The psychological basis for cuckoldry

[CharlieBoker]

It’s such an interesting subject.

Getting back to the original post, I do hold some belief that there is more than a little accuracy in it.

I think that there are deep rooted primal urges responsible for a man’s arousal by cuckolding.

Perhaps it is to do with knowing one’s place in the pack and being wired emotionally and sexually to fit in with that.

The nurturer still has sex with the tribe women too, he doesn’t necessarily get bred out of existence. His genes sometimes succeed.

The nurturer has his place in the pack and is wired to please and submit to the alpha pack leaders.

 

[Carolinaguy45]

The urges can be so powerful..intense and primal. It’s so interesting to think about the foundation behind it

 

[Phatfeet]

I'm at a disadvantage because I don't know what story you're referring to. But as a general question: yes, cuckoldry certainly can be (and generally is, I suspect) an act of submission on the man's part. Sometimes to her, sometimes to the other man, sometimes to both.

I do not see cuckoldry as much as being an act of submission as it is a setting aside of the marital vows for a time.

Husband or wife, in ANY relationship, has the right to have sex to whomever they want, it is just that at one time they made a vow that should something challenge that, they would stay honorable. With cuckoldry, the husband is saying that the vow is temporarily put on hold while the wife sexually pleases another.

When you get married it is like carrying a huge bundle of sticks. Sex is but one stick, but so are houses, cars, boats, lake houses, children, investments, careers, etc. There is a LOT to marriage, and all those things can be visualized as sticks. With cuckolding the husband is just taking one stick... sex... out of the bundle and saying that aspect is not part of the marriage at this time. Or more appropriately said, there are no consequences for being with another man sexually. The other man might have sex with the wife up at the lake house, but he is not getting the lake house, just as he could have sex with her in a car or on the boat. It is where sex is done, now not suddenly his.

Some personality types better understand this stick analogy. Some fear they are losing the whole bundle of sticks if they let his wife be with another man. Other men just see he is giving one small stick of a great big bundle to another man to borrow for a few hours. In that way it is not really personality type at all, like beta or alpha, just how individuals deal with fear.

 

[liqueur]

I think that there are deep rooted primal urges responsible for a man’s arousal by cuckolding...

The nurturer has his place in the pack and is wired to please and submit to the alpha pack leaders.

Possibly true. As I said before (I think I did ) so far as I know, there's zero scientific evidence to support the idea, and I'm not even sure how one could find such evidence. At the very least, it's an idea that “breeds” many possible erotic fantasies.

 

[Sounding22]

I’m not saying this is all men including those that enjoy cuckolding lifestyle but are indeed Alphas.
I personally know someone who raises a daughter while his wife goes out with her as he puts it man.
Curtis knows he’s not the man and gets along very well with the man of the house.

 

[NiobiDan]

(I'm using ‘cuckoldry’ in the broadest sense here). What are your thoughts about why some men enjoy knowing their wife is with other men? I'm hoping for an at least semi-serious discussion here— not a porn thread.

I read an essay years ago in which the author proposed that there are two kinds of men (always, that dualism!)— the strong and virile type, and the... well, the not strong and virile type. The writer claimed that prehistorically, the first type were the leaders, the best hunters, and a little later, the best warriors. They could of course have their pick of the women. But the second type were the more dependable ones. They were the caretakers, the nurturers, who would watch over a woman while she pregnant and was nursing and take care of the family as the children were born. Being weaker, they were also, of necessity, more submissive.

The women (this writer claimed) would prefer the stronger type for breeding, finding them more attractive, more pleasurable, more etc (or, biologically speaking, mute viable). But once they were pregnant, they would always return to the submissive mate for nurturing and for what evolved to be love.

Getting more outrageous as he went along, the writer then claimed that the hunter/warrior types evolved bigger cocks so (a) the women would prefer them even more, and (b) their sperm would be injected deeper, giving it a head start over the weaker (and obviously small-cocked ) types. He even went so far as to claim that the head of a man's penis, with its ridge around its edge, had evolved for the purpose of drawing the other guys’ sperm out of the woman as he planted his own in a stronger position.

Obviously, the story was pure poppycock— not only did the author not have a shred of scientific evidence to back it up, but if it were true— if there were indeed two separate, genetically defined types of men— by now, natural selection would have bred the weaker types out of existence. But it was an entertaining read, and for all I know, it may have been written entirely tongue-in-cheek.

To the point: I've pondered, ever since: realistically speaking, what is the social or psychological mechanism by which some men become more competitive and jealous (and/or players) while other men go the other way and enjoy sharing our being cheated on?

Any thoughts?

If the 'weaker' types are nurturers (valuable) etc, why would they be bred out? In fact, men exist along a spectrum. There are some sharp delineations but the rest is more nuanced. I have only seen a few hundred pix of she males so perhaps not a large enough cohort from which to extrapolate but they virtually uniformly had standard to bigger dicks - definitely not on the small side. I've seen monster football jocks in the shower with an average penis while some wee skinny melink (as they say in the old country) might have a throat-blocking plonker.

 

[Opsq]

I don't agree, for example, I'm a master of sports in combat sambo in Russia, and it's a very competitive sport. It's a lot of hard work, and it's taken me more than 12 years to achieve success. At work, I'm in a leadership position, and I have 15 people under my command. So, I'm a leader at work and a good fighter in sports. But I fantasize about watching my wife get fucked. I had an experience with a man much older than me, I gave him a blowjob, and he fucked my mouth rough. Sorry for the text, I wrote it through a translator

 

[Versa92646]

To the “bred out” Darwinism point there is research on primates. DNA results show nurturing kind betas are continuing their gene line very well. While the alphas are out fighting and strutting the betas are home boning the females.

Whatever works for you and your partner(s).
Like everything in sexuality we fall on spectrum of kinks.

 

[jchtlit]

I do not see cuckoldry as much as being an act of submission as it is a setting aside of the marital vows for a time.

Husband or wife, in ANY relationship, has the right to have sex to whomever they want, it is just that at one time they made a vow that should something challenge that, they would stay honorable. With cuckoldry, the husband is saying that the vow is temporarily put on hold while the wife sexually pleases another.

When you get married it is like carrying a huge bundle of sticks. Sex is but one stick, but so are houses, cars, boats, lake houses, children, investments, careers, etc. There is a LOT to marriage, and all those things can be visualized as sticks. With cuckolding the husband is just taking one stick... sex... out of the bundle and saying that aspect is not part of the marriage at this time. Or more appropriately said, there are no consequences for being with another man sexually. The other man might have sex with the wife up at the lake house, but he is not getting the lake house, just as he could have sex with her in a car or on the boat. It is where sex is done, now not suddenly his.

Some personality types better understand this stick analogy. Some fear they are losing the whole bundle of sticks if they let his wife be with another man. Other men just see he is giving one small stick of a great big bundle to another man to borrow for a few hours. In that way it is not really personality type at all, like beta or alpha, just how individuals deal with fear.

Interesting view on the subject, I think that this might be closer to reality than some of the other views presented here.

I agree with the setting aside of the vows for a time at least in my case.