Why is there so much cuckoldry in the BDSM community?

[John__1337]

On almost every BDSM story I read in this website, the DOM ends up sharing his SUB with other guys. Why???? Back in my day, when we put a collar on a sub, it wasn't just to remind the sub who owns her, it was also to tell others to keep away.
I know that every dom/sub is different, but this sharing thing is just so common nowadays. What's up with that?

 

[choice334]

Cuckolry

I will involve my sub with another purely to test her obedience and some times because she enjoys the depravity of the situation

 

[SpunThings]

On almost every BDSM story I read in this website, the DOM ends up sharing his SUB with other guys. Why???? Back in my day, when we put a collar on a sub, it wasn't just to remind the sub who owns her, it was also to tell others to keep away.
I know that every dom/sub is different, but this sharing thing is just so common nowadays. What's up with that?

First, you cannot equate what you read in stories to what actually happens. If you've read ANY kind of fiction, you should know that fiction does not mirror real life. That'd be a fucking boring read.

Second, why do you care? If it's not your relationship, why does it matter what other people do? There is no one way to do this.

 

[Currahee_Gent]

cuckoldry is more along the lines of a male sub being forced to watch his wife screw another man.

Stories are just that, stories. Maybe adding more characters spice it up somewhat. Some might pass their subs around like a peace pipe, but I don’t know how common it is. Every relationship is different.

 

[policywank]

Aside from context there does seem to be more indulgence of women with multiple sexual partners these days. Or to be more specific the idea of women being used and gang banged has been around for a long time but always under a man's control. What is new is the notion of the scenario not being abusive and degrading to the woman.

But then a lot of things are new or more widely indulged now that the internet allows us to communicate without risk of instant public condemnation. That suggests that what is new is our ability to express deep-seated desires not the newness of those desires.

As with many comments on this topic, your words suggest that you are of the view that monogamy is the universally "right" or "natural" way of things. That just isn't so. It is for lots of people and that is fine. But it is not universal. It never was, but for a long stretch of history society's construct allowed that perspective to be imposed on everyone. It wasn't so long ago that we thought gay people were extremely rare and unnatural. It turned out they aren't that rare and have been among us always. All that changed was our willingness to see them. The same is happening now with all kinds of alternative perspectives.

 

[John__1337]

First, you cannot equate what you read in stories to what actually happens. If you've read ANY kind of fiction, you should know that fiction does not mirror real life. That'd be a fucking boring read.

Second, why do you care? If it's not your relationship, why does it matter what other people do? There is no one way to do this.

Did I struck a nerve there? Fiction doesn't mirror real life, but when it comes to erotica it mirrors desires and fantasies of the author and the reader. Having many stories like that implies that many people here have this fetish of watching their buddies fucking your girl. And I am just asking to start a discussion, fam. No need to be angry.

 

[John__1337]

As with many comments on this topic, your words suggest that you are of the view that monogamy is the universally "right" or "natural" way of things. That just isn't so.

How do you know that? Monogamy is an evolutionary trait, fam. Cavemen were monogamous. Many species of animals are monogamous by instinct. I say that monogamy IS natural. Don't come with this "it's all social construct" crap. And I will also say that polygamy is pretty pathetic, since it abandons the natural territorialism and dominance of Man (two of our core traits) and bends down to other men in a "haha, wanna come home and fuck my wife?" sort of way. A real man don't share his toys, tbh.

 

[Collar_N_Cuffs]

Ah yes. The old "frame it like a question, but all I really want is a platform from which to preach my idealistic view of the world and tell everyone they are wrong" ploy.

We've not seem that before

 

[policywank]

How do you know that? Monogamy is an evolutionary trait, fam. Cavemen were monogamous. Many species of animals are monogamous by instinct. I say that monogamy IS natural. Don't come with this "it's all social construct" crap. And I will also say that polygamy is pretty pathetic, since it abandons the natural territorialism and dominance of Man (two of our core traits) and bends down to other men in a "haha, wanna come home and fuck my wife?" sort of way. A real man don't share his toys, tbh.

I said the view that monogamy is the right or natural way isn't UNIVERSAL. All that is required to establish that the view isn't universal is one dissenter - being that dissenter I can say with absolute certainty that your view isn't universal.

Now, is it prevalent? Yes absolutely. But your comments reinforce my point. You pass judgment on men who don't feel this way, call them pathetic and assert what a real man does. It is this sort of pressure and presumption that discourages others from expressing themselves. People who wish to impose their views have always mistaken compliance with agreement.

And don't come with all this evolutionary biology crap. All of the history that supports monogamy as the only way featured insecure men who were willing to beat their women into submission or beat any man who didn't abide by their views.

This is the classic example of the majority believing in monogamy and imposing that view on the minority. What you are observing is not a shift in society, just the ability of people to be who they are without being intimidated into compliance by physical violence or social judgment.

By the way, in my experience dominant men don't need to go around imposing their views on others. Its weak men who think they should be dominant but aren't up to it that go around beating on others, including women. The caveman who bashed his woman over the head so she wouldn't fuck the neighbour probably knew she could and she would enjoy it. And he regarded her as his possession....or to use your words his toy. But that is the point isn't it. To feel manly regardless of the consequences to others. But hey as long as you and your buddies agree it must be right.

 

[xxxSubSamxxx]

For me monogamy is my preference. Stories that relate monogamous story lines turn me on and excite me. When stories bring in multiple partners it's a turn off for me. But I have found most of lit stories tend to focus on polygamy.

It's turns me on ready about a Dom putting a collar on his sub, and married couples talking about their private kinks.

Sam xx

 

[SpunThings]

Did I struck a nerve there? Fiction doesn't mirror real life, but when it comes to erotica it mirrors desires and fantasies of the author and the reader. Having many stories like that implies that many people here have this fetish of watching their buddies fucking your girl. And I am just asking to start a discussion, fam. No need to be angry.

haha This isn't angry. Just vociferous. You're wrong though.

Fiction mirrors what people want to fantasize about. Not everyone wants to act out their fantasies. I want to read about people with magical powers, defeating great monsters. That doesn't mean I want to live it.

Also, when you're looking at popular fiction, you're just looking at what frequent readers want to fantasize about. It doesn't reflect what the population as a whole wants to fantasize about. In the wider fiction world, for example, the romance genre is by leaps and bounds the biggest selling genre. That doesn't mean that's what most people want to fantasize about. Most people don't actually read. If you look at romance genre sales, you're only looking at what a small subset of the overall population wants to fantasize about.

Your conclusion is false, yet a nice tool to support your diatribe, such as Collar_N_Cuffs said.

 

[John__1337]

Ah yes. The old "frame it like a question, but all I really want is a platform from which to preach my idealistic view of the world and tell everyone they are wrong" ploy.

We've not seem that before

It's a discussion, fam, I don't need to be neutral. Of course I'm going to have my own personal opinions. Try not to get triggered by them.

Now, is it prevalent? Yes absolutely. But your comments reinforce my point. You pass judgment on men who don't feel this way, call them pathetic and assert what a real man does. It is this sort of pressure and presumption that discourages others from expressing themselves. People who wish to impose their views have always mistaken compliance with agreement.

That's circular logic. And I didn't assert what a real man does, nature did. Take a look at the prehistoric man and how he behaved. That's a man in his purest form. That's how nature molded us to be. Of course, we learned to better ourselves, but our core traits are still there (protectiveness, territorialism, dominance, etc.) and anyone who lose those traits can't call himself a man anymore. A queer or a cuck, maybe, but not a man. And if you still try to insist you're manly without having any of those traits, it just makes you look pathetic.

And don't come with all this evolutionary biology crap. All of the history that supports monogamy as the only way featured insecure men who were willing to beat their women into submission or beat any man who didn't abide by their views.

Jesus Christ, that was the single most ignorant paragraph in your whole post. "don't come with all this evolutionary biology crap??" Do facts bother you that much? And you say that every monogamous man is a wife beater and every monogamous woman would be adulterous if it wasn't for her oppressive husband? wtf dude?

This is the classic example of the majority believing in monogamy and imposing that view on the minority.
[...]
By the way, in my experience dominant men don't need to go around imposing their views on others. Its weak men who think they should be dominant but aren't up to it that go around beating on others, including women.[...]

Real men are not afraid of discussion and they don't call others weak for simply discussing. I'm not "imposing my views" on anyone. I'm not obligating you to be monogamous. If you want to be polygamous, go for it. I'm just giving my opinion on the matter. Can't you handle having your views challenged? Do you need to act like a victim every time someone tries to talk to you?

btw, can I fuck your wife? k, thanks.

 

[Collar_N_Cuffs]

I do believe you are the one with the hair triggers.

 

[Paintergirl]

Actually there's significant evidence that prior to the agricultural revolution (approximately 10,000 years ago) that humans were NOT monogamous. Lots of valid speculation that since humans lived in tribes that were hunter/gatherers, sex, both heterosexual and homosexual, was used as a way to strengthen community bonds. One excellent text is "Sex at Dawn"--although I will say that people who defend monogamy as the epitome of civilization are perhaps unlikely to read a book like that...

There is actually very little concrete evidence one way or another...part of the agricultural revolution was a concerted effort to forget how humans lived prior to owning land (what a concept) and locking up the food...

 

[SpunThings]

It's a discussion, fam, I don't need to be neutral. Of course I'm going to have my own personal opinions. Try not to get triggered by them.



That's circular logic. And I didn't assert what a real man does, nature did. Take a look at the prehistoric man and how he behaved. That's a man in his purest form. That's how nature molded us to be. Of course, we learned to better ourselves, but our core traits are still there (protectiveness, territorialism, dominance, etc.) and anyone who lose those traits can't call himself a man anymore. A queer or a cuck, maybe, but not a man. And if you still try to insist you're manly without having any of those traits, it just makes you look pathetic.



Jesus Christ, that was the single most ignorant paragraph in your whole post. "don't come with all this evolutionary biology crap??" Do facts bother you that much? And you say that every monogamous man is a wife beater and every monogamous woman would be adulterous if it wasn't for her oppressive husband? wtf dude?



Real men are not afraid of discussion and they don't call others weak for simply discussing. I'm not "imposing my views" on anyone. I'm not obligating you to be monogamous. If you want to be polygamous, go for it. I'm just giving my opinion on the matter. Can't you handle having your views challenged? Do you need to act like a victim every time someone tries to talk to you?

btw, can I fuck your wife? k, thanks.

Wrong again. We don't know for sure what "prehistoric man" was like, because the definition of prehistory is before the written record. The only thing we have to go on is archaeological evidence. We can deduce what we can from that, but I'm not convinced that you've studied the literature on the behaviors and demeanor of "prehistoric man". You're just pulling stuff out of your ass to support your claim.

"Real men" are men who call themselves men. It may make you feel uncomfortable to allow that group to be so broad and open to just anyone, but that just shows your insecurity. Just as vilifying a BDSM practice that other people who aren't you participate in shows your own insecurity.

Nice try with the dismissive comments. "Try not to get triggered by them." or "Did I struck a nerve there?" Have you ever heard of the term "gaslighting?" You do know it is possible to have intelligent discourse without trying to minimize its participants and make them out to be emotionally unstable, right?

You're not trying to have discussion. Generally people who are trying to have a discussion are actually interested in hearing differing viewpoints, even if they make them uncomfortable. You're either trying to look for a platform and stir up shit, or you thought everyone would chime in and agree with you.

Monogamy is a western/European cultural thing, and certainly not universal among all cultures around the world.

 

[the captians wench]

How do you know that? Monogamy is an evolutionary trait, fam. Cavemen were monogamous. Many species of animals are monogamous by instinct. I say that monogamy IS natural. Don't come with this "it's all social construct" crap. And I will also say that polygamy is pretty pathetic, since it abandons the natural territorialism and dominance of Man (two of our core traits) and bends down to other men in a "haha, wanna come home and fuck my wife?" sort of way. A real man don't share his toys, tbh.

This monogamous caveman is something that I'm not failure with. Do you have sources?

And I'm kind of curious if you feel the same way about men who have several women?

Wife sharing and and cuckold are two different things, and two different dynamics.

I tend to favor a man who's secure enough to know that while I might enjoy having sex with others, I'm still coming back to him. Of course my dynamic is very complicated and not something that I can really define in a brief post.

Finally who the fuck are you to say what a "real man" is? It is men like you who would insist on what a "real man," a "real dom," and a "real sub," is that lead me to situations that I wouldn't have been in if I hadn't been trying to be a "real slave" and blindly obey my master even when it meant that I was buying him shit rather than feeding myself. Unless he is a blow up doll or battery powered, he is a real man.

 

[midwestyankee]

It's a discussion, fam, I don't need to be neutral. Of course I'm going to have my own personal opinions. Try not to get triggered by them.

Who, or what, the fuck is "fam?" Surely someone as enlightened and supra-perfect as yourself must be aware that we peons aren't always current on the jargon of the elite. Trust me on this: you haven't triggered Collar in the slightest. But you might want to put that old brass codpiece on for the occasion when you do trigger her. Just a fair warning.

That's circular logic. And I didn't assert what a real man does, nature did. Take a look at the prehistoric man and how he behaved. That's a man in his purest form. That's how nature molded us to be. Of course, we learned to better ourselves, but our core traits are still there (protectiveness, territorialism, dominance, etc.) and anyone who lose those traits can't call himself a man anymore. A queer or a cuck, maybe, but not a man. And if you still try to insist you're manly without having any of those traits, it just makes you look pathetic.

You can't prove any of this with empirical evidence. When was the last time (dates and locations, please) when you observed the behavior of cavemen in their natural habitat? Tell us please, o great anthropologist time-traveler.

Jesus Christ, that was the single most ignorant paragraph in your whole post. "don't come with all this evolutionary biology crap??" Do facts bother you that much? And you say that every monogamous man is a wife beater and every monogamous woman would be adulterous if it wasn't for her oppressive husband? wtf dude?

Evolutionary biology is worse than crap: it's wishful thinking parading as pseudo-science. Show me your empirical evidence and then we'll talk.

Real men are not afraid of discussion and they don't call others weak for simply discussing. I'm not "imposing my views" on anyone. I'm not obligating you to be monogamous. If you want to be polygamous, go for it. I'm just giving my opinion on the matter. Can't you handle having your views challenged? Do you need to act like a victim every time someone tries to talk to you?

btw, can I fuck your wife? k, thanks.

You might want to consider some classes in remedial reading comprehension. By now it should be readily apparent to you that the notion of "real men" doesn't hold much currency among those who have taken time from their day to reply to your opening post. That you believe such a thing exists says far more about you than you know. Oh, and Policywank is a woman. A strong and articulate one, in fact. If you're a really good boy from now on, she might let you suck her husbands's cock, but I wouldn't put your hopes up too high.

 

[Paintergirl]

Cavemen were monogamous. Many species of animals are monogamous by instinct. I say that monogamy IS natural. Don't come with this "it's all social construct" crap.

There's no physical evidence that cavemen were monogamous. The best we can do from this distance is observe what few hunter/gatherer tribes exist and observe our closest evolutionary relations that live in tribes.

And--many animals that APPEAR to be monogamous (remember the penguin movie a few years ago?) actually aren't. Genetic testing of their chicks shows somewhere around a thirty percent rate of the male partner NOT being the parent. And--they are only APPARENTLY monogamous for that season...

And, since I've been reading Dan Savage lately, a question: if monogamy is our natural state--why is it such a difficult state to live in? Why do people cheat? Fantasize about cheating? Divorce?

Surely something that is our natural state would be incredibly easy to maintain...

I'm not saying monogamy doesn't work for some people. I've been married for a very long time, completely one hundred percent monogamous. But just because it works for and provides satisfaction for one person doesn't mean it's right for everyone...

 

[SlutAddicted]

It's a discussion, fam, I don't need to be neutral. Of course I'm going to have my own personal opinions. Try not to get triggered by them.



That's circular logic. And I didn't assert what a real man does, nature did. Take a look at the prehistoric man and how he behaved. That's a man in his purest form. That's how nature molded us to be. Of course, we learned to better ourselves, but our core traits are still there (protectiveness, territorialism, dominance, etc.) and anyone who lose those traits can't call himself a man anymore. A queer or a cuck, maybe, but not a man. And if you still try to insist you're manly without having any of those traits, it just makes you look pathetic.



Jesus Christ, that was the single most ignorant paragraph in your whole post. "don't come with all this evolutionary biology crap??" Do facts bother you that much? And you say that every monogamous man is a wife beater and every monogamous woman would be adulterous if it wasn't for her oppressive husband? wtf dude?



Real men are not afraid of discussion and they don't call others weak for simply discussing. I'm not "imposing my views" on anyone. I'm not obligating you to be monogamous. If you want to be polygamous, go for it. I'm just giving my opinion on the matter. Can't you handle having your views challenged? Do you need to act like a victim every time someone tries to talk to you?

btw, can I fuck your wife? k, thanks.

LOL.

You think real man = caveman.....so you act like caveman, tell self that make you real man

You no understand what circular logic mean so just repeat phrase then make own logic circle.....make no sense, but got to say that anybody not caveman is pathetic

Smarter lady say that using example of caveman who beat wife into submission as evidence that she want to be dominated make no sense. You too stupid to understand the point that evolution is by-product of environment and neanderthal man part of environment.

La,la,la,la (covers ears).....no hear other people's opinions, just force own opinion and accuse others of not hearing

Me scream opinions loud enough they become fact.

Real men no call others weak......real men prefer pathetic......that more insulting

Oh, gee sorry. You were so convincing in your argument that all real men should behave like cavemen that I got carried away. Now what the fuck am I going to do with this club and loin cloth. Oh I know.....I'm gonna wear them to next year's Pride parade. Why don't you come along and express your views so I can watch some homosexuals beat the crap out of you.

 

[CutieMouse]

Odd that the OP sees men sharing women as such a commonplace thing, when my experience has been that it's far more common for men to expect women to share. (One man, a stable/harem of female submissives.)

As someone who once had multiple (male, dominant) lovers, I can attest to the uncommoness of the arrangement.

I am curious, though - if the OP believes "real men" don't share their partners, does he also believe "real men" resin equally monogamous as their submissives?

 

[midwestyankee]

Odd that the OP sees men sharing women as such a commonplace thing, when my experience has been that it's far more common for men to expect women to share. (One man, a stable/harem of female submissives.)

As someone who once had multiple (male, dominant) lovers, I can attest to the uncommoness of the arrangement.

I am curious, though - if the OP believes "real men" don't share their partners, does he also believe "real men" resin equally monogamous as their submissives?

Oh, CM...you don't really think that logic will work here, do you? Tsk...tsk.


Just out of curiosity, I checked:

John 13:37 King James Version (KJV)

37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.

 

[Tech_Director]

On almost every BDSM story I read in this website, the DOM ends up sharing his SUB with other guys. Why????

That's a very good question, Why are YOU focusing solely on stories dealing with Doms sharing their submissives? Maybe this is some kind of latent fetish you have?

 

[policywank]

I really shouldn't indulge this further but I can't resist one more comment. The whole portrayal of caveman is fictitious and ridiculous.

What little we know is that cavemen were hunter gatherers who lived in caves for relative safety. It is arguable that they were not the top of the food chain and if they were that position was tenuous at best. Venturing from the cave to get food could quite literally be a deadly or near death experience.

They were not dominant in their domain and did not have the wherewithal to defend their territory. To the extent that they banded together to hunt or provide protection for the clan it stands to reason that those groups would function in one of two ways.

If it worked like a commune, most things would be shared. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't also share the sexual favour of the women in the group. I don't think there is a lot of time or energy to dwell on fidelity when you are just lucky to be alive and eating. Perhaps that is wrong and they did divide up into pairs. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this was the case. And the notion of a bunch of pre-historic people paired off in a cave respecting one another's space and relationships is right out of the Flintstones.

Alternatively it worked more like a pack. There would be one leader, the Alpha, and all others would do his bidding. He would almost certainly enjoy the sexual favour of all of the women in the pack and the other men would select from the remainder. Again we simply don't know but it seems most likely that in that arrangement the other men would not pair off with women that effectively belonged to the Alpha. At most there would be one dominant male per pack and the remainder shared.

In either scenario, there are no cops, or laws or modern justice. What does a macho man do when another bigger man from the clan or a competing clan grabs his "wife" and fucks her on the nearest rock? Nothing, that is what he does. He can accept it, leave or end up dead. That's it that's all. He doesn't have the wherewithal to dominant or defend his territory. He can't go buy a big truck or a gun or immerse himself in action movies or video games where he gets to pretend otherwise.

The notion that each man was individually dominant and territorial with his one monogamous woman by his side defies logic. It makes more sense that the strongest male would take his choice of women as has been the case for significant portions of recorded history. That then argues that caveman is not monogamous by nature and cavewoman never had any choice so we don't know what her nature is.

To the extent that women evolved one way or another, the single most compelling factor in that evolution was men who treated her like a possession. And with very few exceptions most of history involves active and overt efforts to control and limit female sexuality on a level and to a degree that strongly suggests men see that there is something to fear. That has built to the point where self-identified cavemen like the OP will resort to any sort of aggression necessary to preserve his delusions.

I never said all monogamous men are wife beaters. But yes men have consistently and systematically pressured women, through various means, into being what they want them to be. And yes it was only a very short time ago that hitting your wife for disobedience was accepted practice and it still is today in many parts of the world. And yes, many otherwise peaceable and non-violent men in today's society absolutely lose their shit at the merest suggestion that their wife/gf even has the capacity to enjoy sex with another man.

Even if we look at today's society and pretend as though the status of women is free of outside pressure.....guess what? We aren't all that monogamous. After all those millennia of trying to force us into compliance, what happens as soon as the threat of being stoned, beaten, jailed or dumped and left penniless and defenceless is lifted? We sow wild oats too. Isn't our actual behaviour the best evidence of what is natural? Many of us settle down into monogamous relationships for largely non-sexual reasons, but that is far from a universal outcome.

Like I said before the majority of men and women are monogamous. Some of that is built into our nature and some is a by-product of conditioning. But regardless of how prevalent each of us believes this attitude to be it is not universal. And regardless of how strongly the majority believe in this approach they are not entitled to impose it upon the minority. And in my view what we are seeing now is for the most part not a changing of attitude but a lifting of restraints.

 

[the captians wench]

I really shouldn't indulge this further but I can't resist one more comment. The whole portrayal of caveman is fictitious and ridiculous.

What little we know is that cavemen were hunter gatherers who lived in caves for relative safety. It is arguable that they were not the top of the food chain and if they were that position was tenuous at best. Venturing from the cave to get food could quite literally be a deadly or near death experience.

They were not dominant in their domain and did not have the wherewithal to defend their territory. To the extent that they banded together to hunt or provide protection for the clan it stands to reason that those groups would function in one of two ways.

If it worked like a commune, most things would be shared. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't also share the sexual favour of the women in the group. I don't think there is a lot of time or energy to dwell on fidelity when you are just lucky to be alive and eating. Perhaps that is wrong and they did divide up into pairs. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this was the case. And the notion of a bunch of pre-historic people paired off in a cave respecting one another's space and relationships is right out of the Flintstones.

Alternatively it worked more like a pack. There would be one leader, the Alpha, and all others would do his bidding. He would almost certainly enjoy the sexual favour of all of the women in the pack and the other men would select from the remainder. Again we simply don't know but it seems most likely that in that arrangement the other men would not pair off with women that effectively belonged to the Alpha. At most there would be one dominant male per pack and the remainder shared.

In either scenario, there are no cops, or laws or modern justice. What does a macho man do when another bigger man from the clan or a competing clan grabs his "wife" and fucks her on the nearest rock? Nothing, that is what he does. He can accept it, leave or end up dead. That's it that's all. He doesn't have the wherewithal to dominant or defend his territory. He can't go buy a big truck or a gun or immerse himself in action movies or video games where he gets to pretend otherwise.

The notion that each man was individually dominant and territorial with his one monogamous woman by his side defies logic. It makes more sense that the strongest male would take his choice of women as has been the case for significant portions of recorded history. That then argues that caveman is not monogamous by nature and cavewoman never had any choice so we don't know what her nature is.

To the extent that women evolved one way or another, the single most compelling factor in that evolution was men who treated her like a possession. And with very few exceptions most of history involves active and overt efforts to control and limit female sexuality on a level and to a degree that strongly suggests men see that there is something to fear. That has built to the point where self-identified cavemen like the OP will resort to any sort of aggression necessary to preserve his delusions.

I never said all monogamous men are wife beaters. But yes men have consistently and systematically pressured women, through various means, into being what they want them to be. And yes it was only a very short time ago that hitting your wife for disobedience was accepted practice and it still is today in many parts of the world. And yes, many otherwise peaceable and non-violent men in today's society absolutely lose their shit at the merest suggestion that their wife/gf even has the capacity to enjoy sex with another man.

Even if we look at today's society and pretend as though the status of women is free of outside pressure.....guess what? We aren't all that monogamous. After all those millennia of trying to force us into compliance, what happens as soon as the threat of being stoned, beaten, jailed or dumped and left penniless and defenceless is lifted? We sow wild oats too. Isn't our actual behaviour the best evidence of what is natural? Many of us settle down into monogamous relationships for largely non-sexual reasons, but that is far from a universal outcome.

Like I said before the majority of men and women are monogamous. Some of that is built into our nature and some is a by-product of conditioning. But regardless of how prevalent each of us believes this attitude to be it is not universal. And regardless of how strongly the majority believe in this approach they are not entitled to impose it upon the minority. And in my view what we are seeing now is for the most part not a changing of attitude but a lifting of restraints.

I read an article at some point that suggested it was more likely for "caveman" to have tried to mate with as many females as possible, in order to continue on his line. That it is some how "programmed" into men to do this (though why is unclear). How ever, "cavewoman" would have been more likely to have sought out one partner, the strongest, in order to find protection. The idea being that women are by ways of evolution, programmed to be monogamous, searching out the strongest male to father his children so that he would protect her.

I personally think that this had too many modern romantic notions of hunter gatherers to be realistic. It also gives the notion that women had a choice in the mater, which seems unlikely. Females are very easily over powered by males, so what she wanted was probably very low on the priorities list. The seeking protection through sex does seem to be plausible, but it seems like she would seek protection from the group rather than just one male. Lots of men willing to fight to keep you as their sex toy would have more muscle than just one.

 

[MissShelly]

Daddy and I are married and monogamous.
If people chose to be Poly, that's their choice and I respect it.
I personally, however, do not want another man touching me, and I sure as hell don't want another woman servicing him. He's MY Sir, MY husband and MY Daddy. Not sharing. Nope!

I have been told that I need to think of sharing "within the context of the lifestyle," and to think of it like, "You want to make your daddy happy." And that's fine, if that's the dynamic you (generic you) has. But it's not OUR dynamic, nor do I want it to be part of our dynamic.

I also know of another couple who is not in the lifestyle, but the wife has multiple partners. Her husband isn't crazy about it, but he lets her do it because it keeps her happy.

So... each dynamic and relationship is different. But as for me.. Nope. Not gonna happen. I'm not comfy with the idea and that's that.