policywank
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Posts
- 3,241
Apart from the last two sentences I agree with everything you say.
In my opinion, drawn from reading a lot of ancient erotica going back to the 17th century, there has never been an age where "consensual non-monogamy without humiliation" has not existed. I believe it's a practice that probably dates back to the invention of monogamy itself.
Agreed. I suppose that there have always been a wide variety of people. But I think that for my argument the relevant consideration is whether those that choose such a different lifestyle were readily accepted in those times.
Even now we know there are many non-monogamous couples including couples where only one partner is non-monogamous. And there are people who simply can't accept the reality that there isn't some dysfunction or humiliation involved. That doesn't make it true. My point about the past is that (purely my supposition) when the word "cuckold" came into usage was a period where a large proportion of society would have assumed that there must be humiliation involved no matter how the couple felt. The point isn't that their assumptions were true only that they were widely held and dictated how people regarded the matter.
We see this dynamic on many topics. Many people I know believe that a slut is not only a woman who has many casual sexual partners but that she is also non-discriminating and doing it for the wrong reasons. Even the definition I just looked up says "a woman who has many casual sexual partners" but then goes on to include "prostitute" and "whore" as synonyms. The truth is there are sexually active women who meet that basic definition of "slut" who are discriminating (I fuck a lot of guys but they are all ones I like and choose and I don't fuck any guy), don't do it for money, aren't seeking validation and do not feel that they are unclean or degraded.
The distortion or embellishment of the "slut" definition even today derives from consensus attitudes not realities.