyle, she has had sex with seven different men. It's working out well for us.

Woah. My mind is melting. I thought cucks had to witness the fucking for it to "count." How would you even know if she was being honest with you? Could she be lying about it because you asked her to do it and she didn't really want to?

I like the idea of "reclaiming." It's come up a couple of times, and it's really quite fascinating.

 

[dasgoodshit]

So, I am not one who is into cuckolding BUT I have thought that I would enjoy swapping, and part of that would obviously involve seeing my wife fuck another man. Not that it is 100% analogous, but in that case I think I would sincerely enjoy watching her pleasure and excitement. Our sex life has kind of lacked in excitement over the years, so seeing that spark in her again would be wonderful.

That being said, I am interested in the cuckold dynamic as well BUT it would be from the perspective of the boyfriend/bull/etc.. Not in a situation to act on it with my marriage and all, but I think it would be enjoyable to provide that for a couple.

That reminds me of a great impregnation story called, "The Lending Lover."

My advice is , if it's not for you forget it. I don't think anyone can explain why they like it in a way you can relate, so why bother?

Well, I never had any kinks until I discovered Lit. That is, kinks that I had language to describe. I've also picked up quite a few over the years since then that I never thought I would be into. Bondage, incest, you name it. Bottom line is that I can't pick up a new kink if I don't understand the idea behind it. Sometimes I learn the idea behind a kink and it doesn't resonate with me, but if it does, game on!

 

[policywank]

Woah. My mind is melting. I thought cucks had to witness the fucking for it to "count." How would you even know if she was being honest with you? Could she be lying about it because you asked her to do it and she didn't really want to?

I like the idea of "reclaiming." It's come up a couple of times, and it's really quite fascinating.

Oh goodness no. Having my husband watch is fun and all but I would never accept the premise that he always has to be there. I am not a prop or guest star in his fantasy. This is about my sexual fulfillment too. It is only logical that sometimes I and my lovers will want to be alone.

The same notion applies to reclaiming or providing him details. I understand why he wants to do that and am generally inclined to accommodate him, but not as a condition or some kind of "right" that my husband possesses.

You have to allow for the spontaneity and changes in mood. I'm not willing to be locked into a bunch of rules and conditions.

 

[dasgoodshit]

Why do we assume monogamy is normal and everything is abnormal and needing explanation?

Because statistics and definitions of words. (Not being snarky- just joking, but that's my answer.)

if we hold the view that evolutionary psychology has led women to naturally want monogamy

if we view evolutionary psychology in the context of men creating an environment in which monogamy is women's only viable choice

There is another alternative: that women fell in line child rearing because it made sense to do so and their personalities are naturally submissive. 60% of women admit to being submissive, but the numbers are likely higher (after all, women didn't used to admit to giving blowjobs).

Why wouldn't I want to see my wife enjoying herself if her pleasure is no threat to me?

I actually really like this idea of the confidence in knowing that your wife is always there for you, if you would just say the word.

That tennis situation couldn't exist in Saudi Arabia because of severe rules constraining gender relations... Why do they feel that way? Because they have been told to feel that way and subjected to ongoing conditioning to maintain that paradigm.

You're talking about mores, norms governed by morality (in most cases). In Saudi Arabia, those mores became laws at some point, so the situation is a bit different than normal countries that don't have laws like that. Saudi Arabia is abnormal about such things. The thing is, basically all cultures (with different norms) view female promiscuity as immoral. How did such a construct come to encompass the entire world?

[edit: I forgot to mention what Descartes said of the social contract, that humans naturally seek and agree to that which they find mutually beneficial. In the case of cucking, I don't see how it is mutually beneficial. That's what I'd like to understand, and I think I'm getting closer.]

I found that clinging to all of the contrived (and false) stereotypes we have of female sexuality and male sexual adequacy was exhausting and insecurity inducing.

I'm interested in the insecurity aspect. Is it that you just think that she wants to sleep around (perhaps projecting your own desires onto her), so if you know about it, then it isn't cheating?

But her desire for variety is natural and normal and having the freedom to explore that is stimulating which benefits both of us.

Please take no offense. I just want to understand this, and you've given me plenty to think about, so thank you for indulging me. That being said, how can you be so confident that she won't find another lover more satisfying than you, and leave you? I would think that, given the fact that you've said that you had fewer opportunities than your wife, that you are giving her the opportunity to find a better partner.

none of us has any great difficulty understand why JFK was banging Marilyn Monroe when he had a beautiful elegant wife at home

There's a great joke by a comedian that I can't remember the name of right now, from about 15 years ago. I'm paraphrasing, but it goes something like this:

"So you're telling me that Tiger Woods, the number one golfer in the world, worth millions of dollars and has beautiful women throwing themselves at him every day, actually fought his natural urges and had sex with them when he had a loving wife at home? That's unbelievable!"

I understand why men have to fuck, biologically speaking, because we'd all be killing each other like the sexually repressed men in the middle east, so easily being recruited into suicide bombing so they can get 72 virgins. I don't understand why women have to, when attraction to them is more mental than it is for us lower life-forms.

 

[bjlatx]

Woah. My mind is melting. I thought cucks had to witness the fucking for it to "count." How would you even know if she was being honest with you? Could she be lying about it because you asked her to do it and she didn't really want to?

I like the idea of "reclaiming." It's come up a couple of times, and it's really quite fascinating.

Oh, she absolutely fucks him. That one is her favorite and she always cums with him. She’s got 3 solid bulls she plays with and I’m there to see it about half the time. I’m fine with it.

We recently talked and I reiterated to her that she is free to fuck whomever she wants whenever she wants, but I do want to know about it afterwards.

She is hooking up with someone new this week. I’ll be there to see it. She is meeting another guy this week and this will be the first time I haven’t been there to meet him. If she likes, it’s likely they’ll set something up for next weekend. I may not go the first time they fuck. There is something about never meeting this guy that kind of turns me on. He told her he lives to video, so maybe I’ll just watch them on video later.

 

[dasgoodshit]

She is hooking up with someone new this week. I’ll be there to see it. She is meeting another guy this week and this will be the first time I haven’t been there to meet him. If she likes, it’s likely they’ll set something up for next weekend. I may not go the first time they fuck. There is something about never meeting this guy that kind of turns me on.

Within the realm of cucking, that's fucking hot, and I figured out why. I have a story that I've been writing that focuses on the larger idea behind this. I'm going to focus on that story and try to get it submitted by the end of the week, then I'll come back here and explain. Sorry, but I don't want my story idea to get scooped.

I'm still not into cucking, but if I were, this sounds like it would excite me.

 

[dasgoodshit]

The fact that other men want to fuck my wife makes her more attractive to me

Loving this.

1) Most sound like bisexuals who want to use their wives as a stalking horse to get access to other men's cocks or cum.

2) Many believe that their penis is too small and/or they have performance issues. This group seems to have found a way to get off the hook for satisfying their wives. And let's also give them some credit for turning a disadvantage into a kink they enjoy.

3) Then there are the humiliation guys, who have at least a trace of submissive in their makeup. Lowering oneself can be a way of elevating the partner. I suspect most of these men love their wives deeply and put them on pedestals by doing things "for them" that most men will not do.

This is all starting to make a lot of sense, and it sounds like there isn't just one reason for the fetish. All of these ideas that you guys are putting out there are really helping, so thanks!

I think at this point, I'm good with the explanations. There's a few ideas to explore out of all this, so I'm happy about that.

Thanks everyone, for your contributions.

 

[lc69hunter]

As far as cuckolds who stick closer to the porn stereotypes, read their posts. They usually can't wait to explain their reasons. From what I read here:

1) Most sound like bisexuals who want to use their wives as a stalking horse to get access to other men's cocks or cum.

2) Many believe that their penis is too small and/or they have performance issues. This group seems to have found a way to get off the hook for satisfying their wives. And let's also give them some credit for turning a disadvantage into a kink they enjoy.

3) Then there are the humiliation guys, who have at least a trace of submissive in their makeup. Lowering oneself can be a way of elevating the partner. I suspect most of these men love their wives deeply and put them on pedestals by doing things "for them" that most men will not do.

In my younger years, I was the bull (hate that term) in a fair number of cuckold relationships (women talk to each other and my name would come up). I rarely saw any of the above as a driver. I have seen cucks with larger cocks than mine. Any bisexual activity was at the direction of the wife. As for humiliation, most was gentle, and teasing as much as humiliation. And that is part of the game. What wife could resist that temptation?

Talking with them, it was as much the joy of watching her give and receive pleasure, and she appreciating the gift that the husband gave her as anything else

 

[Mu5tang]

You”re asking what seems like a simple question, but a really difficult one to answer. Every cuck will have a different perspective on why it turns him on. As with most things sexual there are extremes, from a wife who simply has a higher sex drive than her husband and they agree she has additional lovers, sometimes shared, sometimes not.…..to full on lifestyle cuckolding where a wife is the dominant one in their relationship and cuckolds her husband as her submissive - and everything in between.
I agree with a few comments already made. Sometimes it happens accidentally as such, a wife cheating on her husband and the surprise he experiences when he realises it turned him on.…..leading on to more exploration.

I am new to this cuck experience... and yes, I found out my girlfriend was still fucking her married ex-husband occasionally. They have 2 kids together. She told me, I didn't catch her. It was happening long before I started dating her. It really had an opposite effect on me, I should be upset, but it turned me on more than I ever have been. Probably, because she was doing it prior to me, he lives far away, and she said it was only sex. I now encourage her, and we keep secret from him that I know. I can't explain it, but it's made sex between us amazingly better recently. She is a naughty girl. I haven't actually watched her having sex yet (I have heard her) but I think it would be an amazing experience.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Statistics speak to prevalence (including the remarkably high failure rate of monogamy). The premise that whatever is most prevalent is normal - and therefore everything else is abnormal - is a societal construct that is designed to compel conformity. And it is applied selectively. We have many aspects of life in which the minority is not deemed abnormal.

The challenge with all of the evolutionary theory dynamics is that while evolution is primarily a by-product of environment not all behaviour that is a by-product of environment is evolution. To the extent that the forces that compel women towards a certain type of behaviour are removed and the behaviour changes that strongly suggests that their behaviour was not natural and they have not evolved to adopt it. More recent data suggests that women are just as interested in sex for pleasure as men and are just as inclined to crave sexual variety.

On balance it would seem that monogamy might be the preferred relationship for most people, but not all people and women are not more inclined towards monogamy than men.

The fact that the Saudi Arabia dynamic is a by-product of laws and rules is beside the point. The point is that once those norms were established people came to accept them as "the way it is supposed to be." Most men in that society would take great offence to their wife playing tennis with another man in a western style tennis outfit. It is part of a control dynamic. And while it is one of the more extreme examples today it is quite consistent with what historically existed in many parts of the world, which reinforces my original point - in the first instance monogamy is a construct that serves the needs of men as much as anything else. Absent monogamy most men would have no shot at getting a woman. The one-to-one dynamic serves our interest and deeming female promiscuity to be immoral is one of the means by which we compel women to be monogamous. I'm not saying that there aren't aspects to the female existence that also nudges them in that direction. But the premise that it is all about their needs is flawed and propagated by white men in lab coats scrambling to confirm their own bias. Like I said recent data suggest women are no more inclined towards monogamy than men and maybe even less so - I didn't say they aren't inclined towards it, I said that they aren't so different from men as has been assumed over the decades. Even if they are submissive (which I am not so sure about nor am I convinced that they are more submissive than men) that doesn't mean they crave monogamy. The two have nothing to do with one another. Absent the monogamy paradigm submissive women would likely naturally gravitate to the small number of high status males in a polygamous arrangement.

Cuckolding is mutual beneficial because each partner optimizes their sexual possibilities. The wife may gain more, but both are better off sexually unless you assume that exclusivity has value. Obviously many people think it does, but that is the learned behaviour that backstops the monogamy paradigm.

Cheating is, by definition, violating the agreed upon rules. If sexual exclusivity isn't a condition of our marriage how can having sex with someone else be cheating? I'm not projecting my desires onto her. I am observing the desires she has. All the evolutionary psychology tangent is about making the point that her having desire for sexual variety is natural. It isn't for everyone of course, but the mere fact that she has such desires does not make her some kind of aberration.

When you ask about the prospect of her finding a better partner, think about the assumption implicit in that question. It is the idea that what she really wants is one man and all men can be ranked on their ability to provide sexual pleasure on a linear scale so if she finds someone further up the scale I will lose her. First of all that possibility always exists even if I try to constrain her to monogamy. But more importantly what she desires is variety and she doesn't see sex on a linear scale. As another Litster has often said, think of it like food. I make a great steak, but much as she likes it she doesn't want steak every meal for the rest of her life. She isn't out looking for some other dish that she will want for every meal for all of time. She is enjoying the variety of different meals - not constraining her is more valuable than any specific dish she is going to find elsewhere. In many ways that is the valuable thing I offer which ties her in to me. But that in turn is a function of her individual personality and sexual desires. It might be different for other women, but she is the woman I want.

Many women are inclined towards monogamy and seeking out the best single mate. If my wife were such a woman and I was agreeing for her to be non-monogamous I would be fooling myself wouldn't I? That fact pattern would suggest she is seeking monogamy, just not with me and all I am doing is filling a temporary spot until she finds someone better. Regardless of whether we agree on what proportion of women feel that way, my point is that it isn't the case that every last woman on earth feels that way. There are some who are like my wife. Whether or not they are a minority or "normal" or even remotely representative of all women is of no consequence. They exist and to me they are sexy and beautiful and exciting and constraining her to monogamy would dampen some of that. Does some of that conflict with my natural conditioning to expect monogamy? Yes, but on balance it is worth it.

To you last point I think that you are making a somewhat artificial distinction between male and female sexual desire. There is no question that we are different. But I am not sure that we are different in the ways and to the degree that society has conditioned us to believe. Again that is the reason for all of the evolutionary psychology tangent. I certainly don't claim to be correct or to understand it all. But I do believe it is all somewhat tied up with an inclination to define women and their sexuality in a way that suits us. Recent work by Alicia Walker showed that among men and women who cheat some of our stereotypes were reversed. Women cited the desire for better sex or more variety as a prevalent reason for their cheating. Meanwhile men cited wanting an improved mental connection that they weren't getting at home as a prevalent reason for their cheating. And when asked women were more receptive to the prospect of an open relationship than men. Of course there were many other factors cited and discussed, so I don't mean to oversimplify. But overall the results contradicted a lot of traditional assumptions about male and female sexuality.

But at an individual level it helps to put aside all the stuff about what is or isn't in a woman's nature. Suppose the most exciting beautiful and sexy woman you can imagine wants to marry you. She will not be monogamous, but she can look you in the eye and with maturity and credibility tell you that all that stuff you are worried about doesn't apply. She isn't looking for another man, she isn't careless or indiscrete, etc. Do you accept that or do you forego her in favour of monogamy with a woman who is far less sexually engaging? I can tell you that if you accept you will soon find that - if she lives up to what she said she would - sexual exclusivity pales in comparison to what she brings to the table. And as that notion recedes in your memory the fact that she is not exclusive will soon form an exciting part of her sexual being.

 

[lc69hunter]

Statistics speak to prevalence (including the remarkably high failure rate of monogamy). The premise that whatever is most prevalent is normal - and therefore everything else is abnormal - is a societal construct that is designed to compel conformity. And it is applied selectively. We have many aspects of life in which the minority is not deemed abnormal.

The challenge with all of the evolutionary theory dynamics is that while evolution is primarily a by-product of environment not all behaviour that is a by-product of environment is evolution. To the extent that the forces that compel women towards a certain type of behaviour are removed and the behaviour changes that strongly suggests that their behaviour was not natural and they have not evolved to adopt it. More recent data suggests that women are just as interested in sex for pleasure as men and are just as inclined to crave sexual variety.

On balance it would seem that monogamy might be the preferred relationship for most people, but not all people and women are not more inclined towards monogamy than men.

The fact that the Saudi Arabia dynamic is a by-product of laws and rules is beside the point. The point is that once those norms were established people came to accept them as "the way it is supposed to be." Most men in that society would take great offence to their wife playing tennis with another man in a western style tennis outfit. It is part of a control dynamic. And while it is one of the more extreme examples today it is quite consistent with what historically existed in many parts of the world, which reinforces my original point - in the first instance monogamy is a construct that serves the needs of men as much as anything else. Absent monogamy most men would have no shot at getting a woman. The one-to-one dynamic serves our interest and deeming female promiscuity to be immoral is one of the means by which we compel women to be monogamous. I'm not saying that there aren't aspects to the female existence that also nudges them in that direction. But the premise that it is all about their needs is flawed and propagated by white men in lab coats scrambling to confirm their own bias. Like I said recent data suggest women are no more inclined towards monogamy than men and maybe even less so - I didn't say they aren't inclined towards it, I said that they aren't so different from men as has been assumed over the decades. Even if they are submissive (which I am not so sure about nor am I convinced that they are more submissive than men) that doesn't mean they crave monogamy. The two have nothing to do with one another.

Cuckolding is mutual beneficial because each partner optimizes their sexual possibilities. The wife may gain more, but both are better off sexually unless you assume that exclusivity has value. Obviously many people think it does, but that is the learned behaviour that backstops the monogamy paradigm.

Cheating is, by definition, violating the agreed upon rules. If sexual exclusivity isn't a condition of our marriage how can having sex with someone else be cheating? I'm not projecting my desires onto her. I am observing the desires she has. All the evolutionary psychology tangent is about making the point that her having desire for sexual variety is natural. It isn't for everyone of course, but the mere fact that she has such desires does not make her some kind of aberration.

When you ask about the prospect of her finding a better partner, think about the assumption implicit in that question. It is the idea that what she really wants is one man and all men can be ranked on their ability to provide sexual pleasure on a linear scale so if she finds someone further up the scale I will lose her. First of all that possibility always exists even if I try to constrain her to monogamy. But more importantly what she desires is variety and she doesn't see sex on a linear scale. As another Litster has often said, think of it like food. I make a great steak, but much as she likes it she doesn't want steak every meal for the rest of her life. She isn't out looking for some other dish that she will want for every meal for all of time. She is enjoying the variety of different meals - not constraining her is more valuable than any specific dish she is going to find elsewhere. In many ways that is the valuable thing I offer which ties her in to me. But that in turn is a function of her individual personality and sexual desires. It might be different for other women, but she is the woman I want.

Many women are inclined towards monogamy and seeking out the best single mate. If my wife were such a woman and I was agreeing for her to be non-monogamous I would be fooling myself wouldn't I? That fact pattern would suggest she is seeking monogamy, just not with me and all I am doing is filling a temporary spot until she finds someone better. Regardless of whether we agree on what proportion of women feel that way, my point is that it isn't the case that every last woman on earth feels that way. There are some who are like my wife. Whether or not they are a minority or "normal" or even remotely representative of all women is of no consequence. They exist and to me they are sexy and beautiful and exciting and constraining her to monogamy would dampen some of that. Does some of that conflict with my natural conditioning to expect monogamy? Yes, but on balance it is worth it.

To you last point I think that you are making a somewhat artificial distinction between male and female sexual desire. There is no question that we are different. But I am not sure that we are different in the ways and to the degree that society has conditioned us to believe. again that is the reason for all of the evolutionary psychology tangent. I certainly don't claim to be correct or to understand it all. But I do believe it is all somewhat tied up with an inclination to define women and their sexuality in a way that suits us

Think of it this way. Put aside all the stuff about what is or isn't in a woman's nature. Suppose the most exciting beautiful and sexy woman you can imagine wants to marry you. She will not be monogamous, but she can look you in the eye and with maturity and credibility tell you that all that stuff you are worried about doesn't apply. She isn't looking for another man, she isn't careless or indiscrete, etc. Do you accept that or do you forego her in favour of monogamy with a woman who is far less sexually engaging? I can tell you that if you accept you will soon find that - if she lives up to what she said she would - sexual exclusivity pales in comparison to what she brings to the table. And as that notion recedes in your memory the fact that she is not exclusive will soon form an exciting part of her sexual being.

Thanks for dispelling a lot of the false and misleading narratives about the issue. I spent a lot of my earlier years as the other man in a number of cuckold relationships, and am still friends with one of the couples years later. However, I hooked up with a new girlfriend, and we explored a lot of fantasies, both hers and mine, and we tried to make them come true. She really had this fetish about cuckolding, so I agreed to help her fulfill it. So I played the role of a submissive cuck for her twice, and the whole nine yards. That is a much different head space to be in. Wouldn't want a steady diet of it, but it actually was fun to play that role after my earlier life and experience

 

[policywank]

Statistics speak to prevalence (including the remarkably high failure rate of monogamy). The premise that whatever is most prevalent is normal - and therefore everything else is abnormal - is a societal construct that is designed to compel conformity. And it is applied selectively. We have many aspects of life in which the minority is not deemed abnormal.

The challenge with all of the evolutionary theory dynamics is that while evolution is primarily a by-product of environment not all behaviour that is a by-product of environment is evolution. To the extent that the forces that compel women towards a certain type of behaviour are removed and the behaviour changes that strongly suggests that their behaviour was not natural and they have not evolved to adopt it. More recent data suggests that women are just as interested in sex for pleasure as men and are just as inclined to crave sexual variety.

On balance it would seem that monogamy might be the preferred relationship for most people, but not all people and women are not more inclined towards monogamy than men.

The fact that the Saudi Arabia dynamic is a by-product of laws and rules is beside the point. The point is that once those norms were established people came to accept them as "the way it is supposed to be." Most men in that society would take great offence to their wife playing tennis with another man in a western style tennis outfit. It is part of a control dynamic. And while it is one of the more extreme examples today it is quite consistent with what historically existed in many parts of the world, which reinforces my original point - in the first instance monogamy is a construct that serves the needs of men as much as anything else. Absent monogamy most men would have no shot at getting a woman. The one-to-one dynamic serves our interest and deeming female promiscuity to be immoral is one of the means by which we compel women to be monogamous. I'm not saying that there aren't aspects to the female existence that also nudges them in that direction. But the premise that it is all about their needs is flawed and propagated by white men in lab coats scrambling to confirm their own bias. Like I said recent data suggest women are no more inclined towards monogamy than men and maybe even less so - I didn't say they aren't inclined towards it, I said that they aren't so different from men as has been assumed over the decades. Even if they are submissive (which I am not so sure about nor am I convinced that they are more submissive than men) that doesn't mean they crave monogamy. The two have nothing to do with one another. Absent the monogamy paradigm submissive women would likely naturally gravitate to the small number of high status males in a polygamous arrangement.

Cuckolding is mutual beneficial because each partner optimizes their sexual possibilities. The wife may gain more, but both are better off sexually unless you assume that exclusivity has value. Obviously many people think it does, but that is the learned behaviour that backstops the monogamy paradigm.

Cheating is, by definition, violating the agreed upon rules. If sexual exclusivity isn't a condition of our marriage how can having sex with someone else be cheating? I'm not projecting my desires onto her. I am observing the desires she has. All the evolutionary psychology tangent is about making the point that her having desire for sexual variety is natural. It isn't for everyone of course, but the mere fact that she has such desires does not make her some kind of aberration.

When you ask about the prospect of her finding a better partner, think about the assumption implicit in that question. It is the idea that what she really wants is one man and all men can be ranked on their ability to provide sexual pleasure on a linear scale so if she finds someone further up the scale I will lose her. First of all that possibility always exists even if I try to constrain her to monogamy. But more importantly what she desires is variety and she doesn't see sex on a linear scale. As another Litster has often said, think of it like food. I make a great steak, but much as she likes it she doesn't want steak every meal for the rest of her life. She isn't out looking for some other dish that she will want for every meal for all of time. She is enjoying the variety of different meals - not constraining her is more valuable than any specific dish she is going to find elsewhere. In many ways that is the valuable thing I offer which ties her in to me. But that in turn is a function of her individual personality and sexual desires. It might be different for other women, but she is the woman I want.

Many women are inclined towards monogamy and seeking out the best single mate. If my wife were such a woman and I was agreeing for her to be non-monogamous I would be fooling myself wouldn't I? That fact pattern would suggest she is seeking monogamy, just not with me and all I am doing is filling a temporary spot until she finds someone better. Regardless of whether we agree on what proportion of women feel that way, my point is that it isn't the case that every last woman on earth feels that way. There are some who are like my wife. Whether or not they are a minority or "normal" or even remotely representative of all women is of no consequence. They exist and to me they are sexy and beautiful and exciting and constraining her to monogamy would dampen some of that. Does some of that conflict with my natural conditioning to expect monogamy? Yes, but on balance it is worth it.

To you last point I think that you are making a somewhat artificial distinction between male and female sexual desire. There is no question that we are different. But I am not sure that we are different in the ways and to the degree that society has conditioned us to believe. Again that is the reason for all of the evolutionary psychology tangent. I certainly don't claim to be correct or to understand it all. But I do believe it is all somewhat tied up with an inclination to define women and their sexuality in a way that suits us. Recent work by Alicia Walker showed that among men and women who cheat some of our stereotypes were reversed. Women cited the desire for better sex or more variety as a prevalent reason for their cheating. Meanwhile men cited wanting an improved mental connection that they weren't getting at home as a prevalent reason for their cheating. And when asked women were more receptive to the prospect of an open relationship than men. Of course there were many other factors cited and discussed, so I don't mean to oversimplify. But overall the results contradicted a lot of traditional assumptions about male and female sexuality.

But at an individual level it helps to put aside all the stuff about what is or isn't in a woman's nature. Suppose the most exciting beautiful and sexy woman you can imagine wants to marry you. She will not be monogamous, but she can look you in the eye and with maturity and credibility tell you that all that stuff you are worried about doesn't apply. She isn't looking for another man, she isn't careless or indiscrete, etc. Do you accept that or do you forego her in favour of monogamy with a woman who is far less sexually engaging? I can tell you that if you accept you will soon find that - if she lives up to what she said she would - sexual exclusivity pales in comparison to what she brings to the table. And as that notion recedes in your memory the fact that she is not exclusive will soon form an exciting part of her sexual being.

I will avoid any gender comparisons, but I will say that I and a lot of women I know don't see ourselves accurately or adequately reflected in typical portrayals of female sexuality. That applies to my younger years as well as today's world. The democratization of social media has provided us with opportunities to connect with like minded people, but has also seemingly led to an increase in people telling other people how to live and what is or isn't acceptable.

One of the challenges with the monogamy paradigm from a female point of view is that if you buy into it fully you actually start to believe the premise that if your husband was the man you need that you would not have desire for any other man. As a result, women misconstrue their desire for another man to be indicative of a problem in their primary relationship. Couple that with the emotions and excitement of a new relationship - which, by definition, are related to newness and effectively cannot be maintained in any long-term relationship - and some women will see all this as pointing to the conclusion that she should leave one man for the other.

It is therefore very necessary that a hotwife have a very clear-eyed view of these things and not get swayed by how society tells her she is supposed to feel. If you have that clear-eyed perspective and fully embrace the prospect of having variety in your sex life then the role of the cuckold takes on unique importance. He becomes something very rare and valuable - a man who can be a supportive marital partner who is accepting of your sexual emancipation. A man who doesn't force you to choose between having a loving long-term partner and embracing your desire for sexual variety and adventure is far more rare than a man with any given sexual talents. The food analogy is apt - there is no such thing as one dish that is so superior that it would induce me to forego all other dishes forever. Ergo there is no such thing as a single dish that is superior to variety. A cuckold offers the best possible sexual framework.

 

[lc69hunter]

I will avoid any gender comparisons, but I will say that I and a lot of women I know don't see ourselves accurately or adequately reflected in typical portrayals of female sexuality. That applies to my younger years as well as today's world. The democratization of social media has provided us with opportunities to connect with like minded people, but has also seemingly led to an increase in people telling other people how to live and what is or isn't acceptable.

One of the challenges with the monogamy paradigm from a female point of view is that if you buy into it fully you actually start to believe the premise that if your husband was the man you need that you would not have desire for any other man. As a result, women misconstrue their desire for another man to be indicative of a problem in their primary relationship. Couple that with the emotions and excitement of a new relationship - which, by definition, are related to newness and effectively cannot be maintained in any long-term relationship - and some women will see all this as pointing to the conclusion that she should leave one man for the other.

It is therefore very necessary that a hotwife have a very clear-eyed view of these things and not get swayed by how society tells her she is supposed to feel. If you have that clear-eyed perspective and fully embrace the prospect of having variety in your sex life then the role of the cuckold takes on unique importance. He becomes something very rare and valuable - a man who can be a supportive marital partner who is accepting of your sexual emancipation. A man who doesn't force you to choose between having a loving long-term partner and embracing your desire for sexual variety and adventure is far more rare than a man with any given sexual talents. The food analogy is apt - there is no such thing as one dish that is so superior that it would induce me to forego all other dishes forever. Ergo there is no such thing as a single dish that is superior to variety. A cuckold offers the best possible sexual framework.

 

[lc69hunter]

I think I love you. J/K. Really, I love your clarity on these issues

 

[SlutAddicted]

Thanks for dispelling a lot of the false and misleading narratives about the issue. I spent a lot of my earlier years as the other man in a number of cuckold relationships, and am still friends with one of the couples years later. However, I hooked up with a new girlfriend, and we explored a lot of fantasies, both hers and mine, and we tried to make them come true. She really had this fetish about cuckolding, so I agreed to help her fulfill it. So I played the role of a submissive cuck for her twice, and the whole nine yards. That is a much different head space to be in. Wouldn't want a steady diet of it, but it actually was fun to play that role after my earlier life and experience

Interesting. I think it is easier for men to imagine themselves in the role of the other man rather than the cuckold. Putting yourself in the role of cuckold requires a you to open your mind and embrace emotions that a lot of men just won't consider. It requires an unusual level of introspection and self confidence. Kudos to you for being open-minded enough to do that and especially the way you did it for your girlfriend - to me it has always been something that we do for the women in our lives not something they do to us.