Savage Love Jul 16, 2019 at 4:00 pm

Deep Cucks

Joe Newton

Comments

105

@100 CalliopeMuse: Congrats on scoring the Hunsky and savor all its glory. I will allow you this honor this time, but be reminded that in the future, posting multiple times to land on a lucky number (69, 100, 169, 200, etc.) will automatically disqualify your otherwise winning post. This is to give all Savage Love commenters participating a fair chance. :)

106

@104: "Savore"?? Oh, dear! I meant savor. Dang it, and I can't blame it on red wine!
I should post in the wee hours when I'm comfortably numb.

107

Meh, I’m not so sold on this whole hand-wavey “people change” dodge. Sure, people change—which has real consequences, especially if you’ve made commitments that you no longer feel like honoring. As an honest explanation of unforeseen events, “people change” is legit, and a prelude to figuring out how to move forward with your partner. But as a prelude to “People change, I changed, sucks to be you, good luck with that,” it’s a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders and self-serving bullshit. Depends how it’s delivered, I guess. But I see it as an easy way to not care about leaving someone in the lurch.

108

@EricaP: Those are two really creative suggestions, and I hope that the lw either reads down in the comments or that Dan features them in his reader response round up or sends them directly to the lw.

109

@107: LateBloomer, I would hope you'd know that in my case, anyway, acknowledging that people change isn't an "easy way to not care about leaving someone in the lurch."

I am all about caring, and I can also recognize that in many ways, I am not the person I was 15 years ago, or 15 years before that. I don't see what is served by a person holding his partner's change against her. I think that one should figure out if one can live with the change, or even whether one WANTS to live with the change (or changed partner), and then, if so, figure out how that will look--what will work for both parties.

Stuff happens and experiences change us; bodies change; hormone levels change; interests change, especially as hormone levels fluctuate (I don't know whether men's hormone levels are more stable and constant than women's, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case).
And expecting people not to change over the life of a long marriage is as realistic as expecting people to not change physically as they age. Barring lots of cosmetic shenanigans, like plastic surgery, one's partner is going to get wrinkled, bald, age-spotted, saggy, either hairless, or disconcertingly hairy in places which are the inverse of conventionally attractive--as is oneself.

We all age; the only question is whether we continue to find our partners attractive as they age. If "yes," then there's no problem. But if "no," then one needs to do some real thinking and hopefully deep talking, and then doing--whatever form that "doing" takes.

110

I think we’re in agreement nocute, I’m just making a stand against the abuse of “people change”. It’s an easy cop-out. Like I said, unforeseen change is a legitimate (and, as you say, inevitable) part of life. But “people change” can also be a way to avoid feeling bad about ditching obligations.

“But Quincey! Our marriage! The children!” “Hey, what can I say, doll? People change.” Slam.

That kind of thing.

111

@110: Welcome back, LB--you've been missed. The movie dialog was spitting-wine-at-screen-worthy, and I'm only sorry that my cup had already run dry.

112

Good suggestions from Erica @87&88, LW. Imagination and compromise, could see you both having some fun.

113

You agree nocute. Yes, good play plan by Erica.
People do change, and given this scenario it’s understandable. His kink is not an easy one to fill, she was a pretty good liar if she went off fucking other guys often to share with him and it was all pretend. Since, she’s become a mother, and her worries are legitimate. At least for a mother with small children, she’s in a different space.
She’s been baby making etc for the last five years.
The time for this man to jump up and down about promises etc was before making babies.
Be patient LW, and stop thinking your wife has tricked you. That is a very sad way to think about your wife and the mother of your children.

114

Ditching obligations, Late? That’s exactly what this man is doing. Talking of divorce because he’s not getting his rocks off the way he wants, when he has daily/ nightly obligations to two small people and a wife he has to negotiate tasks with.
Equal custody of two under four would be a logistical and emotional effort. This reads like a pincer movement to me. He’s trying to catch her with a promise that at this point in their lives, she can’t/ doesn’t want to accomodate. So he can throw a tantrum move out and leave her as main custodian. All justified in his head and backed up by the cynics here.

115

StoneStoup @81: Great, compassionate comment. Finding a couple to watch seems a good interim solution.

NoCute @84, great deconstruction of the "bait and switch" issue. In year one, it's "I would do anything for love"; at year five, it's "but I won't do that."

Calliope @several: Venn likes to confuse people. It's his way of reassuring himself that he's smarter than the rest of us. In your case I would not be so sure. And congrats on the hunsky!

116

Mention kink around here and it’s like the parting of the Red Sea. Of course sir yes sir your kink is an omnipotent force and must be satisfied. Wicked woman, your wife. Take that baby off her breast right now and order her to fulfil her obligations.

117

Ms Muse - As Gene Rayburn might have said:

The chauffeur drove the entrepreneur and the restauranteur to see their [blank].

There was a much worse incident of this about three years ago, perhaps four, when the prospective client in question was gay. Having defeated conversion therapy, I permit myself to jump on innocent mistakes.

Now I don't dislike the idea of an extremely handsome masseuse, who would, I imagine, resemble Emma Woodhouse. Mr Horstman's fondness for zed pronouns would have served him well here; he'd have gotten away with it by not attaching a gender.

I'm going to stop here before I consider the question of a modern Miss Woodhouse setting up as a massage therapist.

118

Lava @116, I don't see how this post is any different from Sporty's much derided attitude toward women on this board. No one is calling this women wicked or ordering her to do anything. She made an agreement with him, now she has gone back on the agreement -- anyone would feel upset by this. Your scolding him isn't going to solve the problem.

Venn @117, it was Tim @85 who misgendered the masseur whom he suggested as a solution to the CHURNs' problem. No wonder Calliope is confused. Also, it's restaurateur, no N. See, pobody's nerfect.

119

Muphry's law in action: @118 should read "no one is calling this woman," singular, "wicked," of course. Ah, the joys of not having an edit button.

120

I think we need to acknowledge BOTH that a diminished sex life is an inevitable price of admission for having kids, AND that this sucks, particularly for the person whose sex drive remains unchanged. They may not deserve to get their "needs" met by a spouse who is exhausted but at least they deserve a little bit of sympathy. Yes, this phase is frustrating; no, not much can be done about it (though you should do what you can, such as your fair share of child and house work); yes, odds are it WILL get better, and the more patient you are with your spouse the likelier it is that she will remain attracted to you and that when her desire returns, it will be for you, rather than the other men out there who HAVEN'T guilt tripped her while she was busy raising their toddlers. (Although this man wants this wife to desire them, too.)

121

People change.../if/ they're doing it* right. (Or if they're doing it wrong.)
Other people don't change.

By "it" I mean growth, the purpose of everything and everyone.

122

EP @ 87,88
A big proponent of scenarios and play roles myself I’d like to point to the difficulty of going in and out of a fantasy/role play mode while in LTR, let alone one where communication is already fairly challenging as it is.
Asking the wife to do all the talking, describing her real or imagined escapades as well as putting her husband down, places her in a very demanding as well as vulnerable position. Does she need to navigate the scene? Will something she says will be used against her in the future?

I like the idea of making arrangements so that wife can have nights on her own, free of any sexy talk at this point. Husband needs to clearly signal that he views the benefits as mutual, that she is loved and appreciated. He also needs to specify where his vulnerabilities lay, what triggers his cuckism and in which manner.
Small penis/bad lover may not necessarily do it to some. Triggers may vary between age difference, ethnicity, social status, etc.
These are all sensitive issues that need to be at least mentioned ahead of play time. Husband should be the first to open up in this regard if he hasn’t already.

123

CMD @122: Good point about fantasy talk suggestions still being a lot of work for the wife. Perhaps she could read him passages from smutty novels, putting herself in the role of the heroine. Or she could describe past sexual experiences she's had.

A future idea, if it turns out that her desire for cucking returns but at a far lower frequency than his, is that (with permission from all) they could video the encounters and then CHURN could relive these cucking experiences at any time.

124

69 committee @ 104
Thank you Chairperson Zelda!
I am truly humbled to accept this week’s 69 award. While first toying with the idea of donating it to charity, maybe even the Inslee campaign as they can surely use a sexy move or three, I am now fully committed, and will put it to a good use on my own.

125

@015 auntie grizelda I assure you, I did not do it on purpose. I was confused by what vennonminon's pet peeve was, and was flailing around making multiple comments. Then I saw that I had posted 99 and figured I might as well claim 100.

126

*@105

127

Might we not just say "massage practitioner," or something of the sort, and avoid the issue entirely?

@115 BiDanFan Aw, shucks.

129

Nocutename @108 LavaGirl @112 – thanks!

CMD @122 – those are excellent things for either of them to bring up, if CHURN and his wife try to find a creative path forward. And I agree that CHURN should be more explicit and vulnerable about what turns him on, if he hasn’t already, and also listen to what turns on his wife. If she does indulge him, they should give equal time & energy to whatever floats her boat.

130

@31. Traffic. Yes. Yes, it's tricky to get the experience of being cucked if the person doing to you (doing it with you, in one way, as well) isn't the person with whom you have an absorbed, intimate life-commitment--isn't your wife, in fact, indeed or in effect. Workarounds that allow him to stay married and a hands-on father while being gratified in this vital component of his sexuality aren't going to be easy to come by. A younger gf, an 'au pair', moves in--the couple put her up rent-free--then (however actually important the sugar-daddy-type relationship is to her), she cucks him with younger guys. Possible?

I disagreed with what you said before about it being inadvisable for a cuckold to start a family (ie with his sexual partner). There are a lot of natural hotwives out there. And woman who take to it with pleasure. Perhaps fewer than male cuckolds? Maybe the LW's mistake was not always being sure, being emphatic with his gfs, how important this was to him--and surpassing himself in his life--job, wealth, friends, character, personal culture--to marry a compatible partner.

131

@26. Baby Rae. Of course he should take on as much as the admin of it as possible.

/break/
The people saying, 'oh, what a lot of time-consuming admin' finding a congenial bull... she will be looking for a man; these aren't the most difficult people to get to go to bed with you. To my ears, not wanting to go to bed with anyone but one guy--your husband--sounds a lot like not really wanting to have sex with your husband, or wanting it infrequently and for symbolic and proving-a-point reasons. If CHURN's wife isn't at a stage in her life where she wants to have sex, let her run a tag team two-player creche with her husband and let him explore his fetishes outside of their marital understanding.

132

@101. Lava. Would you deny a mother her kink, advising her to find fulfilment--to bury herself sexually--in raising her children? Especially if what was sexually important to her was something you viewed as an ordinary, common or normal part of sex--like cuddling before or afterwards, being told by your lover that he loves you, or planning a monogamous future with this guy?

133

Lot of natural hotwives out there, that so, Harriet. You got the list to back up this claim. These natural ones, they got two children under four as well.
Another person who knows fuck all about having small children to rear.

134

Ms Fan - I was paying Ms Muse a high compliment in thinking that she would notice and register the mis-gendering in Mr Browne's post. Now, I grant that it was unfortunate that I'd started a post and addressed part of it to her that crossed with a post of her own, so that it might well have appeared that I was addressing her post when I was really just making a remark to her (as it crossed my mind that it was a pity she'd missed the original kerfuffle when that woman posting supposedly - I remain not entirely convinced that it wasn't deliberate - inadvertently tried to direct gays to masseuses), but I did explain that both my first and second posts crossed with posts of hers. And there was a clue that the post in which the infraction occurred came from the past twenty-four hours. I worried a bit about that, as my impulse is always to think that clues might be considered insulting.

But I do thank you for that valuable information, as I had never seen the word spelled in my life, and both spellings are apparently accepted by whatever programme came with this new computer.

135

Ms Muse - If Ms Cute were here, I think she would vouch for its being a compliment. But perhaps you will readily believe that there was only an unverified rumour that anybody ever solved one of the series of acrostics I composed without a good many hints and clues.

Now you raise an excellent point, and my response is that, in the case of massage, the gender of the practitioner is likely to be of considerable importance to the client. Perhaps it might matter less to Ms Fan. One rarely hears of any other -eur for which there is a gendered variant (except for chanteur and chanteuse, in which case the former seems to have been long on the way out in non-French-speaking locations). My instinctive response would be that I would only take the extra syllables and characters to convey ostensibly less information under two circumstances, those being either uncertainty of gender or desire to convey the point in a mildly heavy-handed way of gender's irrelevance. I suppose you are on Team Harriet for the Abolition of Gender (and the Killing of Gay, which I strongly suspect, whatever is said to the contrary, the generalissim?? - a very fitting variant on the noun for for M?? Harriet, don't you think? - finds a feature of the abolition rather than a bug), but I'd hate to lose all those nice Scrabble words that end in -trix, although, of course, those are variants of nouns ending in -tor rather than -eur. I hope the principle still holds.

136

Sounding like hunter there Harriet. Which reminds me, isn’t hotwifing one of his bestest topics, yet not a word. Curious.

137

Nice one Mr Venn. You spelt programme right.

138

@134, 135 Thanks for the compliment, I suppose. I thought you meant that the error was in the post immediately prior to mine, which was Sportlandia's. Sorry to disappoint. Regarding the massage question -- I'm not saying the gendered terms are never appropriate. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on that. I was merely suggesting that, for the purpose of keeping the peace here, we say "massage practitioner" on these comment threads to avoid any future errors of the sort.

139

Okay, yeah, thinking about the act I buy that cucking is in a different category from other sexual needs. In terms of logistics and involving other people and potential pitfalls. If you need to get tied up that's one thing to fit into a parent's life, but cucking, shit, it's hard enough for parents to manage to get out to a movie.

I guess I would also tell anyone who has an ultimatum-grade need for any partnered sex, vanilla or kink, not to have kids or frankly to make any monogamous life commitments. (Though yeah, the more specific and the more impractical your needs, the more so.) Because life does things to people. You may have to deal.

@30 thanks for telling your story!

140

On reflection I'm in the camp that thinks the feelings of "tell me if she's being unfair to deny me this now" are the subject here. I suspect that's the relationship-threatening level of problem here 50x more than the sex itself is.

Sorry, but even if Dan using his infallibility voice judges her Unfair, that doesn't help you get anything significant. You "broached" the sex conversation (LWs who report "broaching" always send me to the assumption they had one brief stiff conversation about it), but have you had the meta conversation about how you feel about it?

If you want to be married that's probably necessary, though certainly not sufficient. If you don't want to be married, then don't have that conversation, "clearing the air" i.e. venting resentment won't help you extricate yourself to the functioning co-parent relationship you have a responsibility to work for.

141

She wouldn't necessarily have to find a new "bull" everytime, though? That seems way too much work indeed. But if the couple has a steady FWB for this purpose, then setting things up would be much easier. I would think that finding such a FWB would be doable.

Everything under the assumption that everyone involved is actually interested in acting out the cuckold scenario of course.

142

Hunter @128: Yes. "Massage therapist" would be the gender neutral. However, in this case "masseur" seems to fit because she would be specifically seeking a male one. And "therapist" could be dropped since, as has been discussed on SL, bona fide massage therapists do not provide happy endings. What was really proposed was a sex worker who would start with a massage. My preferred sort, if I'm honest!

Harriet @130: "A younger gf, an 'au pair', moves in--the couple put her up rent-free--then (however actually important the sugar-daddy-type relationship is to her), she cucks him with younger guys. Possible?" Exploitative. Sounds like the college student whose babysat kids' dad groomed her for not-entirely-consensual sex work (ball busting) in a recent letter. No, I don't think it's practical or ethical to seek someone who would provide both child care and sexual satisfaction, or to blackmail a young woman with potential homelessness if she doesn't perform for you with her boyfriends. Back to the drawing board.

Harriet @131: "To my ears, not wanting to go to bed with anyone but one guy--your husband--sounds a lot like not really wanting to have sex with your husband, or wanting it infrequently and for symbolic and proving-a-point reasons." Wait, what? CHURN doesn't say his wife doesn't want to have sex with him. And I can't see any logic in equating "I only want sex with you" and "I don't want sex with you." Witness her objections to sex with others: pregnancy, STIs, being found out. None of these apply to sex with one's own husband. I think you are off base here too.

Venn @134: These misunderstandings would, again, be at least partially cleared up if you followed the standard conceit of referring back to posts with their author and number, as I've just done. I maintain that you enjoy confusing us on purpose.
Interesting that restaurateur seems to be one of those words so commonly misspelled that dictionary writers have thrown up their hands and said, "I give up, spell it your way!"

And speaking of errors, I don't know about you, but anyone who's referred to "cuckholding" in this thread, I've immediately dismissed.

Lava @137: But how do you pronounce it??? :)

Beaver @140: I agree it seems like he asked a question, didn't get the answer he wanted, and wrote to Dan instead of discuss it further. Perhaps a wise move; if one is feeling hurt and unpleasantly surprised, Now is not necessarily the best time to continue a conversation. But continue the conversation they must, with him indeed reiterating that this is very important to him, that she knew that, and that he's willing to wait out the Little Kids phase but will feel deprived and resentful if she has taken this off the table permanently. Then leave it with her to revisit the subject when Little Kids Phase is no longer the roadblock.

143

Fan, ProGramme not ProGram. See?
You’re in bloody England. Ask a English person to say it. Geez, must I think of everything.

144

No, Lava, I don't see. I asked if you meant pro-gram-me, and you said no. And the way English people say it sounds just like program to me, pro-gram. The way a gramme of cocaine sounds exactly like a gram of cocaine. You will have to learn phonetic typing. Pro-gram-muh? Throw me a bone here.

145

The Cambridge English Dictionary states that program and programme are pronounced identically.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/programme

146

I'm going to approach this from some different angles ... and may be stirring up a hornet's nest, too. First of all, this sounds like a First World problem of the highest sort. Does cuckolding exist in countries where men essentially own their wives' bodies in conformity with rigid religious and societal practices? If men in the West consider this to be a hard-wired kink, does a metaphorical Wall exist separating one half of the world from the other?

Secondly, the hard-wired aspect appears to be the only one that would exist outside of the Disclose-Downplay-Drop rule. Some commenters have already tried to prescribe how or whether marriage and especially children can fit into a rigid framework that seems essential for cuckolds.

Thirdly, this appears to be a particular male behaviour which I would put at the same level as being a PUA. I just find the whole thing too close to pimping. The wife doesn't need to bring in money, but there's a quota of jollies she needs to fulfill and deliver on a regular basis.

Finally, I wonder whether there are any support groups for/by cuckolds. It seems that the expectation for 100% acceptance and compliance by wives is the overriding goal, even if that seems to be entirely unattainable for a host of real reasons (to call them "excuses" is to invalidate any woman's autonomy as she is coerced to prove how much she loves her husband).

If there aren't such groups, then I believe there ought to be, where men explore and share coping strategies possibly with the assistance of a psychologist or sociologist of living in a world that is mostly inhospitable to their kink (a kink too far?).

As for this particular LW, I believe CHURN should encourage his wife to have a girls' night out on a weekly basis. When she comes home, if she's willing, she can spin him a story, but she must be willing. Otherwise, he will have to create a fantasy of his own that she "was" with her lover, etc., etc. For all the work that would be required to find and schedule sex with actual lovers, even spinning stories takes willingness, imagination, and energy.

147

I’ve got no bones, Fan. Fresh out.
If people say program to sound like programme then they are saying programme because it’s the me on the end which gives the word its full sound. I’ll have a word with the dictionary lot too, fucking language fascists.

148

Not you Fan, being a fascist. It’s these dictionary people.
Helenka, as Harriet/ whoever, points out. Lots of natural hotwives are out there, millions in fact.
This poor guy forgot to ask his wife the right questions. But honey, are you a natural hotwife?

149

Well, Lava @147, I have lived in the UK for close to two decades and never heard anyone say programme in a way that jumped out at me as being different from the pronunciation of program, so I guess it's just Aussies who, what? Give it a third syllable? I keep waiting for you to explain how it doesn't sound like program. You said it's not pro-gram-mee, so is it pro-gram-muh? Anyway, I'm unlikely to visit Australia in the near future, so I guess it's moot.

I'm also a bit puzzled by Helenka's read on hotwifing as "a kink too far." I also think that there would be many women out there who would be enticed by the idea of essentially being poly on their side only, all they have to do is share their experiences or let their husbands watch. Perhaps those with a cucking kink should stick to seeking partners in the poly community only.

150

I've given up on the "program" question. As the Beatles sang, "Let it be..."

151

Hi, BDF:
It's not that this kink is a kink too far per se, it's that is appears to be essential for the majority of a cuckold's sexual satisfaction. I'm sure that cuckolds might be more successful in attracting mates if they sought them deliberately from women who enjoy multiple partners, as I don't think a woman knows how she'd react to being hot-wifed until she's married and then displayed and shared proudly by her husband.

The trick here is that the husband wants to be cuckolded so that he can feel the thrill and the shame. Will that be his compromise, to veil his true desire, to get what he really wants?

153

@124 CMDWannabe: Major congrats to you on the Lucky @69 Award! Savor the riches. I think I owe you a beer, too.:)
@125 CalliopeMuse: No worries. Solid congrats on the Hunsky. In the past there had been debate over multiple posts made to land on the lucky number(s), so some game rules had to be established. Enjoy your coveted riches! :)
That said, who's up for the Double Whammy (@100 + @69 = @169)?

154

Helenka @151: "It's not that this kink is a kink too far per se, it's that is appears to be essential for the majority of a cuckold's sexual satisfaction."

Isn't that the definition of a kink, though -- or more accurately a fetish?

I don't see how that is the case here. CHURN's wife cuckolded him "multiple times" before their marriage and "a time or two" afterwards. Presumably the two of them had far more sex with just each other in the interim. Compare this with, say, the kinkster who insisted his wife indulge his diaper fetish every time they have sex, that he gets no enjoyment out of sex unless diapers are involved. So I'd say that CHURN has a kink, while the diaper guy has a fetish. He can enjoy having sex with his wife, but he doesn't want cucking to be something that he never does again. Admittedly I'm projecting, but I see this as more similar to a bisexual who marries an opposite-sex person but wants to reserve a hall pass to occasionally have sex with same-sex people. It doesn't have to be all the time (like a fetish), but if it's never, they are unfulfilled. The difference of course is that the cucking kink involves the wife's participation; in fact she is driving the encounter. I agree 100% that cuckolds should seek women who see getting to fuck other men as a bonus, not a burden.

155

And the award for dumbest thing I've read on this site goes to: "To my ears, not wanting to go to bed with anyone but one guy--your husband--sounds a lot like not really wanting to have sex with your husband, or wanting it infrequently and for symbolic and proving-a-point reasons." Monogamy is a thing. You sound exactly like folx who insist you can have emotional relationships outside of a primary partner.

Bi - you are projecting. He's not asking for a hall pass to get something he can't in his relationship, he's saying that if his wife won't perform a specific sexual act he's considering leaving her.

To all - there are times to find a third -either a full time bull for her or a hotwife-inclined girlfriend for him- in your relationship. With two children under five, this isn't the time. Everybody who makes the choice to have kids is going to have to deal with the fact that their sexuality is going to take a backseat for a while. It's not a gendered thing, it's a parent thing. They'll have time to get their groove back once the kids are older, but it's going to require patience until then.

157

Maybe someone has already suggested this since I don't have time to read all the comments, but travel. Without your children. Even a mother of young children, whose parents are being cared for appropriately (grandparents?), will let her hair down when on holiday without them. Try an adults-only resort.

158

Of course, Wife has to be fully on board and everyone should be as safe as possible and keep the use of substances to a level where all concerned can make fully informed decisions.

159

Who's hungry for that Double Whammy----tick...tick...tick...

160

@35. Emma. When I said, 'I don't want to get into' a consideration of whether this is a case of bait-and-switch, part of what I meant is that the facts--the conversation the couple had pre-marriage--aren't crystalline to me. In CUCK's mind, they had an understanding that she would go on fucking other men. But there seems no way to me that he could have said anything as explicit as: 'my commitment to you is marriage, children, an outwardly conventional home, 70% of my pay packet into our joint account, 35% of all earnings if we separate. In return, the commitment I expect from you is a cucking at least once a month in ordinary circumstances'. He wasn't that clear.

You are right that he's being held back by his resentment. What's the rest of their relationship like? Sexually? And otherwise? His letter says one thing: she doesn't cuck him. It's a legitimate missive to a sex columnist--but what I feel it most omits is her attitude to his kink. Does she regret, or feel bad, about not satisfying him? Does she accept, just on an abstract level, that cucking is as baked-in to someone's sexuality as an orientation like homosexuality or an association with family and children, for someone like her? Or would her attitude be closer to thinking that he should have grown out of the cucking, now he's a parent? Determining this, for CUCK, will be deciding, to my way of thinking, for how he moves forward.

161

BDF @154: "Admittedly I'm projecting."
BabyRae @155: "Bi - you are projecting."
Reading comprehension levels have improved! -eye roll-
Wait, no they haven't. I never said CHURN should seek a hall pass. I said that the desire for occasional cucking that CHURN feels appears similar to the desire for occasional same-sex fun that some partnered bisexuals feel. I did not say the solutions were the same in both situations; in fact, I literally said the opposite, that the cucking kink is different because it requires the spouse's participation.

CHURN's critics, including you, all seem to jump on the third of the three options he is considering: (1) accept the situation and try to be grateful for her past indulgences; (2) seek sex positive therapy; and (3) leave, which reads to me like his last resort. You'll also note that approximately 100% of the other commenters, including myself, recommended the same course of action you did: wait until kids are older and then revisit.

162

Bdf - pardon me, I read you say the situations were similar and assumed you meant they should be viewed similarly. And yeah, I focused in on the last option. If he were satisfied with making peace with the situation or going to therapy - both of them compromise solutions - he wouldn't be writing into an advice column about it.

If someone said they didn't like the color of paint their spouse chose for the bedroom and was debating if they should repaint, learn to live with it, or burn the house down I'd be focused on one solution more than the others too. The fact that it was on the list to begin with is a problem.

163

@161 BiDanFan: I agree with you and with LavaGirl about CHURN (see my comment @13). He sounds very ME ME ME, as Lava aptly put it. For cripe's sake, he and his wife have two small children and he's mad because she's lost interest in cuckholding!? She's got enough to do as a parent without facing the additional risk of STIs and unwanted pregnancies. It's more like CHURN's poor wife has two kids and a big baby.

164

@128. Hunter. Too simple. Without the gendering, we wouldn't have 'Haunt of the Black Masseur', a gay classic.

@134. Lava. Well, my main source of information about kinks I don't have is Savage Love--wink! (Actually I have some acquaintance with cuckolds--wink wink!).

You believe that CHURN didn't secure a promise from his wife; that being cucked is a weak or intermittent part of his sexuality, and that he's maybe balking at doing his bit raising his children. You may be right on all these scores.... But his letter would make me think the opposite.

165

@130. Bi. The 'au pair' in my lightly hypothetical situation is not actually acting as an au pair to CHURN and his wife. That's why I put the expression in inverted commas. The au pair thing is a figleaf--what they say to strangers and in public as to why a younger woman is part of their menage.

I'm not sure we know what the turn on for CHURN is in being cucked by his wife. Is it seeing her--his intimate, trusted life-partner--getting fucked by the bull? Is it hearing about it, getting off on the secrecy, the thrill of her (supposedly) going behind his back? Some people have thought it the first--so that there might be workarounds simulating this; but my reading of the letter would suggest more the second. My thinking was that, supposing CHURN was this style of cuckold, a secondary playing the field, having sex with others, might engage him and satisfyingly take the part of his wife.

@135. venn. And gays have a stake in preserving traditional gender roles because ... camp homosexuals and the phobic straights that gaybash them are so humanly and culturally alike?

166

Baby @162: Apology gratefully accepted -- it's rare someone actually admits they've misread something around here!
"If he were satisfied with making peace with the situation or going to therapy - both of them compromise solutions - he wouldn't be writing into an advice column about it." If he were satisfied with any of the three options he wouldn't be writing to an advice column. His emotions won't let him make peace with the situation, since he feels betrayed, and understandably so. Sex positive therapy seems the actual compromise solution, but it requires his wife's participation and willingness, and there is also just as little time to find and spend time with a therapist right now as a bull. The only unilateral thing he could do is leave, but clearly he is hoping for a different solution, hence writing in.

Harriet @165: I see, thanks for clarifying. I still think that your misunderstanding of the monogamous mind rules out this solution. The cuckold is not simply a voyeur; he does not just want to watch other people having sex. He wants to watch -the woman he loves- having sex with other men. This is why talk of opening the relationship is unlikely to solve the problem. (I agree that it's unclear whether CHURN is a wants-to-watch cuck or a turned-on-by-the-idea cuck; if the former, this will be a far harder problem to find workarounds for.)

167

@135. venn. How on earth could the gender of the masseur/se NOT make a difference to a happy-ending rubdown? Do you have the idea that I believe people should be attracted to men and women equally and indifferently?

@140. Mt. Beaver. Of course he needs to have the meta conversation. He's letting it stew. What he thinks is: 'You broke your promise!' What he needs to say is: 'Getting cucked is of fundamental importance for me'.

@136. Lava. 'Lava' and 'hot'-wife. Hmm. Protesting too much? Do you sense an affinity? ;)

168

@166. Bi. I was also saying what you're saying re monogamy (i.e. that he probably wants to be cucked hy his wife, not a secondary).

The other thing you jibbed at before is far more tentative in my mind (that CHURN's wife may have gone cool on sex). It's true that his letter just says she won't hotwife--and that this makes it likely she has sex with him at a frequency he can live with. Speaking a little more generally, though, I would think that there are a subset of people in relationships, notionally with partnered sex-lives, who have sex, say, about two or three times a year. I would think of these people as 'gray aces'; they would think of themselves as 'monogamous'. They might roll their eyes hearing the term 'gray aces'--they might not understand what it means; they might not know a term like 'cis', they might think themselves 'normal', might regard sex as something a young person does, or as something you do before becoming a parent. The relevance of all this to CHURN'S case is dubious, yes. But saying you won't hotwife because of pregnancy and STI concerns? Look at Griz's response to this @163: the ace or gray-ace response was to suppose these concerns entirely genuine. Sex was just too much trouble. I think we both suspected that these rationales were disingenuous: the reason Mrs CHURN wouldn't hotwife was that she really didn't want to, for some reason. Thought it was wrong or that she didn't have to.

169

@50. Late Bloomer. I agree with every word you say. The people taking the view that, for ciswomen, young children are the 'pass' that allow them to break any promise need to think whether they actually espouse that position. It's a Spartan, it's an ancient Greek, view of whether women are rational and can keep promises.

Rather than thinking the onus lies with Mrs Churn now to give him clarity, I would think it incumbent on him to elicit from her a statement of how she feels about her hotwifing. Either, for example:

'This was something I found hot while we were dating--but in the back of my mind I always thought we would settle down--that you would 'grow out of it' when we had kids'

or:

'Seeing how important it is to you, I will do it in fantasy now and commit to doing it in fact when both our kids are through grade school'.

What she thinks will incline him to staying in the romantic relationship or not. He should not be considering bailing on coparenting because he feels short-changed sexually.

/break/
Apologies for landing on 169 (if so) with a multiple post. I agreed with Late's superbly lucid remark so much I was moved to agree! (Also agree with EmmaLiz almost entirely--other than Emma downplays how her concerns with pregnancy, STI and stigma were not insuperable pre-marriage).

170

It doesn’t give Mothers a pass, what bull you speak. It means she is not in the space mentally or physically to accomodate this man and his wish to be a cuck, at this time..
For the last five years her body has carried two babies and birthed them, plus now she is rearing them. Who knows how much this self absorbed man has contributed to any of the child rearing.
Both of them haven’t been clear about this. They needed to sort out how and when or if his kink would be satisfied once babies arrived, before having them.
You get what I’m saying, she is in intense mother mode which will change as they grow and they become more independent, and at this time she doesn’t want to be going out fucking other men. With two little ones, a job too perhaps, she’s probably got little enough energy to fuck her husband.

171

Maybe best you don’t get involved with questions involving children, ?Harriet, your dislike and zilch understanding of women, esp as mothers, is way too glaring. Means I’ll call out your bull shit every time.

172

@170. Lava. There's a sense in which we agree. We both think he should put his children first.

You seem to think that every mother of young children has no (or scant) appetite for sex. Really? Every?

173

@171. Lava. I think there's a big overlap between us, as people coming to CHURN's problem from opposite ends of the spectrum. (I have no experience of extended caring for babies and toddlers, and some degree of sympathetic insight into CHURN's kink; you are strongly identified with his wife as a mother and would seem to have no sympathy with his urge to exercise this particular side of his sexuality). But neither of us are bothering with the question, 'was he tricked?'. We're both focused on the question what should he do.

I don't dislike mothers.

174

For everyone (especially Harriet) saying, it can’t be THAT hard to find a man to fuck/why doesn’t she get a regular bull? The sound of a thousand points, WHOOSHING over heads.

Let’s say that to find a bull she likes AND HE LIKES HER (which is a key part of the deal, and not necessarily one in her control!) she has to go through 10 dudes who don’t cut the mustard. Creepy, smelly, jacking off to the idea when she contacts them online but doesn’t show up when it’s time to meet in person, or just a plain old lousy lay. Each one of those 10 don’t cut it dudes will fuck her for (on average) 15 minutes plus foreplay and hopefully a nice relaxation time after. But before that, she has to get online and find them, see if they’re attractive to her (the Don’t Fuck Trump Supporters rule overcomes many a pretty face), message them a few times, vet them for safety, arrange to meet, if she is like many women I know it’s a coffee meeting before the clothes come off for safety and to see if they’re who they claim to be, arrange another meeting to fuck...

When you’re young and single and have plenty of free time, it’s easier than if you have heavy time commitments LIKE, YOU KNOW, TODDLER CHILDREN. It’s also easier when you’re young and cute rather than dealing with Mom Bod or you are nonstandard looking to begin with. If you don’t fit what the dudes online are looking for, it takes more work to find the ones who want to shag you. Now multiply that time commitment by ten...assuming you make it that far.

Now, assume that you get a string of average to mediocre lovers...not rapey or gross but they fuck with the finesse of an old school mechanical water pump and that’s that and you’re left annoyed and you haven’t gotten off. Then you have to do that again, and again, because you haven’t found The Bull. Just typing this I can see super easily how any GGG woman’s interest would dwindle PDQ, because what’s in it for her? Even if she has great sex with her husband after, that’s a fuckton of work for very little reward, plus a whole lot of time, plus yes pregnancy and STIS are real and a real concern, plus an ungrateful spouse waiting for when it’s done.

A good bull might as well be a unicorn for the time it takes to find one. Unlike bi unicorns for get couples, only one of the people is doing the hunting here.

175

@174. slinky. My constructive advice--to her--on what to do right now isn't, 'find a regular bull. Simples'. It's to front up to how willing she is to resume or adopt hotwifing as one part of her marital sexual relationship. To enter, without prejudice or shame, into that honest discussion.

My comments, further, didn't anticipate her cucking him at once, given her childcare responsibilities and (arguably or conceivably) the division of childcare between them. I said that a more likely first step was her cucking him in fantasy--her going out with her girlfriends, was what I said, then embroidering and falsifying a hot story, a we-know-this-isn't-true-but-we'll-pretend-it's-true, hot fantasy yarn about what she got up to on her 'girls' night out'. This would appease him, could well be hot for her--and it might (or might not) be a prelude to doing more later. And she would get a night's relief from her mothering responsibilities... The people saying she is overwhelmed by her mothering responsibilities--surely they would welcome him cutting her this slack? Being fully in place as a parent while she takes some respite?

Why are the couple not in a place where they're negotiating this? (Genuine open question).

I don't think it's such an ask finding a guy who likes her. How much do you think men like, are into, are attracted to, the people they have sex with, especially when they have multiple sexual partners?

176

Harriet @168, several commenters, most notably EmmaLiz, stated that the wife's concerns around STIs and pregnancy are valid and not "excuses." So you cannot conclude from the fact that Griz finds those concerns valid that only ace/grey people would find them valid, that this support your bizarre theory that Mrs CHURN has withdrawn sex full stop. Yes, I deemed them excuses, but do not in any way think that her desire to not go through all the effort of fucking other men means she's not perfectly content to fuck the man she married. Sex with strangers may be "too much trouble," but sex with the person you love and desire and who is in your bed? How can you think those are anywhere near the same level of "trouble" for a new parent?

Monogamous people say, I want you, I don't want anyone else. There's no reason to think this is not her mentality. Don't you think that if Mrs CHURN didn't want to have sex, like so many other wives who've made this column, CHURN would have come right out and said so? I see no evidence whatsoever for this theory of yours that she's suddenly gone grey/ace, and plenty for the far more obvious conclusion that she's just too busy and unmotivated to put time into someone else's kink. Occam's razor, dude.

See Slinky's post @174 on how it's far more "trouble" to engage in cucking than it is to bang your loving spouse. (Though why would the spouse be "UNgrateful"?)

Harriet @172: Wait, what? You're the one who thinks this young mother's lack of interest in cucking means she has no appetite for sex. And you are challenging the view that sexual appetites almost universally diminish when one is overworked and frazzled from caring for young children? When one is exhausted one is less interested in sex, and children are exhausting, so how is that not the most logical conclusion in the world, even if you have not experienced it yourself?

177

Harriet @175: "Why are the couple not in a place where they're negotiating this? (Genuine open question)."
Because he held his tongue for a long time, then asked her, and she raised concerns instead of responding the way he would have liked, and he had no comeback for those concerns because they are indeed valid, so he probably felt safer telling Dan than his own long suffering wife and the mother of his children that he felt betrayed and angry. He knew that stamping his feet and saying, "but you promised!" would make him an asshole. He thought he could do with some outside perspective before coming back to the topic with his wife.

It's an odd week when Hunter gets it and you don't.

179

BiDanFan...I say ungrateful because he will get his rocks off and be happy at that moment, but then the poking and prodding to do it again and again will inevitably come, and I see NO sign of understanding from CHURN of how much work it is for his wife, nor how likely it is that she’ll have a mediocre and tedious experience for his jollies and his jollies alone. That’s specific to CHURN and not cucking or hotwifing alone.

Harriet, still you are focused on how easy t is to find a man who wants to fuck her, and not (a) someone SHE wants to fuck AND (b) someone who she likes enough and likes her enough to fuck again and be a regular bull. In other words, to get to where SHE gets at least some enjoyment out of her husband’s kink, and it’s not just one more chore on her to-do list. Believe it or not, that’s harder to do, and even with a regular bull she still needs to take precautions to keep from getting pregnant again, and get regular STI testing if her regular bull is not exclusive with her. Meaning, even with a regular bull she likes, it’s still work. And it still doesn’t address how often she needs to fuck this guy to keep her husband happy...if Sergio, who she met on a business trip, flies from Brazil to Calgary once a year is her go-to fuck buddy, will only cucking him once a year be enough? My guess is no. Not if this is “central to his sexuality.”

To address some other points: her having a “night off” with her girlfriends and white wine after which she tells him dirty stories about Paul the neighbour three blocks away IS STILL WORK. She still has to come up with these stories and tell him. How’s that a night off, if that’s the expectation? Hi honey, I take care of the kids and in exchange you take care of my dick? How is that any different than advising a husband to do the dishes in exchange for sex, when he should do the dishes because they’re dirty and clean plates are good? It’s substituting child care for dishes, and nothing more.

I suggest that CHURN needs to take responsibility for fulfilling his own kink and find a hungry grad student to write him dirty letters for a reasonable fee. Putting it all on his wife is a huge burden, especially with little kids and even more so when he wants her to do a huge amount of work as long as they are married, work that may not be at all enjoyable for her, to keep his dick happy. Keep in mind that this dude has seriously considered divorcing his wife because she’s not willing to do the work he demands! And if she reads Savage Love, she’s likely to know that, even though Dan would have minimized identifying details.

180

@176. Bi. Oh, I think her reasons for not wanting to cuck right now--pregnancy, STIs, stigma--all legitimate, all (in one sense) more than 'excuses'. It's that they're momentous obstacles if one doesn't want to do it, and genuine but surmountable obstacles if one does.

My position is more nuanced than 'it's an overgeneralization that young mothers are too frazzled with childcare to have the same energy as before for sex'. Instead, I'd think that indifference to sex, or sometimes a morally tinged antipathy to it, often feeds on resentment--the sort of resentment that can breed (a-ha!) from a tacitly inequitable division of parenting duties.

I'm less wedded to her not wanting sex tout court than you're making out.

@177. The reason they're not having the discussion about 'how can we pretend?' could be, broadly, 1) he knows he didn't exactly secure a promise from her, and that pressing his point in their circumstances (with kids) would look peevish or petulant; or 2) she's stymying it because she now finds cucking embarrassing or distasteful. I don't know which or in what combination.

I'll hear nothing against Hunter. He's one of my favorite characters on here. Also loved Dadddy's characterisation of het marriage @61.

181

@179. slinky. That 'SHE wants to fuck' is a different issue.

Apropos 'it's still work'... Yes ... but usually when it's said that someone has 'done the work' emotionally--or in terms of self-examination or reaching out--in a relationship, it's said as a commendation. And e.g. 'he's unable to do the work' is a criticism. Surely it wouldn't be your 'ethic' of a worthwhile relationship that it required no self-sacrificial 'work' whatsoever?

182

Harriet @180: "I'm less wedded to her not wanting sex tout court than you're making out." Then why not drop this rather misogynist and completely unsupported theory?

Harriet @181: "Apropos 'it's still work'... Yes ... but usually when it's said that someone has 'done the work' emotionally--or in terms of self-examination or reaching out--in a relationship, it's said as a commendation." Wow. Then why not encourage CHURN to "do the work" of sacrificing his kink needs for the greater good of his wife and children? Why is SHE expected to "do the work" when she is already doing so much work for their family? Why not find a solution that commends -him- for being such a great husband that he waited patiently to resume this extracurricular activity on HER schedule? As we have all said, now is not the time for HER to assume the burden, and having sex with people you don't want to have sex with is indeed a burden. Her hormones are elsewhere right now and he needs to respect that.

183

Harriet, “that SHE wants to fuck” isn’t a different issue, it’s part and parcel of this whole thing. CHURN is making a huge ask of his wife...HUGE...for a lot of effort and time in addition to all her other responsibilities with very little if anything in return for her. Other than, you know, her stable marriage and coparent for their very young children. (The partners of SL readers have weighed in before, and yes, it’s entirely possible that CHURN’s wife has seen this.)

If she’s not doing this with someone SHE wants to fuck, if there is literally nothing in it for her enjoyment other than getting her husband to shut up and leave her alone until that itch needs scratching again, then that work is just another chore on her to-do list. If she gets some pleasure out of it, it might be a chore, but one she can deal with.

Can you really not see the difference in those two situations?

And can you really truly not see that even independent of their genders and kids, that asking a partner to do unpleasant, time-consuming work with non-negligible risks to her health safety, and possibly job (if she’s a teacher and that gets out?) for NO benefit to her, and it will go on without end, it’s a bad situation?

And if her continued ability to live in a decent place, feed and clothe herself and the kids, and have a stable and healthy home for her kids may disappear if she doesn’t do this unpleasant, physically risky, tiresome work, then the question about how is this not pimping out his wife is very pressing. So then THAT begs the question of, is this being GGG or is it a hostage situation?

As for relationships and work, there are some cases in which if one person in the relationship has a special need AND they are healthy (physically and/or mentally) enough to take care of that need, the burden of the work needs to be on them. I say this as a person with an autoimmune disease I manage with a careful diet and some bonus life-threatening food allergies. I do NOT expect my friends to remember the whole list of “this will make Slinky ill.” I watch what I eat, I’ve gone to restaurants and only had coffee, I’ve brought my own food to parties. I will work with coworkers on business trips to make sure we are all happy when we eat. It’s WORK. And it’s my work to do, not to outsource to my mom or the friends I meet at game night. I appreciate the ones who make the effort, but I don’t expect it at all.

That’s not what CHURN is doing. He has a special need, and rather than make some effort himself to do the thing his brain wants to make his dick happy, he expects his wife to do it all for him. He does have options, like hire the grad student, or discuss role play with his wife, see if she’s up for a clothes-on version such as going to dinner with a platonic male friend, or any number of creative ways to get his brain going without making her do all the work for his special need.

BiDanFan nailed it with, “But you promised!!!!”

184

It’s really interesting to pick apart what assumptions various posters make in taking the positions they do. One assumption is the nature of CHURN’s agreement with his wife. Some seem to imagine a horrendously selfish and demanding one: “It has sex with a different man once a week, without my help, and tells me all about it, otherwise it gets the hose.” Others picture something more reasonable, like: “I need to be cuckolded to commit to a relationship. But how, where and with whom you have sex has to be done in a way that feels right and exciting for you, and I’ll support you in that.”

I can imagine any number of people being into the second arrangement. The “difficulties” of making the arrangement work, as per slinky and others, would then become one part of the pleasure of the whole involved project. Hell, the number of men who would breathe a thankful “Yahtzee!” on being told that a condition of marriage is to have casual sex with other women...

A second assumption is the amount of support CHURN provides in the marriage. Some posters seem to think he just stands around with his dick in his hands, watching his wife work and waiting to get his needs met. We don’t know he does that. We do know that he is aware that having kids requires making sacrifices (read the letter again if you don’t believe me), but how far that understanding influences his behavior is unknown. There are the odd husbands—I think there was a PBS special on this once—who actually understand that raising kids requires pitching in and making certain sacrifices.

A third assumption is the importance of CHURN’s kink. One poster called it “ridiculous”. Others seem to think it’s something he can and should grow out of. Still others consider it as essential to him as a person’s orientation and don’t question that it needs to be part of the marriage in some form going forward.

A fourth assumption is the timing of his wife’s loss of interest in the cuckolding. Most people seem to think it came after kids, and her dwindling interest is easily and obviously explained by the insanity of giving birth and raising toddlers, which makes CHURN a very self-involved partner indeed. But my reading of the letter is that her interest dwindled pre-kids, and now they just make a convenient excuse. Should CHURN have addressed his concerns pre-kids? Absolutely, and that’s on him. But again, you can take that one of two ways. 1) What an idiot! 2) It’s to his credit—he thought that her dwindling interest was just part of the inevitable ebb and flow of feelings in a LTR, and loved and trusted her enough to believe that she would honor their agreement over time. He’s only just now realizing that his faith was misplaced.

The thing is, none of this information is provided in the letter. Is CHURN a self-involved, unhelpful spouse? I don’t know—to me, the tone of the letter is of someone who seems respectful of his wife’s agency, concerned about placing unwelcome pressure on her, and aware that having kids changes things. But all that could be just lip service. Lord knows there are enough woke people who can talk the talk to justify being selfish. Point is, what view you take, and how strongly, says more about you and your experiences than what was actually written. It’s quite the Rorschach test.

For those who are outraged—outraged, I say!—by CHURN’s concerns, I just want to point out that it is my experience, and the experience of many others, that a wife’s interest in sex dies with the arrival of children and never comes back. All the excuses about why the interest has died are just that, excuses, and sound lamer the older the children get. (Pro tip—if the difficulties around sex become insurmountable obstacles, the problem isn’t the problems...the problem is a lack of interest in sex. Motivated people will find a way around them, or at the very least commiserate until a solution can be found.) CHURN is looking at this prospect right now, feeling understandably betrayed given that he was very clear about his needs prior to marriage, and worried what the future will bring. Seems pretty reasonable—it’s a legitimate concern, kids or no kids. Having children doesn’t make a man’s sexual needs evaporate, and as Bi said about a thousand comments ago, a wife’s being aware of that might improve the state of marriage worldwide. But I agree with others (including CHURN, btw) who think that the priority right now is raising those kids.

186

Fuck Off Late. I’m more outraged by you lot, defending this lazy self regarding man, putting blame on a woman who just carried two children ect over the last few years.
They have to work out how things will go, once these intense yrs are behind them. Treating each other as adults. This man is crying like a baby. But you promised!!
The first five years of human life are very important, for developing trust. For learning language, getting toilet trained etc. It is a time of great importance in human dev and what goes on during these yrs determines many of our habitual patterns around intimacy, self worth etc.
And it’s a bit late once they hit adolescence and start misbehaving to realise that you, as a parent, fucked up.

187

No not every time, ?Harriet, because I’ve gone back to not bothering to read the crap you write.

188

LavaGirl! There you are! I was wondering why we didn’t hear from you sooner. CHUM’s wife and kids needed an able defender, I feel, just to even things out. Because you know, a lot of people forget how life-altering it is for a woman to give birth and raise children. And it’s important to remember how much love and attention children need, especially in the first five years. I feel that’s worth bearing in mind, you know, keeping front and centre as we discuss these issues.

189

You know why that might be Mr D?
Maybe because a lot of men as fathers, are like the LW, selfish.
When they should have their focus on their family, esp the little ones, their mind stays with themselves. And what they have had to give up. BooHoo.
Their wives lose respect for them, because hey if he’s not doing his real share here, it means she’s carrying more than hers. The love goes soon after losing respect, and with that desire.
Get a woman with a new man, one who wasn’t much of a wingman when it was really needed, and her desire will return.

190

Not One who wasn’t much of a wingman, when it was really needed, and her desire will return.

191

So your advice to men is...let some other guy do the hard work, and catch his wife on the rebound? She’ll be totally DTF.

In other news, marriage rates are plummeting.

192

@148. Lava. No, she is not a natural hotwife.

@155. BabyRae. Well, I would view monogamy as a fetish a bit like e.g. ABDP. Different pattern of distribution.

@183. slinky. I'm absolutely not suggesting, have never suggested, she take a lover she wouldn't want herself to have as a lover. This wouldn't anyway be attractive to most cucks--who get off on their partner's pleasure, as well on the fantasy of deception.

'Unpleasant, time-consuming work...'. I think you're saying this because it is--it would be--to you. Even making up stories would be time-consuming, a waste of effort. 'I sucked off a security guard in the mall this morning. He saw me squeezing a pair of expensive white lacy knickers, Primadonna, into my handbag. I told him I was having dinner with a friend's husband visiting from out of town I wanted to fuck--I'd never been alone with him, but had flirted with my friend's connivance when she had 'flu. I told the guard I had my seduction routine planned out--was going to talk about voluptuous Italians, feeding men, to wear décolleté and get up close to him serving dessert, then get down on my knees and suck him off. I smiled. The guard bulged. 'A bit like this'. The guard was big and uncut beneath his polyester pants. His foreskin twitched tenderly as it retracted'. There. Wasn't so bad, was it? I lived. Ooh, the shame. Ooh, the effort. Ooh neither of these things.

'Unpleasant and time-consuming...' But is it for CHURN's wife? She's done it before. Apparently enjoyed it. She's entered into some kind of understanding she'll go on cucking after marriage. This makes a difference. Yes, everything is always up for negotiation; but generally not breaking promises is a good principle. You seem to adduce purely imaginary circumstances as to why she shouldn't have to do it--like she's a teacher and will lose her job if she gets caught. How? Do the parties in consensual sex-acts typically rat out their partners? This is a barricade of rationalisations you're building screening (in my view) how you find 'hotwifing' 'ick'. I don't see that Mrs Churn does the same way. Why would you think there are almost 200 comments on the thread? It's that people are wrestling with how hotwifing is inimical to their preconceptions of het romantic partnership, while knowing it's good to be sex-positive and unprejudiced. If more could come out with it and say e.g. 'leave the twisted cuck!', the thread would be shorter and simpler.

193

@182. Bi. I don't see that it would be misogynistic to think, say, that women wanted sex less than men. (I don't think this. Probably don't think anything at this level of generality). But a Catholic could take this view e.g. that women had the little sex they have as an expression of the maternal instinct, and certainly not be a misogynist.

'Her hormones' are elsewhere. Yes, her hormones. We're not talking about her hormones or her Wednesday nights. How about her mind? A fantasy, first of all? If she's already titillating him with sexy stories of past and future indiscretions while breastfeeding, he's a grade A asshat for even writing in with his question. And he would be a fool, a self-sabotaging fool, to initiate discussion of when she will resume cucking by talking about behavior or reminding her of her promise, rather than imagining stuff they both find sexy.

I'd think ltr s run on mutual sacrifice as much as they do on shared appetites, interests, fascination for the same things.

194

@185. Dadddy. Often I'd rather read a book.

@189. Lava. Your explanation of why many new mothers lose (some) interest in sex and mine are nigh-on identical. (My word was 'resentment'). You won't be reading views in most cases very similar to your own.

@184. Late. I'm sorry your wife's interest in sex died post-kids (if that's the case). The whole situation to me in this letter makes the case for a National Sperm Bank--get milked at 16, have it triple-tested, get snipped, have it shipped to women and prospective mothers on production of a joint agreement and worked-out partnership-and-parenting-contract.

195

H_b_t_b @194 "The whole situation to me in this letter makes the case for a National Sperm Bank--get milked at 16, have it triple-tested, get snipped, have it shipped to women and prospective mothers on production of a joint agreement and worked-out partnership-and-parenting-contract."

What would that solve for heterosexual man? The women would still be giving birth to and raising children and hence be totally exhausted and not interested in sex.

196

Slinky @183: Except for the missing piece of the puzzle: CHURN stated clearly to his wife, when they first started dating and before making a lifetime commitment, that this is beyond important to him, and she agreed to participate in it with him. If she had feelings as strong as yours against this, she should have walked away from the relationship. The fact that at some point she was willing to do it, at some point she either enjoyed or faked enjoying it, makes this a different situation from the one-dimensional "he's demanding something that's nothing but misery for her" picture that you paint.

LateBloomer @184: Great post with empathy for both people. Gold star.

Harriet @193: You don't think Catholicism is misogynist? Your "of course her sex drive died entirely, she's a woman, what do you expect" sounds extremely similar to posts like Dadddy @185, who helpfully provided an example without my even having to ask. (What, -men- don't get bored of the same partner? Puhlease.)

RE @195: Oh, but then these child-raising women could do it all on their own, unencumbered by some guy who wants sex. Sounds a bit Margaret Atwood to me.

197

If you view monogamy as a kink then it should be even more obvious why a desire for monogamy doesn't equal a disinterest in sex. And just because you can type out a paragraph of smut doesn't mean she's going to have the energy to regularly come up with full length stories for his entertainment. But hey, maybe CHURN can just hire you instead. For free, obviously, since it takes so little effort.

You're such a valient hero in defence of kinksters but you're making a lot of assumptions. This has nothing to do with viewing hotwifing as ick. I've had partners who were into being cucked and coming up with new ways to keep him entertained and engaged was too exhausting and led to us breaking up. I was into it at the time, but lost interest when it became obvious that I was doing all this work for him and getting very little back. You are so far out of your depth in so many directions.

198

@195. RegisteredEuropean. Disclaimer: it's a thought-experiment, not a serious suggestion. Uncoupling sex and procreation would have clear benefits for het men. They wouldn't find themselves in CHURN's situation--unhappy, because they married with them and their spouse wanting and expecting different things (this is his view--and might in context be quite unreasonable). Expectations of what each partner would provide in terms of childcare, domestic labor, admin, salary and sexual gratification would be clearly spelled out--as would the fallbacks, the break-clauses. And if one side didn't meet their side of the bargain, the remedy--the distribution of the goods on dissolution--would also be clearly stated.

@197. BabyRae. Smut? It was sociopolitical critique! The guard's pants were polyester and she was buying $150 knickers.... Do you really think it takes energy to come up with sex-scenarios? What do you do when you have sex?

My actual view (this is not germane to my advice in this case; the view is offensive or disobliging, but I happen to think it) is that many monogamous people have low sex-drives, just as some vegetarians don't much like food. There's an element of dressing preference--even a lack of sensitivity or physical responsiveness--up as virtue in both cases.

I didn't know what you meant about 'emotional affairs'. I don't have a party line on this; and certainly, strictly monogamous partners can hurt their lovers a lot by cultivating other romantic attachments.

199

@197. BabyRae. You didn't like it--but you don't have to like it. Does Mrs Churn like it, is the question. If he could elicit from her what you've said, i.e. 'it's exhausting and I'm putting in all the effort for little or no return', they would be a lot further forward. (He could say, for instance, 'what kind of return would you like?').

@195. Bi. I was raised as a Roman Catholic. They see themselves as tolerant. If you take the dogma seriously, it's misogynistic, androphobic and sort of anti-people. But most Catholics would think it Protestant to take anything that seriously. Where are you getting my 'of course she lost interest in sex--she's a woman' from?. I agreed so much with what you said to slinky--indeed, I thought I said it myself--that I can't quite see what the substance of your disagreement is with me.

200

Harriet @198, re para 1, your "thought experiment" is bizarre. It presupposes that men do not want to be fathers, which is inaccurate. Also, once you take the breeding sow out of the dating pool, you pretty much put the minority of child-free women in the position of being sex workers on call for multiple men each. Or are asexuals going to line up to raise the children of other men and women who, having reproduced, dump their children with caretakers so they can go fuck all day long? Your dystopia is completely impracticable. As challenging as it sometimes is, it seems the current system of "accept that less sex is the price of reproduction" works better.

Re para 3, you are getting really offensive now. Many non-monogamous people have low sex drives too (didn't you just say you'd sometimes rather read a book?). You are jumping to the conclusion that people who only want to have sex with one person don't really want to have much sex at all, which is not the case. Many monogamous couples go at it like rabbits for years and years. What you are doing is prude-shaming Mrs CHURN for not being into cucking, and that is unfair.

Harriet @199: "Where are you getting my 'of course she lost interest in sex--she's a woman' from?" From there being no other logical reason to think that she had lost interest in sex. In truth I know that you think so because you completely misunderstand monogamy, but many would read it and think you were jumping to that conclusion solely because of Mrs CHURN's gender.

201

Harriet @198, re para 1, your "thought experiment" is bizarre. It presupposes that men do not want to be fathers, which is inaccurate. Also, once you take the breeding sow out of the dating pool, you pretty much put the minority of child-free women in the position of being sex workers on call for multiple men each. Or are asexuals going to line up to raise the children of other men and women who, having reproduced, dump their children with caretakers so they can go fuck all day long? Your dystopia is completely impracticable. As challenging as it sometimes is, it seems the current system of "accept that less sex is the price of reproduction" works better.

Re para 3, you are getting really offensive now. Many non-monogamous people have low sex drives too (didn't you just say you'd sometimes rather read a book?). You are jumping to the conclusion that people who only want to have sex with one person don't really want to have much sex at all, which is not the case. Many monogamous couples go at it like rabbits for years and years. What you are doing is prude-shaming Mrs CHURN for not being into cucking, and that is unfair.

Harriet @199: "Where are you getting my 'of course she lost interest in sex--she's a woman' from?" From there being no other reason to assume that she had lost interest in sex. In truth I know that you think so because you completely misunderstand monogamy, but many would read it and think you were jumping to that conclusion solely because of Mrs CHURN's gender.

(Apologies if that posted twice.)

202

B @196–“What, -men- don't get bored of the same partner? Puhlease.”

I am sure men get bored with their partners too, but the general trend is the opposite, even amongst women who claim to still love their partners. Ten-second search for “women’s desire in long-term relationships”, one of the first hits—some 2019 article from VICE, “Women get bored in bed faster than men.” From the start of the article: “Another study published in 2012 tells us that the longer a relationship lasts, the more women's sexual desire decreases, which is not the case for men. And finally, the results of a 2006 German study show that while 60 percent of women want to have "frequent" sex at the beginning of a relationship, in the four years that follow this figure drops to less than 50 percent, and after 20 years of relationship, it falls to about 20 percent. The libido of men, on the other hand, generally remains stable throughout the duration of a relationship.” (There are hyperlinks to the studies.)

So loss of libido in a long-term relationship for many women just seems to be a law of nature, which is fine—well, not really, but it just is. What is not fine is the fallout: the outrage and accusations of misogyny to even suggest this is a thing, which prevents talking about it reasonably and looking for solutions. And on a relationship level, the endless avoidance, prevarications and excuses for same, especially when the blame for loss of interest is turned around on the partner. “Well, clearly, you haven’t been doing enough housework/childcare/yoga/listening/self-care/money-earning/shopping/romancing/holidays/whatever the fuck. No wonder she’s not interested in sleeping with you anymore.” As if any of that used to be a factor before.

I don’t pretend to understand what motivates women to enter into or maintain long-term relationships. But speaking as a man, remove the sex from a relationship and you sure drain the joy out of it.

Also, I like my typo above, CHUM. It’s perfect. He’s been food for sharks on this thread.

203

What do I do when I have sex? Mostly I rub my mouth and/genitals around my partners mouth an genitals and if said partner has a penis they put it inside me. Frequently it gets kinkier, just in ways that don't involve composing short stories. But this isn't about what I like, or what you like, it's about what the wife would like. And he's got to figure out what that means without factoring his kink into it. Then they can grow from there.

You already said it yourself that your view of monogamous people as being low sex drive is inaccurate, offensive, and ultimately irrelevant to the conversation. But keep bringing it up if this is the hill you want to die on. And if you wanna pick a fight with the vegetarians for enjoying things differently too, why stop there? People who listen to classical music must not like music because I personally prefer metal. People who like romantic comedies must not like movies if I like horror. People who read comics don't really like reading. People who wear jeans don't care about fashion. Shall I go on? Or do you get how ignorant your opinion - that you're entitled to - sounds.

204

Late @202: The way I would interpret that, speaking stereotypically, is that men are just generally far less picky about who they have sex with. They want sex for its own sake, whereas women want sex if and when they find someone they want to have sex with. So it makes sense that a woman, bored with her guy and no longer turned on by him, would want less sex with him, while a man, even if he was bored with his wife, no longer found her attractive or straight up didn't like her much, would still want to have sex with her, because men are far more likely to take any and all opportunities to have sex. (This is also why men have no room to talk here, because they cheat far more often, for the same reason. They take opportunities for sex even if they're not specifically attracted to the person. Women rarely do. Witness Mrs CHURN who has no interest in fucking men she's not married to.)

So, which is worse? The misogynists (Dadddy) point to this tendency as an inherent weakness or design flaw on women's part. But could it not be considered a weakness or flaw to want to routinely stick your dick into someone you don't even like? In other words, from the female perspective, remove the joy from the relationship and you drain the sex out of it. I think a big part of what motivates people of any gender to commit to long-term relationships is the value society places on same; if your marriage ends, if you are a "serial monogamist," you are a failure, a commitmentphobe, you are broken. So, who knows what the solution is? Baby farms like Harriet proposes? I think society is moving in the right direction with increased acceptance of relationship styles other than the monogamously-married-for-life model, which made so few people actually happy.

205

I think you’re generally right about male and female libido Bi, although in my own mind, regardless how it may look from the outside, I still have to feel attracted and connected to a person in order to want to sleep with them. Maybe I’m just able to do that with a broader range of people, whereas women seem a lot more picky, as you say. On that note, though, I once knew a woman who had her best sex hooking up with guys she didn’t like or respect. Maybe it gave her the latitude to be freaky in ways she couldn’t with guys she cared about, idk. But this—

“Remove the joy from the relationship and you drain the sex out of it.” That’s gold. Nicely done.

206

I am overgeneralising and oversimplifying on purpose, Late. Sure, it's a stereotype to say "men aren't picky, they'll fuck anything that moves." But since we're discussing the stereotype of women losing interest in long-term relationships, which also has lots of exceptions, this stereotype is fair game for comparison purposes. Sure, there are some men who are picky, and some women who seek no-strings sex for its own sake, but whenever I bring these up other commenters say they (we) are irrelevant. If women -generally- are -more likely- to experience the loss of desire you describe -- which, as noted, is not a loss of libido generally, but a decline in sexual response to the particular stimulus who is their spouse, right? -- I had to look to generalities to explain it. Women in general have to be turned on to want sex -- this does not rule out your friend, who seems to have been turned on by the idea of using and discarding men -- while for men, sex itself is the turn on. And it's harder for women to get turned on by the same guy they've been with for 30 years, particularly if they've been a less than ideal spouse. Men, too, may be less attracted, but attraction to the person is not as closely linked to desire for sex, which is more a constant regardless of their relationship situation.

All that said, the stereotype of the middle-aged man who runs off with a younger woman happens frequently enough that we cannot dismiss this trend as solely occurring in women, can we?

207

@200. Bi. In my thought experiment, the way people reproduce is for the volunteer mother and the sperm donor to make a joint application to create a child (grown in a vat, whatever). The way they date is how they date now. Non-mothers, mothers of young children, mothers of teens, mothers of adults, biological fathers, hands-on fathers--all these are in the dating pool, should they wish. Sex and procreation are separate. Any application to create a child comes with an agreed document co-signed by sperm and egg donors specifying the conditions in which the child will be raised. There could be a minimum financial contribution from the father e.g. 20% of salary, and minimum concession in terms of visiting rights e.g. two days a month from the mother. Otherwise family and childcare arrangements go in the contract. Will the couple live together? Are they monogamous? A father wants to be cucked ten times a year? It goes in the contract. A mother wants them to attend church as a couple? To holiday with in-laws? In the contract. Settlements on dissolution of the parenting partnership take account of the commitments each party made. Your talk of 'breeding sows' just betrays your unreconstructed feelings about motherhood. There is no presumption in the experiment that either women or men want children more than the other (though it's in the lw's mind that his wife did in this particular case).

I'm not trying to prude-shame CHURN's wife into cucking. The first thing I said was that she shouldn't be pressured into doing anything she doesn't want. (As far as I know, no one has taken the line, 'you promised--bite the bullet, do it!'). Certainly, she should take the degree to which she promised (if at all; and she knows better than us) into account in what compromises she's able to strike.

Apropos the low-sex-drive monogamists, I'm not talking about the few SL-reading poly demisexuals, the people who have thought about it--who understand it might be frustrating to be in a monog relationship with a sexual; I'm talking about the 50% or so of the population for whom we're scary, nasty perverts, the religious and social conservatives. These people cannot own their 'tastes': do not say 'I dislike sex', 'I find sex overwhelming', 'I'd never want to do it more than three times a year', 'I have to think of making the bed again afterwards to get through it'; they instead say 'lots of sex is abnormal', unusual sex is abnormal, eww, no. There are of course people with this degree of liking for, involvement in, having to have, sex of other political persuasions, even Savagista--just that broad cultural politics makes it available to dress up sex-aversiveness as right-thinking. This is what I meant by making a virtue of necessity.

208

@200. Bi. I said Mrs Churn could have gone cool on hotwifing early on for a number of reasons, not least Lava's boilerplate father-not-pulling-his-weight-in-parenting. My guess is that I understand monogamy better than you think: in my one marriage-like relationship, monogamy was enjoined on me, as was the role of a Midwestern 'Plains' housewife, almost homesteader. Evidently to the outside this would have looked kinky, but I threw myself into it wholeheartedly, as what I thought the natural next step of my gender evolution.

209

@203. Baby Rae. Your position is that a promise counts for nothing if a person has promised something you find unreasonable.

Otherwise, why have you allowed yourself to get riled? We agree. CHURN and his wife have to talk. They have to find workarounds. He can't strongarm her into something she finds in any way unpleasant or burdensome; and she can't stonewall, pretending they had no understanding about their future marital sex-life whatever. As reasonable people I think we can both grant a variety of impulses in people's sex lives and imaginations and agree the starting-point in CHURN's situation is talking.


    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.