Gentlemen: Can you explain the appeal of cuckolding?

[ReadyOne]

I'm looking for stories, or blogs, or other histories which match this pattern:

"Bull" is defined as a person who suborns the loyalty of a spouse, the other spouse being called a "cuckold" (or cuckquean). There is no antiquated term for the suborned spouse.

The suborned is captivated by the bull's charisma, and sexually craves the bull over the cuckold. This leads to the suborned taking control of the suborned-cuckold relationship so that the bull governs both suborned and cuckold.

This is a process. The suborned is seduced then enticed into a Dom/sub relationship with the bull.

The bull coaches the suborned how to take control of the suborned-cuckold relationship so the cuckold can also comply with the bull's instructions.

They further coerce the cuckold to submit to the bull's control.
___________________________________________________

From the Bull's point of view...

I saw this woman who really made an impression, and decided to add her to my stable. It took a bit of effort to overcome her devotion to her hubby but we finally made it to bed. The first time was impressive for her. She resisted a second time, knowing things would never be the same for her and hubby. But I got her surrender and there was no turning back.

She fell hard, and followed my instructions about grooming, clothing, meeting me at parties, risky business like sneaking off for a quickie while out with hubby, doing a mfm with my buddy and I, developing and releasing her inner slut.

When hubby noticed the changes in her behavior, I told her how to make him believe she was doing it for him, and dictate to him how to service her. Either for love or sex or both, he became her slave anytime she asked. We worked him into submission, sucking a dildo, spreading his ass cheeks, eating her out in public.

After he watched her give two friends of his a blowjob, she judged him ready. I had her demand a mfm, she to choose the second male, and he to obey in anything and everything. She had him subbing to me, and then I had them both subbing to me. They became my sexual toys.

There was a small crisis when she told him I was going to be an ongoing part of their life. But I prepared her to use sex as a weapon and a reward, and he
fell into line. Keeping their relationship going on my terms was worth more to him than breaking up their marriage.

A Bull is an Alpha.
________________________________________

Her view:

When the bull first talked to me, I paid attention to his body and his brain. The more we interacted, the more I responded. He talked me into a meeting for a drink, and then doing a couple of mini-dates. My body wanted him, and my head told me to get away fast. I lingered. Each time we met, I told myself "just a little". Each time became a little more, until the time he swept me off my feet into a hotel room.

There was lots of guilt, which I pushed back against so I could keep dating him. I kept telling him I was going to break it off and never stray again. But the time came I wanted him so bad that I said "two is better than one" and let him have me again, this time in his bedroom. When we finished, I had him, and I had him again, and finally he fucked me so I could barely walk. When I got home to hubby, I totally compartmentalized the bull away from hubby and started living a dual life.

My bull and I started a heavy affair. He told me how he wanted me, and I re-made myself to give him the best I could be. His pleasure discovering my saved pussy made me ecstatically happy, both emotionally and sexually. I changed my dress to show tits and ass at his command. A phone call would make me sneak away to meet him. Everything I did for him made him happy, which made me happy. I was in love as well as lust.

We talked about hubby noticing the new me. My bull told me how to convince hubby that my excitement was for hubby, and to provoke hubby's lust for me. My bull taught me how I should make hubby work for me, to express his love for me in service and worship of me. And my bull started me training my hubby to be ready to accept my bull as part of our sex life.

My bull also expanded my sexual horizon, put aside my fears of being an improper woman and be a truly sexual woman. I knew I'd made the grade when I got a hubby and a couple of his friends together and gave them all good oral sex. Getting hubby to agree to a mfm on my terms was the pièce de résistance.

That encounter, and a followup, shook hubby up a bit. He did things he thought he'd never do, though he was just fine while they were happening. We worked through that, and then the "big one" hit.

My bull sat down with hubby and I and explained that hubby was being cuckolded, in the old sense of the word. My bull had been calling the shots for quite a while, and my bull was formally taking charge. Hubby would get from me according to my bull's desire, and my bull would get from me whatever my bull wanted.

Hubby and I worked it through. Staying together was worth more to him than cutting me off from my bull. I got the best of two worlds.

I still love my hubby, even though the sexual dynamic turned inside out. He gets everything I'm allowed to let him have. And after my bull has taken his turn with us, that's quite a bit.

And while I now know I'm just one in my bull's stable, I love him beyond the sexual relationship. He's such a potent man, both in and out of bed. He can love many, and I'm proud to be one of his.

 

[SlutAddicted]

SA - just out of interest's sake, why are you so keen on adopting the identity if the element of inferiority isn't there for you? I mean, it would be easy for me to identify as 'a submissive', but I don't, because there are elements of generally accepted definition of the term that aren't applicable to me. I can't actually change the accepted definition ... because, you know, it's accepted. So I just don't identify with the term. It's a lot easier for me to be flexible than expect the English language to change to accommodate me.

Hi Kim,

I think I mainly just like debating. And when people trot out "alternative facts" or claim to be the authority for all of mankind I can't resist the urge to say something.

My point is not to twist the meaning of the word cuckold to what I want it to be but to make the point that others are twisting it to what they believe it to be.

In your example you are applying your own assessment of whether or not your are submissive. You know full well that it isn't a crisp and narrowly defined term. You are applying reasoned judgment to your situation and I accept it as such. But I would wager a notable sum of money that if I tried to tell you whether or not your were submissive based upon one characteristic and claimed to be the authority on what you are or are not, your response would be rather less accommodating.

As PW noted above, there are far more variations than available labels. The way you describe your husband makes perfect sense to me. But in our case we have the vast majority of characteristics that one would associate with hot wife and cuckold - she dates other men, she rules our sex life, I am submissive, I facilitate her dates and in fact I often role play the lesser man and indulge in and crave the various bi-sexual and submissive activities that people associate with the cuckold. But I don't have a tiny dick and when I do have sex it seems that my sexual performance is perfectly adequate.

Now among all that to pick up on the one point that I am not in fact incapable of providing sexual pleasure or am not notably inferior in that department as the one defining feature seems rather spurious.

I am not seeking to change the "accepted" definition of cuckold. I am reading it as I understand it having sought clarity, diligently and intelligently. And I am applying it to my situation based upon a complete and reasoned assessment. I respect that others have a different view and as you know I consider opinions on their merit. My own assessment is that sexual inferiority is not THE defining characteristic of a cuckold.

Why would you assume that I have been any less rigorous or honest in my pursuit of truth and fact than you are when you refer to the "accepted" definition of submissive? You know I listen to reason rather than just hanging on for the sake of being right. You are a reasoned commentator. What is your basis for concluding that sexual inferiority is beyond doubt integral to the "accepted" definition of cuckold to the point that you are confident in insinuating that I am trying to change language to accommodate me?

 

[scott6251]

I'm really not worried about a label. Everyone's situation is different. Due to age/medical issues, I don't stay as hard as long as I used to. However, my wife does not complain about my performance - indeed, she loves how I get her off orally. I am happy to be in the role of satisfying her that way, and others, and letting her enjoy intercourse with someone bigger who lasts longer. IF we ever get to that point - she's not into the idea - then we'd have the issue of finding the right guy anyway. So for now it's a fantasy.

We were separated for a couple of years, and during that time she had a bf. He changed her sexually. Maybe she got it out of her system, who knows. She seems to be satisfied. I'm the one who wants more for her. And, honestly, I get off knowing what she did with the bf. She has been open about their relationship. That's the attraction of her getting some on the side for me - I'd get the details. 'Pillow talk' is hot for us because of her experiences. I'd like some new stories is all!

 

[policywank]

As long as we are debating nebulous definitions, can anybody explain to me what it means to be sexually inferior?

Is clitoral stimulation inferior to vaginal stimulation?

Do we measure orgasms by intensity, duration, frequency?

What does size have to do with it?

Is an inferior man simply unable to get a woman to orgasm by any means?

Is a slow burn better or worse than a sharp climax and decline?

I know several men that are able to bring me pleasure in completely different ways. Each suits certain circumstances and moods. One of them is my husband.

I had no idea they needed to be ranked and that my relationship status/label was dependent upon my husband ranking last. Maybe I should cut him off entirely. That way I won't have to get confused in case he happens to pull off a good one. Or is there a committee I can submit to who will tell me what I am.....

 

[blowit]

As long as we are debating nebulous definitions, can anybody explain to me what it means to be sexually inferior?

Is clitoral stimulation inferior to vaginal stimulation?

Do we measure orgasms by intensity, duration, frequency?

What does size have to do with it?

Is an inferior man simply unable to get a woman to orgasm by any means?

Is a slow burn better or worse than a sharp climax and decline?

I know several men that are able to bring me pleasure in completely different ways. Each suits certain circumstances and moods. One of them is my husband.

I had no idea they needed to be ranked and that my relationship status/label was dependent upon my husband ranking last. Maybe I should cut him off entirely. That way I won't have to get confused in case he happens to pull off a good one. Or is there a committee I can submit to who will tell me what I am.....

Bloody brilliant. Please accept the prize of the internet for a whole day

 

[geronimo_appleby]

That just isn't accurate. A cuckold isn't unaware by definition. I don't have any strong feelings about which term anybody uses. But this particular debate seems to be characterized by people overlaying their own assumptions.

At its root the word cuckold means a man whose wife is fucking other men. And wittol is a cuckold who is accepting of his wife's sexuality. All the rest is opinion and preference.

Many words are effectively defined or redefined by their popular usage quite apart from original definitions. IMO as stated above this word is really just coming back into usage either as a fetish or pejorative. This debate itself demonstrates that no concensus has formed.....unless a plurality of porn websites represents consensus. If we are going to reach for a broadly accepted current definition Google probably comes closer than Lit to that standard - Google the two words and you will find what I have said above.

i checked before i posted; so i still stand by what i've written. ergo, it isn't an assumption.

 

[MilkFountain]

A cuckold isn't unaware by definition. I don't have any strong feelings about which term anybody uses. But this particular debate seems to be characterized by people overlaying their own assumptions.

At its root the word cuckold means a man whose wife is fucking other men. And wittol is a cuckold who is accepting of his wife's sexuality. All the rest is opinion and preference.

Nice try, but . . . CUCKOLD does not imply anyone other than the couple is aware of the wife's infidelty. However, the word arose precisely because of society's interest in the phenomenon. in common pre-Middle-Ages British culture, came out of the public's interest in each other's affairs.

MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY: "Definition of cuckold:

:a man whose wife is unfaithful"

Definition of unfaithful:
a :not adhering to vows, allegiance, or duty :disloyal an unfaithful friend
b :not faithful to marriage vows.

Further, if wittol means the man accepts his wife's infidelity, then the only possible meaning of cuckold is of a man who suffers for it, knowingly or not. In both cases he is the butt of public derision, a laughing stock.

consensus arises from an agreed-upon platform. For communication's sake -- and this entire thread screams for it -- the difference between cuckold and wittol are the starting point. It is not a matter of knowing or not, it is a matter of acceptance or not.

To continue this conversation -- nay, to enjoy it! We must be on the same page. If you have an opinion about your relationship, whether you understand others' take on it, at least state your opinion clearly. Do we want to understand and celebrate or commiserate with each other, or not?

 

[policywank]

SA - just out of interest's sake, why are you so keen on adopting the identity if the element of inferiority isn't there for you? I mean, it would be easy for me to identify as 'a submissive', but I don't, because there are elements of generally accepted definition of the term that aren't applicable to me. I can't actually change the accepted definition ... because, you know, it's accepted. So I just don't identify with the term. It's a lot easier for me to be flexible than expect the English language to change to accommodate me.

So if a woman cheats on her husband for love, lust, revenge, money, power, convenience, curiosity or any reason whatsoever other than her husband's sexual inadequacy he is not a cuckold? I think maybe you are the one trying to bend the language to accommodate you.

 

[policywank]

Nice try, but . . . CUCKOLD does not imply anyone other than the couple is aware of the wife's infidelty. However, the word arose precisely because of society's interest in the phenomenon. in common pre-Middle-Ages British culture, came out of the public's interest in each other's affairs.

MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY: "Definition of cuckold:

:a man whose wife is unfaithful"

Definition of unfaithful:
a :not adhering to vows, allegiance, or duty :disloyal an unfaithful friend
b :not faithful to marriage vows.

Further, if wittol means the man accepts his wife's infidelity, then the only possible meaning of cuckold is of a man who suffers for it, knowingly or not. In both cases he is the butt of public derision, a laughing stock.

consensus arises from an agreed-upon platform. For communication's sake -- and this entire thread screams for it -- the difference between cuckold and wittol are the starting point. It is not a matter of knowing or not, it is a matter of acceptance or not.

To continue this conversation -- nay, to enjoy it! We must be on the same page. If you have an opinion about your relationship, whether you understand others' take on it, at least state your opinion clearly. Do we want to understand and celebrate or commiserate with each other, or not?

To clarify my position on your your opening point..., Geronimo made the claim that a cuckold is by definition unaware of his wife's infidelity. My sentence was awkwardly worded but my only point was to refute that claim. To my understanding whether a man is a cuckold is unrelated to whether he or anyone else knows about it.

As to the difference between cuckold and wittol that was addressed above. Wittol is a hyponym or subset of cuckold. So as noted a wittol is a type of cuckold like a panther is a type of feline or a spoon is a type of cutlery. It is a more specific version. So all wittols are cuckolds but not all cuckolds are wittols.

So I would say my husband is both a cuckold and wittol.

The debate that has been raging her surrounds the wife's motivation for having sex with other men. Specifically it has been asserted that the husband of an unfaithful wife is only a cuckold (or wittol) if her reason for being unfaithful is her husband's sexual inferiority. My contention is that what makes him a cuckold is the fact of her infidelity. And what makes him a wittol (type of cuckold) is his acceptance of her infidelity. The reason for her infidelity doesn't enter into it.

 

[Clem99]

You guys are waaaaay overthinking this.

It's fun.

The end.

 

[KimGordon67]

Hi Kim,

I think I mainly just like debating. And when people trot out "alternative facts" or claim to be the authority for all of mankind I can't resist the urge to say something.

My point is not to twist the meaning of the word cuckold to what I want it to be but to make the point that others are twisting it to what they believe it to be.

In your example you are applying your own assessment of whether or not your are submissive. You know full well that it isn't a crisp and narrowly defined term. You are applying reasoned judgment to your situation and I accept it as such. But I would wager a notable sum of money that if I tried to tell you whether or not your were submissive based upon one characteristic and claimed to be the authority on what you are or are not, your response would be rather less accommodating.

As PW noted above, there are far more variations than available labels. The way you describe your husband makes perfect sense to me. But in our case we have the vast majority of characteristics that one would associate with hot wife and cuckold - she dates other men, she rules our sex life, I am submissive, I facilitate her dates and in fact I often role play the lesser man and indulge in and crave the various bi-sexual and submissive activities that people associate with the cuckold. But I don't have a tiny dick and when I do have sex it seems that my sexual performance is perfectly adequate.

Now among all that to pick up on the one point that I am not in fact incapable of providing sexual pleasure or am not notably inferior in that department as the one defining feature seems rather spurious.

I am not seeking to change the "accepted" definition of cuckold. I am reading it as I understand it having sought clarity, diligently and intelligently. And I am applying it to my situation based upon a complete and reasoned assessment. I respect that others have a different view and as you know I consider opinions on their merit. My own assessment is that sexual inferiority is not THE defining characteristic of a cuckold.

Why would you assume that I have been any less rigorous or honest in my pursuit of truth and fact than you are when you refer to the "accepted" definition of submissive? You know I listen to reason rather than just hanging on for the sake of being right. You are a reasoned commentator. What is your basis for concluding that sexual inferiority is beyond doubt integral to the "accepted" definition of cuckold to the point that you are confident in insinuating that I am trying to change language to accommodate me?

So the bolded points above would tend to suggest you are adopting an 'inferior' or 'submissive' position that is commonly associated with the term. I didn't say sexually inferior, and I certainly didn't say anything about penis size, probably because I don't think that indicates inferiority.

Possibly at it's root definition 'cuckold' does just mean a man who's wife has sex with other men. However, I think the attached implication of (perceived) inferiority is an important aspect of the term because, as I noted above, it's otherwise just a synonym for a whole raft of other terms. It's about as useful as say every man who has sex with another man is a gay man - that's simply not the case.

Language isn't really the place to seek truth or fact. We do/believe/feel X, Y, and Z - that's the truth/fact - and then we find the identity/term/concept that best fits that set of activities/beliefs/feelings. But there needs to be some agreement about what the identity/term/concept means or otherwise words are meaningless.
Of course, language does change, but the change can't be made at an individual level - we can't individually will a word to mean something out. Language only works through common agreement. In this instance, if there are plenty of other terms to accommodate the general concept of 'a man who's wife sleeps with other men', I can't see the point of expanding the meaning of 'cuckold'. It has quite a nice and relatively specific purpose that usually works fairly well - why can't we just leave it to do it's job?

 

[KimGordon67]

That just isn't accurate. A cuckold isn't unaware by definition. I don't have any strong feelings about which term anybody uses. But this particular debate seems to be characterized by people overlaying their own assumptions.

At its root the word cuckold means a man whose wife is fucking other men. And wittol is a cuckold who is accepting of his wife's sexuality. All the rest is opinion and preference.

Many words are effectively defined or redefined by their popular usage quite apart from original definitions. IMO as stated above this word is really just coming back into usage either as a fetish or pejorative. This debate itself demonstrates that no concensus has formed.....unless a plurality of porn websites represents consensus. If we are going to reach for a broadly accepted current definition Google probably comes closer than Lit to that standard - Google the two words and you will find what I have said above.

Pretty much every discussion I could find online regarding the term 'cuckold' incorporated an aspect of some sort of inferiority or submission.

 

[KimGordon67]

So if a woman cheats on her husband for love, lust, revenge, money, power, convenience, curiosity or any reason whatsoever other than her husband's sexual inadequacy he is not a cuckold? I think maybe you are the one trying to bend the language to accommodate you.

Again, as I noted just above, I personally don't bring sexual inadequacy into the equation. I tend to agree with most of the online discussion that 'cuckold' does necessarily imply some sort of (perceived) inferiority or submissiveness. The bolded situations above would tend to come into that definition. I would also suggest that in some situations, the inferiority could simply be that he's not happy about it but she keeps on doing it anyway - again, that would suggest a certain degree of something like inferiority within the relationship I suspect once 'cuckold' becomes a kink, the (perceived) inferiority handily shifts into the sexual, to up the sexual ante a bit.

I'm actually being very precise with my language - hence the fact that I've not referred to sexual inferiority, nor suggested that a small penis is an indicator of anything other than have a small penis. (In fact, I didn't bring penises into the discussion at all.)

 

[scott6251]

You guys are waaaaay overthinking this.

It's fun.

The end.

Absolutely!

 

[KimGordon67]

So if a woman cheats on her husband for love, lust, revenge, money, power, convenience, curiosity or any reason whatsoever other than her husband's sexual inadequacy he is not a cuckold? I think maybe you are the one trying to bend the language to accommodate you.

In fact, on reflection, I'm not even sure the woman's motivation is relevant - it's how the man feels that is one of the defining aspects. e.g. a friend of mine cheated on her husband for a whole range of reasons, but when he found out, he actually said something along the lines of he'd been 'cuckolded', because he felt that it was an indicator of some inadequacy on his part. My husband, in the same situation, doesn't feel that.
That could, of course, be substituted by the social belittling that apparently used to happen, but I'm not sure that's the case any more.


Also, if we're going to say a 'cuckold' is any man who's wife is having sex with other men, that also encompasses every hetero man living in a poly relationship. I don't buy that at all.

 

[policywank]

In fact, on reflection, I'm not even sure the woman's motivation is relevant - it's how the man feels that is one of the defining aspects. e.g. a friend of mine cheated on her husband for a whole range of reasons, but when he found out, he actually said something along the lines of he'd been 'cuckolded', because he felt that it was an indicator of some inadequacy on his part. My husband, in the same situation, doesn't feel that.
That could, of course, be substituted by the social belittling that apparently used to happen, but I'm not sure that's the case any more.


Also, if we're going to say a 'cuckold' is any man who's wife is having sex with other men, that also encompasses every hetero man living in a poly relationship. I don't buy that at all.

We are not so far off from agreement. As you noted above the woman's motivation is irrelevant to the definition. By extension his sexual adequacy is also irrelevant to the definition.

Now the historical definition assumed the man was the object of derision and scorn. The citation I am looking at used the words "often regarded as an object of derision". So in the historical context people assumed this to be a source of humiliation. That doesn't compel the man to feel humiliated. In the same era they might have assumed homosexuality to be a mental disorder. I would argue that both assumptions are based upon contextual inferences and not part of the definition. A man whose wife was cheating on him in 1850 was no less a cuckold if he didn't accept society's view of the situation.

If you accept that, then the historical definition is simply that of a man whose wife is fucking someone else. The "why" doesn't enter into it.

So how do we apply that to modern times? I agree that a man in an open or poly relationship is not a cuckold. I have no basis for that view, it just doesn't seem to fit. Beyond that we are into anecdotal observation and opinion about what I have argued is an evolving definition. Keep in mind that we are still in an era where very few people are willing to accept the premise of a non-monogamous wife and the few that do accept her, insist that the relationship must be poly in both directions. The whole topic area is loaded with assumptions and ingrained bias. I do not believe we can clearly say that a consensus exists.

So concepts of inferiority, submissiveness and relationship asymmetry are all part of the mix. And I must emphasize that inferiority and submissiveness are very different things. I don't want to digress too much and I get out of my depth in Ds culture. But it seems to me that a Sub is a Sub because they accept a certain role not because they are inferior or lesser in ability.

My comments and those of SA clearly accept all three possible elements. My oft repeated point has simply been that being inferior or lesser "in the bedroom" is not unto itself THE defining characteristic.

A strong man can choose to accept a submissive role without being inferior. And in my view a man can accept the role of submissive cuckold in an asymmetrical relationship. Both roles are valid based upon the man's choice to play a certain role regardless of whether or not he is capable of more.

 

[policywank]

Pretty much every discussion I could find online regarding the term 'cuckold' incorporated an aspect of some sort of inferiority or submission.

The key word there being "or". I have described a situation where my husband is clearly submissive.....by choice not because he inferior in any way.

 

[whenagain]

Not too much to add except this thread is really hot.

 

[littlecordelera]

So all those miles of above discussion validated what I originally said: a guy who is aroused by feeling less capable than his wife's lover is a cuckold. The volumes of discussion about whether or not the husband is inadequate is irrelevant, as is any discussion about the wife's feelings.

 

[sterculius]

Although outwardly I appear to the world as being quite macho and masculine, in reality I feel very insecure because of my abnormally small penis. As a young man I became my best friend's personal cocksucker because his cock was so much larger and more virile than mine in spite of the fact that he was both younger and less muscular than me. It excited me to let him make fun of my smaller equipment and he instilled in me a desire to feel humiliated and denigrated. I've always been attracted to women who have reputations as being sluts and this was a factor in my first wife's infidelities. Her behavior reinforced my sense of sexual inadequacy. I would masturbate whenever she was out late getting fucked by her numerous lovers. It aroused me to know she sexually preferred other men over me. I was a willing "cuckold".

 

[SlutAddicted]

So all those miles of above discussion validated what I originally said: a guy who is aroused by feeling less capable than his wife's lover is a cuckold. The volumes of discussion about whether or not the husband is inadequate is irrelevant, as is any discussion about the wife's feelings.

Again I will respectfully disagree. And I think maybe one of the elements that addresses the difference is to whom is the cuckold submissive or inferior. I am both to my wife and neither to my wife's lovers.

The stereotype of the modern cuckold fetish is that of the superior "bull" pushing the cuckold aside and claiming the wife's sex. But to me that is all part of a flawed male centric view of the world that holds men as superior. Women will swoon for a "real" man and any man who cannot please his wife to the point that she would never want another must be a "lesser" man.

In our relationship (credit to PW from whom I am borrowing many concepts) it is my wife who is sexually superior to me and her lovers. She can satisfy each of our sexual needs while no one of us can fully satisfy hers. When she brings a man to our bed it is her who dispatches me to the spare room (and no not according to his command). And she will just as easily send him on his way when she chooses. It is her rocking his world in the next room. He is not the conquering stud to a grateful unsatisfied wife - he is a man who knows he is lucky to be there and can be replaced easily.

I am basking in my wife's sexual prerogative and superiority not that of another man. Each man she takes (including me) is arguably "better" to the others in his own unique way. My pleasure is in being inferior and submissive to her.....not them. She regards me as first among equals all of whom are there at her pleasure.

So my wife fucks other guys. There are elements of submission and inferiority. I only engage with other women as she allows. I am every bit a cuckold and wittol. The only reason we don't fit your description is because our choices don't revolve around finding a superior man. They revolve around recognizing the sexual prerogative and superiority of women.

I am not capable of fulfilling all my wife's needs (as are many men whether they admit it or not). Her lovers are in the same boat which is why she hasn't chosen just one mythical stud. My capabilities relative to my wife's lovers don't enter into it.

I have had this discussion with many cuckolds whose primary focus is there wife's sexuality. They (we) thrive on the notion of a sexually liberated and voracious women. For us its more about the depth of her desire and the willingness to pursue it than whether another man can fulfill her more adequately. There are those for whom a "better" man is part of the appeal as well. But it isn't that linear or one dimensional. That is where we differ.

 

[KimGordon67]

We are not so far off from agreement. As you noted above the woman's motivation is irrelevant to the definition. By extension his sexual adequacy is also irrelevant to the definition.

Now the historical definition assumed the man was the object of derision and scorn. The citation I am looking at used the words "often regarded as an object of derision". So in the historical context people assumed this to be a source of humiliation. That doesn't compel the man to feel humiliated. In the same era they might have assumed homosexuality to be a mental disorder. I would argue that both assumptions are based upon contextual inferences and not part of the definition. A man whose wife was cheating on him in 1850 was no less a cuckold if he didn't accept society's view of the situation.

If you accept that, then the historical definition is simply that of a man whose wife is fucking someone else. The "why" doesn't enter into it.

So how do we apply that to modern times? I agree that a man in an open or poly relationship is not a cuckold. I have no basis for that view, it just doesn't seem to fit. Beyond that we are into anecdotal observation and opinion about what I have argued is an evolving definition. Keep in mind that we are still in an era where very few people are willing to accept the premise of a non-monogamous wife and the few that do accept her, insist that the relationship must be poly in both directions. The whole topic area is loaded with assumptions and ingrained bias. I do not believe we can clearly say that a consensus exists.

So concepts of inferiority, submissiveness and relationship asymmetry are all part of the mix. And I must emphasize that inferiority and submissiveness are very different things. I don't want to digress too much and I get out of my depth in Ds culture. But it seems to me that a Sub is a Sub because they accept a certain role not because they are inferior or lesser in ability.

My comments and those of SA clearly accept all three possible elements. My oft repeated point has simply been that being inferior or lesser "in the bedroom" is not unto itself THE defining characteristic.

A strong man can choose to accept a submissive role without being inferior. And in my view a man can accept the role of submissive cuckold in an asymmetrical relationship. Both roles are valid based upon the man's choice to play a certain role regardless of whether or not he is capable of more.

I think that while the historical definition is clearly not so relevant in the contemporary era, where we'd be unlikely to see a 'cheated upon' man as the subject of derision (but more like rage towards his wife, and maybe pity for him). However, I think the implication of inferiority has stuck to the word ... and again, pretty much every site I saw that discussed the term contained that component. In same cases, it did seem overly specific (e.g. sexual inadequacy), but the inferiority aspect is such a common theme that I don't think we can ignore it just because it's not part of the original definition ... the implication got 'stuck' to the word over time, it's just shifted a bit in terms of how its conceptualised.

Sorry, I didn't really 'submissive' in the d/s sense of the word. More just within the relationship (e.g. inclined to leave decisions to the other, etc). It was a poor word choice, given the present context. What I was thinking of does, as you've suggested, imply an asymmetrical relationship, but I definitely didn't meant in the d/s sense of the term.

 

[KimGordon67]

So all those miles of above discussion validated what I originally said: a guy who is aroused by feeling less capable than his wife's lover is a cuckold. The volumes of discussion about whether or not the husband is inadequate is irrelevant, as is any discussion about the wife's feelings.

I'd go with that - it's why I said 'perceived' inferiority ... it's such a subjective concept anyway. Some guys with small doodle might feel inferior, but I've yet to meet a guy with a small doodle who wasn't actually an awesome lover.
However, see blow in terms of the 'wife's lover' component, which I'm not sure is relevant ... until SA brought it up, I hadn't really thought about that, but in going back through my posts, interestingly I'd barely mentioned the 'other' man.

 

[KimGordon67]

Again I will respectfully disagree. And I think maybe one of the elements that addresses the difference is to whom is the cuckold submissive or inferior. I am both to my wife and neither to my wife's lovers.

The stereotype of the modern cuckold fetish is that of the superior "bull" pushing the cuckold aside and claiming the wife's sex. But to me that is all part of a flawed male centric view of the world that holds men as superior. Women will swoon for a "real" man and any man who cannot please his wife to the point that she would never want another must be a "lesser" man.

In our relationship (credit to PW from whom I am borrowing many concepts) it is my wife who is sexually superior to me and her lovers. She can satisfy each of our sexual needs while no one of us can fully satisfy hers. When she brings a man to our bed it is her who dispatches me to the spare room (and no not according to his command). And she will just as easily send him on his way when she chooses. It is her rocking his world in the next room. He is not the conquering stud to a grateful unsatisfied wife - he is a man who knows he is lucky to be there and can be replaced easily.

I am basking in my wife's sexual prerogative and superiority not that of another man. Each man she takes (including me) is arguably "better" to the others in his own unique way. My pleasure is in being inferior and submissive to her.....not them. She regards me as first among equals all of whom are there at her pleasure.

So my wife fucks other guys. There are elements of submission and inferiority. I only engage with other women as she allows. I am every bit a cuckold and wittol. The only reason we don't fit your description is because our choices don't revolve around finding a superior man. They revolve around recognizing the sexual prerogative and superiority of women.

I am not capable of fulfilling all my wife's needs (as are many men whether they admit it or not). Her lovers are in the same boat which is why she hasn't chosen just one mythical stud. My capabilities relative to my wife's lovers don't enter into it.

I have had this discussion with many cuckolds whose primary focus is there wife's sexuality. They (we) thrive on the notion of a sexually liberated and voracious women. For us its more about the depth of her desire and the willingness to pursue it than whether another man can fulfill her more adequately. There are those for whom a "better" man is part of the appeal as well. But it isn't that linear or one dimensional. That is where we differ.

I realise you're responding to Cordelera, but none of my posts even mentioned the other guy (with the possible exception of the example of my friend, and I guess my own husband, because there are specific other guys involved). I'm not sure that 'inferior' has to be in relation to others ... it can just be a generalised feeling. Again, so much of what you're saying encapsulates precisely that. Re: the bolded point above - although you say the 'inferiority' is in relation to her, do you think you'd feel the same if she was only having sex with you?

 

[SlutAddicted]

I realise you're responding to Cordelera, but none of my posts even mentioned the other guy (with the possible exception of the example of my friend, and I guess my own husband, because there are specific other guys involved). I'm not sure that 'inferior' has to be in relation to others ... it can just be a generalised feeling. Again, so much of what you're saying encapsulates precisely that. Re: the bolded point above - although you say the 'inferiority' is in relation to her, do you think you'd feel the same if she was only having sex with you?

The fact that she has sex with others does heighten for me the perception and feeling of her superior sexuality because she can easily please more than one man. I think I would likely feel inferior if we were exclusive but the difference would be less evident.

Men seem to love the proposition of fucking a women until she can't take any more .....not just until she is satisfied but until it's just too much for her. Physiology suggests that it is much more likely to be the other way around. One of my favourite experiences is seeing my wife fuck a man until he is done then effortlessly move on to another or go out on a date - not ruffled or used up but fresh and energetic as ever. I am often one of those men and where I am in her order doesn't matter. There is no ego in taking her first or another being required to finish what I could not or being the one who finishes what others could not. I have favourites but it's always about her sexual superiority to all of her lovers including me.