Why is there so much cuckoldry in the BDSM community?

[Bramblethorn]

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 wish people would just learn that it's okay to say "I like the idea of nonmonogamy!" (and for others to say "Not for me!") without having to come up with an ideology to justify it as the One True Path.

 

[midwestyankee]

I wish people would just learn that it's okay to say "I like the idea of nonmonogamy!" (and for others to say "Not for me!") without having to come up with an ideology to justify it as the One True Path.

Quoted for truth. And it's not just non-monogamy that should be treated this way. So much of BDSM practice has developed into a minor religion; sometimes I feel like I am expected to genuflect before signing out of certain threads.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[policywank]

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.

I have seen a lot of those theories. The one that resonates with me is that women obviously have a different role in child rearing and an attachment to the child so she would naturally seek protection and stability. But that is where I think a lot of the theory goes off the rails because it is rooted in an attempt to justify modern perspectives (as you said).

First of all monogamy would only offer stability and safety relative to having no man at all. Being the monogamous partner of the weakest guy in the clan would not be much better. If this was her paramount concern wouldn't she drop whatever man she is with for a stronger man when the opportunity arose? I suppose only attaching to one man at a time is technically monogamous but she is hardly committed.

Secondly the sexual math doesn't work. Assuming there are roughly the same number of both genders, if all men fuck 10 different women to spread their seed that means each woman has been fucked by 10 different men. That might be skewed toward the more appealing women but it doesn't work out to monogamy whether she wants to be or not. Maybe she knows damn well she is going to get fucked by all 10 and that is what she wants (either for desire or to obtain the best genes for her offspring). She need not endanger herself by saying so because it is going to happen anyway.

In my view, all of these theories are based upon the same premise as evolution. We adapt to our environment in order to survive. That being the case we cannot logically overlook the fact that jealous violent and possessive men are part of our environment.

In that vein, here is a theory that will raise some hackles. Maybe women have adapted by learning to hide our sexual activity. Think about the cavewoman and the sexual math. She knows she is better off with a single protector but she knows other men will take her sex anyway. Does she tell her "husband" who ends up dead after challenging the interloper or takes his frustration out on her because he knows he can't challenge the interloper? Does she try to pair off with the interloper who has no interest in being her one and only? No she clings to the man who provides some protection and keeps fucking the other man to maintain stability. She lies and fucks, not because she is a bad person but because that is the only way to survive and protect her children.

This scenario might even suggest that the modern notion of monogamy is not an extension of the natural trend but an effort to adjust a distinctly non-monogamous evolution. Once the 9 out of 10 guys who aren't the alpha got a bit of authority through collective action they would want to stop the plunder of their women and rations. But that is what serves their purpose.......not necessarily the women's. She still wants to find the optimal mate and would be drawn to whomever she sees as that mate. And let's face it while we all have our right fit, take 10 guys and 10 gals and ask the women who they view as the best mate.....several of the men will be left out and whomever ends up with those guys may well keep herself available for the preferred mate.

Or that is all horseshit but no worse than the nonsense being put forward by the OP.

 

[MissShelly]

I wish people would just learn that it's okay to say "I like the idea of nonmonogamy!" (and for others to say "Not for me!") without having to come up with an ideology to justify it as the One True Path.

Well, I hope I made you happy.

 

[MissShelly]

I wish people would just learn that it's okay to say "I like the idea of nonmonogamy!" (and for others to say "Not for me!") without having to come up with an ideology to justify it as the One True Path.

On the flip side though, I get tired of being told that we're not "doing it right." Because my dynamic is not your (generic "your") dynamic. Or because the tasks my Daddy give me are not the things your Dom would tell you to do.

 

[the captians wench]

On the flip side though, I get tired of being told that we're not "doing it right." Because my dynamic is not your (generic "your") dynamic. Or because the tasks my Daddy give me are not the things your Dom would tell you to do.

Yeah, this happens.

I was very lucky in that the family that I fell into, who showed me the dark side, were very open and accepting people. I was not into the idea of sharing at all then. (of course I was coming out of a marriage that broke up partially because he fucked another woman) I was very much subject to the green eyed monster.

However, they were in a house that believed what the PYL wants, he gets. This meant that he could fuck whom ever, when ever he wanted. For the most part, the house slave was fine with this. She wanted her owner to be happy, and if that made him happy then she would deal. Now her owner was a good guy and would let her play with fellas that he approved of and worked to let her know that she was number one in his world. They also never made me feel bad about not liking the idea of sharing my owner with any one else, not that I had one at the time.

While I haven't seen this push for guys sharing their girls, I have seen a lot of this push to accept guys having loads of girls. Either way, (or neither) you shouldn't have to feel like you have to accept something just because "that's the way" what ever.

Seriously, what ever makes you happy.

 

[thelaughingcat]

Quoted for truth. And it's not just non-monogamy that should be treated this way. So much of BDSM practice has developed into a minor religion; sometimes I feel like I am expected to genuflect before signing out of certain threads.

*laughs* This. So this ^^^.

 

[Bramblethorn]

On the flip side though, I get tired of being told that we're not "doing it right." Because my dynamic is not your (generic "your") dynamic. Or because the tasks my Daddy give me are not the things your Dom would tell you to do.

Oh yeah. That's a big part of why I dislike it when people try to turn their personal preferences into an ideology, because from there it's a short step to trying to impose it on everybody else.

 

[tristantrotsky]

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...

I do wonder Paintergirl, if the circumstances were right, and the mood was right… and just maybe, the guy you happened to find yourself with was right, if you could not be beguiled away into an illicit passion…? We are, after all, genetically programmed for pleasure too...

 

[SlutAddicted]

Most of the people I know who are firmly in favour of monogamy, have little or no opportunity to have sex with others anyway.

Remember when Tiger Woods cheated. Everyone jumped on him for his moral transgression. But when the furor died down people started to make the counter point. Really.....if multiple gorgeous women greeted each man every day as we left your place of work and offered no strings attached sex, none of us would partake? Ya, right. I don't know how many of us would but it would be a lot.

We talk about the beneficial trade-offs we make for monogamy and that is all fine and legitimate. But let's be realistic. A lot (the majority?) of guys and gals just aren't that attractive or adventurous so its monogamous and married or alone. And of the women who are attractive enough to attract men, many simply are not willing to deal with the judgment and vagaries of the dating scene. For all of those people there is no trade-off because they aren't giving anything up.

If we could make everyone attractive and easily able to find sexual partners who are open-minded and non-judgmental in a society where being sexually active doesn't come with a stigma, the commitment to monogamy would be substantially diluted.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[tristantrotsky]

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...

Paintergirl, I would suggest that, in evolutionary terms, the Selfish Gene aspect argues very much in favor of promiscuity as the natural state of humankind, the male hardwired to spread his seed as wide as possible to maximize the chances of his genetic continuity, and the female - while taking advantage of pair-bonding security of a convenient provider-protector, also furtively takes multiple partners in order to access alpha-male sperm for survival-advantaged children. It's the advent of property-owning cultures, necessitating lines of inheritance that enforces artificial controls and the regulation of sexuality. But there's millions of years of instinctive behavior there in our back-brains that's impossible to eradicate...

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[SpunThings]

I was not always monogamous. It was a requirement of G that we were, he is strictly monogamous. I KNOW he has had opportunities to stray that he did not take, he talked to me about them. I have none now, but when I did, I told him, and told him which would have tempted me in a non monogamous situation and which did not. I find that monogamy with G suits me, and find statements like this as silly as those that are bigoted about poly or open relationships or even bisexuality or homosexuality.

I agree with you. Both my husband and I have had opportunities during the time of our relationship that we both did not pursue. One I know for sure he'd have pursued if he wasn't in a relationship with me. Why? Because he's told me.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[SlutAddicted]

I was not always monogamous. It was a requirement of G that we were, he is strictly monogamous. I KNOW he has had opportunities to stray that he did not take, he talked to me about them. I have none now, but when I did, I told him, and told him which would have tempted me in a non monogamous situation and which did not. I find that monogamy with G suits me, and find statements like this as silly as those that are bigoted about poly or open relationships or even bisexuality or homosexuality.

The statement wasn't meant to pass judgment on monogamy the way many pass judgment on other types of relationships. And I do understand that many people choose monogamy for personal reasons and are principled enough to stick to it. So I am sorry if that came off any other way.

My point was that when this conversation comes up the proponents of monogamy frequently point to its prevalence as evidence of it being the right or natural way. The underlying assumptions is that this is a deeply held value and they are making a conscious decision top give up sexual adventure. That is true in many cases, but not always. Sometimes they don't have any other appealing option

Likewise it is easy to adopt a judgmental attitude towards people who cheat when one has little to no chance of ever being faced with real sexual temptation themselves.

If everyone had a full set of options devoid of outside judgment and were regularly faced with temptation, monogamy would be less prevalent and cheating would be more prevalent. I am not referring to you personally or dismissing the reality that many would still stick to their principled position and sincerely prefer monogamy. But let's be realistic. A 400 lb slob or a woman living in a muslim country doesn't have any appealing options. Maybe they would choose faithful monogamy even if they did have options but we categorically cannot make that conclusion simply by observing that they are monogamous and faithful.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[SlutAddicted]

Ow do you know they have not been faced with this option? I have twice been in the situation where I would have been the extra in a extra marital affair. Having found out this was the case I walked away both times. This is before I was monogamous. Being open or poly does NOT have to involve duplicity, or dishonesty or breaking someone else's heart or being involved. Far, from it in my opinion. And if its real love, then six months to a year to give the attached person time to tidy up business, move away with out the distraction of a new relationship, to offer respect to his old one and any family is something love can endure.

Temptation is ....part of life. I can walk down the street and look in beautiful shops and enjoy the looking. So etimes I can have some of it, not always.

Of course, some people will sit in judgement not able to experience some things. But that doesn't mean they cannot form opinion. Not every one learns through trial and error. People have different learning styles and thank goodness. I don't have to murder someone to know i don't think its always the best solution to conflict for example. Or to be forced to a position of theft to understand sometimes in crime there are mitigating circumstances.

If we all had to experience EVERY thing to hold an opinion none of us would be able to vote, adequately raise children, work in many jobs that call for judgement calls, make ground breaking endeavours.....

I DO understand your comments weren't personal, in the same way as I understand that some people can extrapolate experience and apply to other circumstance. And that trial and error is not always necessary. However, in this circumstance I do have experience of some of these situations. You are entitled to your position, I am not for one minute saying you are not, but in am entitled to mine too, and I hold differently to you. Vehemently.

I am not sure we are disagreeing. My comments aren't pointed at the merits of any given lifestyle. Nor am I making the case that people can't have informed opinions about things which they have not directly experienced.

What I am saying is that people who hold out the prevalence of monogamy as evidence that it is the "right" way or a universally held value tend to overlook the reality that a lot of people who choose monogamy don't have any appealing alternatives. Would they choose monogamy even if they did have a full range of judgment free choices? Perhaps they would. Would that choice be based upon a thoughtful and principled view of the merits of monogamy? Perhaps it would. But neither of us knows because that is not the sample set we are looking at and we haven't even asked all those people what they would choose if the full range of viable judgment free options were available.

How can we conclude what choices they would make, solely by observing their behaviour in the absence of choice? That is like concluding that people who are in jail really want to be there solely by observing that they don't leave without asking them whether they want to leave and ignoring that they don't have the option of leaving.

While I agree that people can form informed and thoughtful perspective on how we would deal with a given temptation, we are frequently inclined to be a bit unrealistic or give ourselves the benefit of the doubt. Your own example is rooted in your actual experience with temptation - not sitting in the basement or behind a pulpit presuming to have absolute certainty about how you would react in a situation that you haven't faced.

To use your example, no of course you don't need to be forced into a position of theft to know that there are sometimes mitigating circumstance. But that isn't my point. My point is that it is difficult to know with absolute certainty what circumstances would push you to steal. And even if you believe that you have that absolute clarity surely you can conceive that some other people are not entirely honest with themselves.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[SlutAddicted]

Really, you cannot think about what might force you into situations? Where your crunch point might be? I can. Its a pedestrian sort of student common room' philosophy' but thinking and discussing and facing yourself is a choice we can make. You are right, its not one everyone chooses to, but of course we can ponder and take opportunity to be frank with ourselves. To know ourselves. Perhaps this even makes us better equipped to choose people in our lives best suited to be partners.

On the rest quoted I agree and I go further, I think its impossible to be entirely bald about a situation we are in, because we only know our ( often biased) side. Its true, many people are not prepared to face themselves without bias. This is ultimately our own loss. But yes, I agree its something we are all guilty of at times.

But, to take a situation wider, at some point societies set rules, Whether its laws, or group rules. For example, here we have rules about what can be posted in the board and the rules for bdsm board pictures are different it seems to GB board. ( I think, to confirm this I'd ask a mod or Laurel, or speak to Shankara who has posted an inspirational thread ). Those rules exist despite some of us never having been in the position of those they are designed for.

Regarding infidelity, I know plenty of others who I care about who make different choices from me, or who are victim to other choices. I can tell you that the decision I made BEFORE being in the position is what I stuck to. So yes, in MY situation, I made this decision before I was in the situation. And it was harder the second time than the first. And it was a good thing both times. When I look back on my life there is plenty I have done wrong and right, and I am satisfied with those decisions.

Thank you for continuing this discussion with grace. its hard to do so over touchy and I admire it in you.

I do appreciate the civil tone as well.

I most emphatically did not say I couldn't think about what might force me into such situations. Quite the opposite, I can and do think about such things and try very hard to be realistic with myself. What I said is that "it is difficult to know with absolute certainty." I think it is healthy and prudent to think, discuss be honest with ourselves AND acknowledge that the insight we gain from that introspection might be imperfect or incomplete.

Yes society does set rules and parameters. But one of the key parameters of our modern western society is the recognition of minority rights. To the extent that monogamy is the consensus that doesn't entitled anyone to impose it upon me. And to the extent that a given society does not accept or chooses to suppress certain voices that should not be confused with those people changing their views. For example, there are many countries where homosexuality is forbidden - the fact that people are intimidated into hiding it doesn't change the fact that they are homosexual.

Likewise poly lifestyles are not accepted in our in society. People who might contemplate it are discouraged from even opening their mind to the possibility and people who choose it are encouraged to keep it secret. When people say that most people are naturally monogamous I think they are correct. But to the extent that they overlook the fact that negative judgment will induce people to self censor and misrepresent their true nature they are over stating the unanimity or this view. I am not saying this isn't the honestly held prevalent view - just not as unanimous as some would have us believe

It is the same for cheating. I am not by any means saying that it is prevalent or inevitable. But we know that it is something people are inclined to hide for a variety of fairly obvious reasons. So simply observing the overt circumstances in which we know it has occurred will understate the actual frequency. And we know that some proportion of people who claim they would never cheat may not be being realistic with themselves and would in fact cheat given the opportunity - not all or even most but some.

It isn't reasonable to punish people for saying X then take the fact that they never say X as proof positive that they don't think it. And you can't take the fact that people say they would never do X even though they have never been faced with the temptation as proof positive that they would never do X. I'm not saying that they would or that most aren't truly introspective and honest with themselves......only that we don't have absolute certainty. Out of 100 people who claim they wouldn't cheat, some would.....maybe 1, maybe 50 not not likely 0.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[SlutAddicted]

I think I follow. And to an extent, a point I will agree. But I also think, that.....the bigger issue here is not that. What I see more on message boards ( not of this nature) is people being 'e beaten up' for affairs. I understand that because I feel it. And going into it and during I strongly agree the people are not behaving admirably. Afterwards, because there usually is an afterwards, ......I think they need support and care. Because usually, if they were the third party, they find out they are the victim of deceit and that their heart was not precious as they were told, and their body was disposable, and they have treated someone innocent badly. Treating other people like trash for no good reason is not good for the soul. And if the person cheating, and I do mean cheating, not open or poly, I feel sadness for this person who cannot value the people in their lives or themselves to find whole ness or the ability to bear to be faced with just themselves.

I expanded on this more fully in a private message a few moments ago. One of the points that I was trying to get across was that just because everyone else or most people in society see things a certain way does not mean I have to agree. And more sarcastically even if everyone does agree on monogamy let's consider that: a) this belief is not always rooted in principle and values as opposed to having no other attractive choices; and b) by virtue of not being willing to hear alternative views (and sometimes actively suppressing the ones we don't like) we must consider that we are not getting an accurate picture of what everyone believes.

In many ways I believe our society's attitude towards sex and deceit/betrayal is backwards. My sexual preferences are none of anyone's business no matter how unconventional. But betrayal is wrong because it hurts others yet we are willing to accept excuses and a bullshit "what she doesn't know won't hurt her" attitude.

Legality is only one consideration. Unfortunately in many places it is illegal to be gay but not illegal to be an asshole.

We should not beat people up for what happens in their own lives. Affairs happen. It isn't for me to judge and doing so would make me a hypocrite. But I also will say that I find our willingness to weasel out of owning up to it with lame excuses to be unsavoury. I know I shouldn't judge eater but the reality is that while I won't judge someone for infidelity and will judge them for being a self-serving weasel about it.

I find it interesting that many people will recoil in disgust at the notion that you have an open and honest poly relationship yet invent all kinds of reasons to accept a fundamental violation of trust through cheating. Both involve having sex with other people but only one involves being dishonest and we prefer the version that involves dishonesty - that makes no sense. Could that have something to do with the fact that we feel compelled to attach shame to extra-marital sex? It's somehow a bit more ok if you feel shame.

 

[BiBunny]

I think there's also very much a societal...well, I hate to say "brainwashing," but I'm blanking on a better word...involved here.

It's not so much that monogamy is touted as the best option as it is the ONLY option. You know how, like, you hear LGBTQIA-I-don't-remember-all-the-damn-letters people say that they thought they were the only ones who felt a certain way, or that they didn't realize that x thing was even an option? It's like that, I think.

Hell, it happened to me. I was 30 years old before I knew that aromanticism was actually a thing. And in reading about it, there was this lightbulb moment where I went "Holy shit, that sounds exactly like me!"

And, yeah, cheating is frowned upon, but consensual non-monogamy is almost never discussed when people talk about relationships. If you want to know anything about it--even whether it exists or not--you have to seek that information out, for the most part. You see it discussed in places like Lit, or on websites specifically about poly or swinging or whatever, and on Tumblr. I'm sure there are others, too. But still, for the most part, in the mainstream, it's ignored altogether.

So I think a lot of the reason that many people default to monogamy--especially serial monogamy--is that they may not necessarily feel monogamous down deep in their hearts or whatever, but they also don't realize that there's anything else. For the most part, society treats monogamy as a "do this or do nothing at all" kind of thing, and if you don't know any better, you may just kinda go along with it, whether it really fits you or not.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]