Today is the firked day of the rest of your life!

"it couldn’t hurt to ask. But if he says no, then you don’t get to fuck his wife anymore"

Wait, couldn't one ask just in case? Like "I'm happy to keep telling you about it but I'd prefer not to. Or not to as often."

"even if he was pumping the wife for the details"

As I understand it, DACUCK is also pumping his wife to create the details the husband wants to hear.

"having to listen to him beat off...use the voice memo app"

Technology cums to the rescue! (Er, unless it's a feature for the husband that DACUCK has to hear him beating off.)

Secnod!?

Sorry nuthin else to add (just got 2nd Covid vax and dealing with fuzzy headache. (I was just excited about being secnod for the firdst time!

SNJ-RN@3
If I understand the rules correctly, whoever posts @2 is "secnod". If I'm right about that, I hearby bequeath my secnod to SNJ-RN.

Curious2 @5: Congrats on the firked-firdt, and of course, you are right about the secnod, and generous to bequeath it, but what become of the thirdt won by SNJ-RN?

DACUCK: "not at the least bit bisexual and not into MMF threesomes".

Sorry, but it's not the least bit bisexual to give a buddy an assist by fucking his "incredibly beautiful" wife, especially when said fucks are "phenomenal".

It sounds like you're someone who wants to have their pudding, and eat it too.

Doesn’t sound like husband obtained DACUCK’s consent to beat it during the conversations. DACUCK can stop having those conversations without feeling like he broke the agreement. DACUCK doesn’t need husband’s consent to keep fucking wife, only wife’s consent. Unless DACUCK want to keep husband as a friend.

Zinaida @8: DACUCK does indeed need husband’s consent to keep fucking wife. Otherwise, DACUCK is a CPOS.

BANAL: I'm having trouble with the idea that someone who once swam in an ocean of pussy is now down to weekly, plus a forced extra, because monogamy tanked his libido. Maybe he's not into intimacy and routine.

Fubar @9 Wife needs husband’s consent otherwise she’s a CPOS. Without husband’s consent, DACUCK would be a POSF.

“Send a recording” crossed my mind as I was reading DACUCKS letter and looks like it is also the official advice. This will make DACUCK do his part of the deal, and husband will be able to play and replay them for his discreet pleasure.
That said, husband needs to assure DACUCK that any recorded account will never be heard by anyone else. Hubby’s enthusiasm may blind him into publishing it on some sites, and one may assume that DADUCK is not interested in such publicity despite the fairly low chance that someone will recognize his voice.

I agree with Zinaida @8.

I don't think it's a "consent problem", I think it's a non-monogamy problem. It sounds like DACUCK's friend came up with his ideal fantasy scenario, wasn't exactly upfront about all the details with DACUCK, and is now expecting his wife and DACUCK to play by his rules. This is no different to the unicorn hunter stories, where the existing couple imagines exactly what the relationship with "their" "third" will be like, and then expects a real person with their own wants and needs to conform to this vision exactly, otherwise it's "non-consensual" and the whole deal is off. It doesn't work like that - or rather, it can, but not for long. The third party will have their own ideas, and the relationship dynamics will evolve - even if the arrangement is purely sexual.

It sounds like, in DACUCK's case, the relationships have already evolved beyond the initial arrangement, so it's time to have some grown-up talks. Dan's voice app suggestion is a good one, and DACUCK should put it on the table as a compromise, if he's comfortable with that. But I suspect that, with time, even that may start to feel like too much sexual interaction with the cuck for DACUCK's liking. It really sounds like he's only interested in the wife, not in the three-way kink dynamic or in them as a couple. So eventually either the married couple will decide that DACUCK isn't the right bull for them, or they will renegotiate the terms of their arrangement so the wife will continue fucking DACUCK but his interaction with the husband will be minimal. Either way, the sooner everyone can put their cards on the table, the less messy this will be in the end. DACUCK shouldn't just go along with the situation he isn't comfortable with because he wants to keep fucking the wife and "that's what was agreed".

With LW1 and H1, we seem to be two thirds of the way to a Sartre Award. My hunch, though, is that they deserve each other and W1 likely may deserve better than either.

There are times (often) that my own, oft-routine monogamous sex life is a lot less thrilling than I'd like. Then, I read some of these letters and realize that I couldn't handle the drama.

Is comfortable boring, or is boring comfortable?

@6 fubar
"what become of the thirdt won by SNJ-RN?"

What, are you saying that I should have negotiated a three way trade where SNJ got my secnod and someone else (you?) got SNJ's thidt?

I sincerely apologize for not seeking true equity! Perhaps SNJ will stand down on, and bequeath, the secnod to the esteemed fubar?

@16 p.s.
oops of course I meant bequeath the thirdt. sorry. I'm old.

fubar @9, Zinaida is correct. DACUCK does not need the cuckold’s consent to fuck the cuckoldress. He only needs the cuckoldress’ consent.

Likewise, the cuckoldress needs her cuckold’s consent to stay married to him, and DACUCK needs his friend’s consent to stay friends with him. If DACUCK and the cuckoldress withhold relevant information from the cuckold—for instance that they are secretly fucking—then they are depriving the cuckold of the information he needs to consent to stay married to the cuckoldress or stay friends with DACUCK.

Lost Margarita @13,

Interesting comparison to unicorn hunters. This is the cuckold’s fetish, but he’s never going to get the exact scenario of his fantasy played out by the people in his life. He can use his fantasy as a launchpad but the way it plays out in reality is going to depend on what the other people want and need. It’s completely fair for the bull and the cuckoldress to give their input.

That said... this is a three-way dynamic. If DACUCK isn’t into MFM three-ways in any form the then he’s not a bull and everyone needs to move on. The cuckold needs to start looking for bulls who want the three-way, probably on swinger sites.

I have to say that I ALSO love elegant solutions to problems, and so I really hope Dan's solution to DACUCK's problem turns out to be what all parties need, because that will turn ME on by virtue of its sheer solution-y elegance! I promise that I will not make DACUCK listen to me getting off on the perfect abstract beauty of this solution.

While I agree that husband should have been more considerate and avoid masturbating while DACUCK gives him the latest details, it’s also possible that he assumed this to be part of the deal even if not clearly communicated as such.

Lost Margarita @ 13 was right to point out that maybe DACUCK wasn’t ready for this price of admission, and the two men should discuss it and find out what works. Again, possible violation on hubby’s side, yet a lower grade relationship than the unicorn analogy provided.
It may also be useful for LW to be assured that the wife is likely to be hubby’s main turn on. In any case, I wouldn’t advice DACOCK and wife to go behind hubby’s back. If anything, I would encourage D to evaluate the “what’s in it for me” situation. If the sex is so great maybe he can show some unexpected and certainly not mandatory GGGness and throw few peanuts to hubby every now and then, and put up with some assumed moaning and groaning on the other side for few minutes.

The recorder is a great solution for LW#1 but if we take that off the table, he needs to man up. He's fucking this guy's wife, he's comfortable giving the husband a graphic retelling, he's even okay with calling the husband insulting names but the guy touching himself somehow crosses this guy's I'm-so-damn-heterosexual line? That's ridiculous. You've agreed to a weird version of a threesome and now you want to restrict the way that one of the partners get off. I'm with the person who compared it to the couples who want the unicorn and will add that the LW's fear of being part of a sexual act screams of a light homophobia that he should probably think about.

I'm a straight dude and the line where this gets odd is the insulting your friend and telling him graphically, not the fact that he's jacking off. If you're down for the whole set up of the event, then you should be down for the jacking off. That's just frosting on the cake. Pun intended.

I'm with Lost Margarita @13. Everyone is an autonomous adult; they all get to say what they want. The husband doesn't own his wife's sexuality, and he certainly doesn't get to boss around DACUCK.

Alison @19 wrote: "this is a three-way dynamic. If DACUCK isn’t into MFM three-ways in any form then he’s not a bull and everyone needs to move on."

I don't agree. The husband's fetish doesn't take precedence over his wife's preferences. The husband needs to work as hard to keep his wife happy as she is working to keep him happy. Maybe that means he lets her keep fucking the guy she likes, rather than pulling the plug and waiting till another opportunity arises that works for both of them. If he jerks her around, she's likely to just get sick of the whole thing.

It’s also possible that hubby and wife are new to this, which may explain hubby’s over exuberance. Some of us tend to push the limits and/or have all kind of assumptions once a kink/fetish is finally realized. It may take some time to fully figure things out, understand the dynamics and set boundaries accordingly.

Not much sympathy for DACUCK. He offered to rent you his wife, not lend her to you, and you should have known there would be a price. Everyone in the situation is getting something out of it, and you want your friend, whose idea it was in the first place, to give up what he's getting out of it. Yeah, no. I like Dan's idea but I think DACUCK needs to grow up. This is their price of admission. Are you really that squicked out by another man having a boner around you? If so, maybe you're not da bull for them.

BANAL, things sound fairly typical from where I'm sitting. Dan seems to think BANAL can change things up simply by initiating at different times and in different rooms, but initiating does not mean necessarily being accepted. Perhaps she's tried initiating on different nights but he says no, because he hasn't worked up enough libido yet. Perhaps this is a situation like the guy who wrote in with a numeric estimate of how many times his wife had turned him down -- she may be asking more often, but he only says yes on Sundays and Wednesdays. She could try not initiating on Wednesday and waiting, but that's a difficult ask for someone who is horny. Have they taken the usual advice of changing up what they call sex? Would he go down on her or use a vibrator on Fridays and Saturdays?

It also seems strange that he'd go from a single horndog to a once-a-week guy when in a relationship. How did a low-libido guy find the motivation to seduce more than 100 women? Perhaps he is only turned on by variety? It seems BANAL might consider opening their relationship. If variety cranks his gears, banging other women might increase the horn he has for BANAL. And it would also give -her- the opportunity to find a piece or two on the side. It seems their relationship is otherwise solid, so it may be worth a try.

Also, don't marry him until you've sorted this out. If you're getting routine sex twice a week three years in, you may be getting routine sex just once a month in ten years. You are too young to settle in this department.

Fubar, excellent punnage this week! Have his pudding and eat it was the cherry on the cake.

Zinaida @8, these two have a cucking relationship, not a poly relationship, so DACUCK does indeed need both their consent to continue this arrangement. He could ask the wife to change to an affair, but I think he'd lose both his friend and his fuck buddy if he tried to cut his friend out.

CMD @12, good point regarding the security of the recordings. If they do go the recording route, perhaps he could sweeten the deal by recording the sex they're having while they're having it? Another option might just be to mute the husband while talking to him, so he can't hear what's going on.

Margarita @13, yes, the husband should have specified that he'd be wanking during the postmortems, but otherwise, I think he spelled out the arrangement and the boundaries pretty accurately. DACUCK was, and is, free to try to renegotiate or to walk away. I agree that this doesn't sound like it will work for long, since DACUCK has this squick about male arousal, but "fun while it lasts" is a valid motive. How are people to learn what they are and aren't comfortable with unless they give things a try? DACUCK needs to accept that his friend needs to benefit from this too, and if he's not comfortable playing porn star, he should bow out and say no to any future invitations to fuck other men's wives.

My instinct regarding DACUCK is that this seems a price too steep, and that even if he doesn't have to hear the guy wanking, just knowing that the guy is wanking is enough of a turn-off for him that he should thank them for the opportunity but say that the arrangement isn't working for him. Then they can look for another bull who's turned on by the postmortems, rather than considering them a squicky price to pay.

Ms Fan - [ How did a low-libido guy find the motivation to seduce more than 100 women?]

I'm torn between his wildly exaggerating the number to amplify the "sacrifice" he's making for LW2 and thinking that, given his mysterious appeal to LW2, perhaps a hundred women seduced him.

Larry @22, it's interesting that you agree with my unicorn hunter analogy, yet seem to have interpreted it very differently to what I intended.

"If you're down for the whole set up of the event, then you should be down for the jacking off"

Er, no. I was actually in the not-dissimilar situation once, where I was regularly playing with the female half an MF couple, and she would sometimes take pictures of us, or ask me to take pictures of her, to show to her male partner. Presumably he used those for wank fodder. I was on friendly terms with her partner, and was OK with the pictures, but there's no way I would have agreed to chatting to him on the phone about it while he beat off. Not because of any "heterophobia" on my part (I'm bi), but because I really didn't fancy him and didn't want any direct sexual interaction with him, at all. People are allowed to have boundaries, and draw them up however they like.

The reason DACUCK feels like he's having phone sex with a guy, is because he IS having phone sex with a guy, this guy, his friend. I think that when DACUCK told his friend that he's "not at the least bit bisexual and not into MMF threesomes", the friend should have given this some thought and either made his expectations very clear from the get go, or called the whole thing off, instead of downplaying his involvement by saying he won't be there. I agree with CMD that the friend and his wife may be new to all this, and making all sorts of rookie mistakes. I also agree with Alllison, that DACUCK is probably not cut out for this arrangement. I hope these folks get to have an honest discussion before things go anymore sideways. I can totally see DACUCK falling for the wife and getting more and more resentful of the cuckolding set-up with the husband.

As for the recording idea, it seems just about ideal for LW1, but even a thoroughly detailed account may well not do it for H1, likely being a pale substitute for being able to conduct his own examination of the witness. There's no real reason not to try, but I wouldn't expect it to be the Golden Road (which reminds me of when they introduced that game on The Price is Right; a contestant named Penelope won the car, only Mr Barker kept pronouncing her name with only three syllables as if she were an antelope).

Ms Margarita's last sentence @29 - agreed; I even wondered whether LW1 might have been angling for advice that he "liberate" W1 or supplant H1.

I love a solvable problem too, Dan! And great solution to LW1. Will the friend go for it though, maybe part of his arousal is hearing the LW in person, describing the sex.

Venn @28, the more I think about it the odder it seems. I suppose it's true this guy may be Brad Pitt's doppelganger, but at the very least he caught all these women who threw themselves at him. So it seems variety is his thing, but in the context of a relationship, he has chosen a path of no variety whatsoever. Does the idea of monogamy just make his dick that soft? How old is this guy, I am wondering? If he thinks it's now time to settle down but his dick clearly doesn't want that and is rebelling, he needs to be honest with himself and his partner that partnered life isn't for him.

Margarita @29, amen. It is this typically male attitude that if you're down for something, you must be down for everything that is the precise thing that put me off unicorning. DACUCK is having phone sex with his friend and yes, the friend should have got consent for that first. It seems like everyone involved may be a newbie who's thinking with their genitals and making rookie mistakes. That said, DACUCK is being naive and selfish if he thinks this couple will be into an arrangement that DOESN'T include some gratification for the cuck. He should expect that if he returns to them and says he's not comfortable with the dude wanking, that will be the end to this arrangement.

Agree with others here, LW1, time to be adults and talk this thru. They are married, just going on fucking the wife and sidelining husband isn’t going to work and by the sound of this man, going to happen.
Where do you think this arrangement is going, for you? This beautiful lovely woman you enjoy having sex with. Have any of you talked about feelings which might develop, because you sound like you’re getting in over your head, so take care.

I know that SL dogma demands that everyone who doesn't want to have orgies on trapeze bars is a square, but monogamy isn't remotely "difficult for everyone." Of course I notice when an attractive woman crosses my path, but there's a world of difference between that and wanting to fuck someone who isn't my wife. Just because you'd likely find our sex lives boring doesn't mean we aren't happy over here, thanks.

@15 "Is comfortable boring, or is boring comfortable?"
Nailed it. I often contemplate the same and then land on the same question.

I think it's a matter of priorities. Is monogamous, reliable, drama-free (but boring sex) more important right now than non-monogamy, potential drama, uncertainty, new pleasant or unpleasant emotions, but oh the sex is super amazing?

As humans, I think we love routine and fear change. It's not wrong or bad to accept routine out of that fear.

Alison @18
"DACUCK does not need the cuckold’s consent"

First a minor correction: DACUCK (the LW) /is/ the cuckold.

Moving on, fubar correctly ethically framed the lack of consent as a cheating issue, which goes beyond consent to the (cucky) terms of their relationship agreement. Whereas you limited the scope of your @18 to the consent dynamics.

Another possible solution for DACUCK would be to have the husband take the call using a headset. Those mics are less likely to pick up extraneous wanking sounds than the phone mic AND bonus for the husband - his hands won't be busy holding the phone.

cocky @36
"why not order the cuckold in LW1 to be chaste during the phone calls? He'll probably happily submit."

I think that's worth exploring, great suggestion cocky! DACUCK (the LW) could explore that roleplay, maybe the cuck husband would love it! (And maybe he's quietly wank on the phone anyway, but all the LW wants is not to hear it. Oh, but then deep breathing might bother the LW.)

/Break/
I like this letter very much. I envy the LW's good fortune.

Robert @35, good point. No, not everyone finds monogamy difficult. Dan also presumed that it was BANAL who asked for the monogamous commitment, but that's not clear. Perhaps Mr BANAL, I dunno, had a landmark birthday and decided it was time to settle down, make his parents happy, whatever. At any rate, if he did agree to monogamy at BANAL's request, that is not BANAL's fault. He had the option to say no to a monogamous relationship, even if that meant saying no to a relationship with her. If he's punishing her for asking for a commitment that he agreed to, she should DTMFA.

Albany @37, another good point. If BANAL dumps him and goes it alone, is she likely to get "intense and satisfying" sex twice a week? Ahahahaha, no. Routine sex is part of any LTR. This sounds routine in the extreme, but if both are willing to make little tweaks to the routine, they may find a boring but drama-free relationship that lasts comfortably and contentedly for years.

Curious @38, no, the cuckold is the man whose wife is "cheating" on him. DACUCK is the bull.

Cocky @42, indeed. A low libido guy could get horny once a month, bang a new woman from Tinder, not see her again, and quickly get to 100 women. You're also correct that he may, paradoxically, be put off by her initiating sex. Many men do have this hangup where they are supposed to be the pursuers. If she can find ways to take care of her own needs more often, she may find him stepping up and initiating more. (Though I would say, being with someone who, overtly or subconsciously, shamed me for having what amounts to an average drive would be a dealbreaker for me.)

BDF @41
"DACUCK is the bull"

Ooops, of course, thank you very much for the correction. Apologies to Allison.

Maybe I need to stop posting comments only five minutes after I wake up every morning.

DACUCK only needs the wife's consent for the sex to be sex (as opposed to rape), but he needs both their consent for the sex to be ethical.

Great letters this week! Brooklyn Reader @15, sometimes I have similar thoughts while reading SL. However, ineffective/lack of communication seems to be at the center of a lot of LW's problems (and human problems in general, probably), so naturally the more humans you add to a relationship, the more complicated things get. Some folks on the SL comment board have great advice and show that ENM can be done and done well. (But to each their own, of course.)

DACUCK says he reads Dan's column, listens to the podcast, but has failed to pick up on the tidbit that in a cuckolding arrangement, the bull is serving * the couple * and needs to be down for that (thank you Dan and the commentariat for all the great insights!). I agree with others that they may be new to all this and are fumbling their way through. I agree with CMD @21 that it seemed pretty apparent that Mr. Cuck would be getting off on listening to the reports that absolutely must be given by DACUCK. What exactly did the LW think his friend was going to be doing on the other end of the line?

That said, I think both men in this arrangement were so eager to get what they wanted out of it (LW gets his dick wet, Mr. Cuck realizes a sexual fantasy), that they really didn't think/talk things through as well as they could and should have. I think Larry @22 makes a really good point, that the friend's obvious arousal is DACUCK's breaking point, in what was clearly an arrangement made to satisfy Mr. Cuck's kink. DACUCK seems to have sorely underestimated the nature of this sexual arrangement; Mr. Cuck may have underestimated the extent to which he'd be dragging his friend into his sex life.

I got a slight hint that DACUCK misses his friendship with his friend, that the cucking has obfuscated things (although as Fubar pointed out, there is a strong whiff of DACUCK wanting his pudding and to eat it too). And Mr. Cuck seems to be in the obsessive "shiny new toy" phase of realizing his fantasy (he can't hang out with DACUCK without being obvious that he's super aroused? Yeah, that would bum me out). Conversations need to be had all around with everyone. It's possible that Mrs. Cuck or the couple both saw DACUCK as a safe choice of bull, especially if they're new to all this, but maybe they've just made the friendship weird now? If I were to do the ENM thing, getting sexual with friends and people who already exist in my or my husband's lives would be a hard "no" for me, in part for this exact reason.

And what about Mrs. Cuck? What would she like to have happen in all this?

fox @47
Yes, in the LW's place I would be concerned about what this could do to the friendship.

Fubar, I bequeath my thirdt to you as Curious2 kindly bequeathed secnod to me!

f_m_f @ 47
This whole arrangement seems like a first one for all involved with plenty tweaking needed in the future.
You’re generally right that such new adventures may be better realized at first with strangers, sex workers, or while away from home for whatever reason, in order to make it a learning experience and avoid drama and feelings.

That said, it is possible that Mrs C was the one who wanted to have sex with someone she knows and finds attractive, as opposed to a rando, and Mr c found it titillating.
I agree that Mrs should be included in the conversation, yet it seems like she already gets great sex and clearly indicated that post match commentary should be left for the men.

Mrs Fox @47, yes, both of the men involved thinking of what was in it for them, and not thinking about what was in it for the other person (nor indeed the wife). Valid arguments can be made both for the "he should have gotten consent for the wanking" and the "what did DACUCK expect Mr Cuck would be doing" viewpoints. You're correct that a regular SL reader should have known that, duh, this sort of arrangement is almost always for the benefit of the man involved, and that of course Mr Cuck would be aroused by these postmortems -- and what do men do when they're aroused? DACUCK did consent to the sexualisation of this friendship. I can forgive him for not thinking ahead to the obvious fact that Mr Cuck would be masturbating, and indeed sympathise with the ickiness of being non-consensually masturbated to. However, DACUCK also says, "The one time we met in person to talk after I fucked his wife he was visibly aroused throughout our entire conversation." Of course he was aroused -- that's the nature of sex and kinks. Mr Cuck did not propose this because he wanted to do his single pal a favour. He proposed this because it turns him on.

My comments are about consent, not ethics. Agree with Lost M @29. Huge difference between knowing someone is likely wanking to thoughts of me and actually having to listen to them do it while I’m talking. Husband initiated and negotiated this whole scenario but left out that part. Why? Dickful thinkers don’t get to assume consent.

Despite the consent, not a good idea to leave voice mail evidence that could be used against you if things got ugly.

I suggest find a single woman.

If LW1 is bothered by hearing the husband masturbate to their conversation (as opposed to being bothered by being one half of de facto phone sex), then order the husband to mute his phone. Or, as others suggested, order him to be quiet about it. Or go with Dan's suggestion and prerecord the conversation, if the husband is amenable.

if the LW is bothered by engaging in one-way phone sex with the husband, and if that is part of the deal, then the LW has to decide whether or not having sex with the woman is worth the price of admission.

Why do so many of you think the wife must obviously obey her husband's preference here?

If a couple stops being monogamous, then outside sex partners do not have an ethical obligation to keep the other spouse happy, any more than ordinary people need to keep their sex partner's parents happy.

DACUCK should talk to his partner and to his friend and see if there's an aboveboard option he likes. Take lying off the table, but beyond that, do what you want and let the other adults do likewise.

@13. Lost. But DACUCK knew that he was bulling for the couple on their terms. This was more or less negotiated upfront. DACUCK said he wasn't interested in MMF threesomes--wouldn't do it, in fact, on those terms--and his friend told him he wouldn't even be in the room. Now the friend has added a kink--in both senses, as it were--to their negotiations; and DACUCK has to clarify what he's prepared to offer.

Of course he can renegotiate--say that the sounds of the friend beating off aren't his thing. I'd guess he's hesitant about doing so because he suspects the on-call groaning and gurning is the price of the sex. Where you see in the friend a unicorn hunter, I see in the lw someone more into his fuckmate than into a relationship, or erotic arrangement, with the couple (which is always a relationship)--someone who just likes fucking an interesting and sexy person, to him.

@22 larrystone007

You don't get to define another person's comfort zone or what they "should" consent to based on what else they are willing to do.

"If you can do this, you should also be comfortable with this" is a messed up, skeevy mentality. It's the language of "well you came to my place, so what did you expect," of "if you're willing to fuck me I don't see why I have to wear a condom," and of "sluts can't be raped."

Boundaries are sometimes weird and idiosyncratic. Some people are okay with many forms of verbal abuse and humiliation, but have certain insults that trigger them. Some people are uncomfortable receiving oral sex due to past molestation but are willing to do anal or other things that "go further" in the eyes of most. We all have our quirks, and we all deserve respect.

It is especially beyond the pale to characterize his discomfort with a guy beating off on the phone as "homophobic." Using the language of social justice and tolerance to shame someone for asserting personal sexual boundaries gives social justice a bad name.

And Dan, I feel, downplayed this as well by essentially saying LW knew friend would be beating off, as if to rhetorically ask what the big deal was. Every time a woman wears a cleavage-exposing top or short skirt in public, most understand that some men who see them are going to flog their dongs to the memory. It doesn't mean they consent to hearing said men panting and fapping to them.

@29 Lost Margarita: "People are allowed to have boundaries, and draw them up however they like."

AMEN!

And I'll add my voice as a second comfortably-out bisexual who appreciates that I have a right to assert my boundaries, which have nothing to do with "homophobia" or "heterophobia" or any other kind of phobia or insecurity in my own identity. In my case, I reluctantly participated in a foursome arranged by an ex with a cuckold fetish (this is why he's the ex), and I regret going through with it to make him happy. I'd very much not appreciate if some armchair psychologist questioned my bi or poly or tolerance credentials because I wasn't comfortable with that particular foursome.

And I agree that DACUCK's friend was "downplaying" his involvement by saying he wouldn't be there. It's sadly common for people with certain kinks. Some are willing to do anything in order to realize the fantasy, and thus pitch it as the bare minimum of what they'd like, but then have a hard time being sensible and thoughtful and applying the brakes within those parameters once oh-my-god-it's-really-happening. It can feel very much like a bait and switch from the other side. But when it comes to consent and new territory, we must all leave the dickful thinking at the door.

@18. Alison. I think the term 'consent' is correct here. If DACUCK fucked his friend's wife, without (at some point) having a phone conversation about it where his friend beat off, in a certain enlarged sense he would be fucking his friend (or fucking the couple) without consent.

Obviously this is not the same consent as the consent needed to put your dick or finger into a person non-abusively. But I can see that there are grounds for using the term all the same.

EricaP @57: "Obey"? No. What I'm presuming is that the couple has negotiated an opening to their relationship that follows this particular set of guidelines. Namely, that they agree on a bull, and that the bull humiliates him by telling him the details afterwards. It would be a flight of fancy to presume their relationship is otherwise open. Nothing in the letter suggests that they are polyamorous, or that the wife is an asshole who would continue fucking a bull who had reneged on his end of the agreement. In my experience, what tends to happen when the third is in conflict with a couple is that the couple side with each other -- they have committed to each other, after all -- so it would be rude and presumptuous for DACUCK to seek a level of openness the couple has not offered.

@22. larrystone. DACUCK is entitled to tell his friend that he's not comfortable with the sound of friend jacking off. That said, he would seem to be reluctant to acknowledge that he's in a sexual relationship with his friend. How could he not be? Just because there's only a man and woman in the bedroom does not mean the relation is not man-het couple.

@23. Erica. We have no idea what the wife's preferences are. The couple could have chosen the lw as bull because she was attracted to him. It could be for some other reason--e.g. that the friend found it easy to project fantasies of sexual superiority onto him, that he was comfortable in not provoking genuine rather than sexually piquant anxieties of being replaced. The couple are a sort of black box here. Renegotiating what he does for them will of course entail talking to both friend and wife.

Incidentally the person's motivations we know least about here is the wife. We only know she's so far enjoyed sex with the lw.

@25. Bi. I'm similar in the degree of sympathy I have for DACUCK. It's not so much that a cock cannot be something to be squeamish over, as that he understands the jerk-offs are the price of his pretty great admission and is still trying to wangle his way out of it.

@1 curious2: WA-HOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Congrats yet again for scoring another consecutive week's FIRST (firkt) honors! Savor the glory of leading the comments and bask in the glow. :)

@3 SNJ-RN: WA-HOOOOOOOOOO!!! Your wish is granted! Congrats on being awarded SECNOD! this week and savor the glory. :)

@5: fubar: WA-HOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Congratulations, fubar, that makes you officially THIRDT!
Savor your good fortune and bask inn the glor among those leading this week's SL thread.:)

Off-topic again, I'm afraid, BUT....
Is anybody else having as much trouble as Griz is on getting the promised 2021 economic stimulus payment? I have promptly e-filed my 2020 tax return. Because I am unemployed, I didn't owe the Internal Revenue Service, and am not getting a tax refund this year, but still qualify for the stimulus check. I am on direct deposit; everything with my local bank, the IRS, and my tax accountant has already long been set up. I promptly received payment via direct deposit the first two stimulus payments. What the mother!@#$ing hell is the holdup? Did Mitch McConnell take my promised $1,400.00 and stuff it up his big, fat, corrupt as fuck turtle ass?
I am now broker than broke until my next VA Disability benefit. My bank representatives keep saying "it's coming--we just don't know when", while millions of other U.S. citizens have already gotten their payments.
Griz could REALLY use some good fortune right now, a hug, her beloved Love Beetle as soon as the good weather returns, and a stiff drink.

I wish all useless obstructionist RepubliKKKan politicians, their lawyers, lobbyists, fixers, trophy bitches and bimbos, snot-nosed heirs down to their dumbest of MAGA rubes and violently rabid of aggressively dumb QAnon thugs drops dead, and soon, for fucking everything in my life up.

Only five more comments before the Lucky @69 Award. Good luck to all commenters playing the Lucky Numbers Game.

Apropos BANAL, I think I'd need to know more about their relationship outside the bedroom to comment. She says he's the guy he wants to marry--why? There's nothing in her letter that makes him sound great. Or, actually, them great together.

@28. venn. Or any guy from Texas who isn't Ted Cruz or Robert Jeffress is het catnip.

@29. Lost. Yes, the friend should have been clearer about what he intended with the phone debriefs. He should have said something like, 'what do you consider sex?'--i.e. are the phone conversations too man-on-man sexualised for you? Are the couple experienced in cucking? The lw didn't seem to ask or wonder about this. They could be new to it. They could have other sexual partners besides him--? I get the impression he didn't want to ask too much and risk spoiling a good thing.

@33. Bi. He could believe that settling down monogamously means cutting back on, virtually retiring from, the sex. Or he could be sleeping with women behind his partner's back and only having the energy to comply with a few of her initiatings. Or he could have been having some form of sex with the hundred women that didn't require an insatiable cock.

@35. Robert Denby. How are you speaking to any point that anyone's talking about? You seem to be conflating the two letters. No one has called the young woman's monogamous sex life boring over and above her own account of its unsatisfactoriness. No one has recommended cucking to non-cucks.

In fact, the professed non-cucks (you and Brooklyn) have come closer to recommending non-cucking than the other way round.

Zinaida @11: "Without husband’s consent, DACUCK would be a POSF." Possibly. But DACUCK is friends with the guy. Friends have a duty to their friends not to fuck their friends' wives on the DL.

Margarita @29: "People are allowed to have boundaries, and draw them up however they like." This is emminently true, but they need to express them and stick to them (which DACUCK has failed to do), or they're not actually boundaries.

SNJ-RN @49: Thanks so much. Very kind!

@37. albany. But maybe you can have exciting, nonmonogamous, non-drama-ridden sex? Or, more to the point, people have been been developing subcultures (and norms and protocols) through which you can look for it (first), then have it, for a while, and you're welcome to join?

@57. Erica. Why have you gotten the idea that the cucking, and associated phonechat, is his fetish (or 'preference'), and not hers? That he has the fetish--and she goes along with it (is this what you think?), because it's her route into nonmonogamy--rather than that they're acting on wishes threshed out between them as a couple--in conversations to which the bull has limited access? We don't know, for instance, how she describes the cucking sessions to her husband--if at all. The kind of assumption that would gave it that the cuck set-up is his thing, not hers, comes close to sexist stereotyping. You may be unduly reading in from your own experience of nonmonogamy.

@42. cocky. Yes, I think she needs to change it up. It so happens that as the initiator that she's in the position of having to do it.

@47. Fantastic. Yes, you put your finger on the cardinal point, that the bull's relationship is with the couple. I also had the idea that DACUCK may have been a safe choice of bull. The other insight you had was that the wife's voice in all this appears relatively absent from the lw's consciousness.

@53. Dadddy. DACUCK can say if it's too much of a string.

As soon as I finished DACUCK's letter, all I could think was, "damn, that's the end of a friendship; what a shame.

@69. Nocute. Yes; you are in all likelihood right, and that was Fantastic's other insight.

BiDanFan @;5:
“DACUCK only needs the wife's consent for the sex to be sex (as opposed to rape), but he needs both their consent for the sex to be ethical.”

I can have sex with whoever I want and it’s perfectly ethical as long as my husband knows. He might not be happy about it, but if he knows then he can choose to divorce me or attempt to negotiate with me. If he doesn’t know—presumably because I’m aware that he’d dump my CPoS ass if he did—then I deprive him of the information he needs to make decisions on his own behalf.

The key here is that he’s my husband and by law our assets will be split down the middle and divided between us in the case of divorce. If he were my boyfriend and we had a deal going that I would pay the mortgage and he would pay the utilities; or that I would bring in income and he would look after homemaking—that would be unethical. Because then even if he knew, he might not be free to leave, or the burden of leaving might weigh heavier on him than on me.

Even then, the unethical part would be partnering without protecting the more vulnerable partner, not the fucking around.

+++ +++ +++

Now, if I know that nonmonogamy is a hard limit for my husband, I take that into account when thinking about fucking around. Do I care about him? Do his feelings matter to me? Why do I want to fuck around? Does my desire to fuck around override my desire not to hurt someone I love?

It’s not unethical to upset a partner. Sometimes it would be unethical not to upset them.

EricaP @57: If a couple stops being monogamous, then outside sex partners do not have an ethical obligation to keep the other spouse happy".

That's not what's going on here. The couple hasn't negotiated non-monogamy; they've negotiated cuckolding with certain bells and whistles.

If an outside partner is invited to be a bull, there's a quid pro quo. DACUCK is unhappy with it, but like a monkey with its fist in a jar, can't just let go and move his not-the-least-bit-bisexual ass down the straight and narrow road.

BiDanFan @61: "What tends to happen when the third is in conflict with a couple is that the couple side with each other... so it would be rude and presumptuous for DACUCK to seek a level of openness the couple has not offered."

Just because the wife is likely to cave to her husband's preferences doesn't make it rude or presumptuous for DACUCK to ask her how she wants to handle the situation.

fubar @67 "they need to express them and stick to them (which DACUCK has failed to do), or they're not actually boundaries."

That's seems incorrect. One can assert one's boundaries at any time. DACUCK isn't guaranteed that he'll get to keep fucking this woman, but he certainly hasn't missed the opportunity to assert his boundaries and preferences.

Harriet @68 - I've known quite a few couples who do this, and in almost every case it's the man's strong fetish driving the cuckolding while the woman initially goes along with it to get her husband off her back. These women were not, generally, told about the fetish before marriage, and they didn't get married hoping to have sex with other men. Over time, yes, women can get into the fetish -- but that's much more likely if the husband is responsive to her preferences rather than dominating his way through the cuckold scenario by telling the other people (his wife and her partners) how things should go.

fubar @72 - Cuckolding is a kind of non-monogamy. The husband may want complete control of how it goes, but that doesn't mean he gets complete control. The wife has just as much right to speak up for how she wants things to proceed.

Harriet @68 "Why have you gotten the idea that the cucking, and associated phonechat, is his fetish (or 'preference'), and not hers?"

Take a look at the PS: "P.S. This is his thing, not hers. She loves having sex with me but the calls to her husband don’t do anything for her."

EricaP @74: "The wife has just as much right to speak up for how she wants things to proceed."

There's no indication that she hasn't done that.

And as for cuckolding being a kind of non-monogamy, that's true only of you consider monogamy to be the husband's exclusive juris-dick-tion over the marital vagina. We only have the LW's opinion that she's not into the cuckolding.

Fubar @ 67

"People are allowed to have boundaries, and draw them up however they like." This is emminently true, but they need to express them and stick to them (which DACUCK has failed to do), or they're not actually boundaries.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I mean, sure, being able to clearly state and reassert your boundaries is an important communication skill. Unfortunately most people's communication skills leave something to be desired. Just because someone failed to unequivocally express or defend their boundaries in a particular situation, doesn't mean that these boundaries don't exist. If you read some #metoo stories, for example, many of them describe situations where the victim operated on the assumption that a sexual boundary was implied, and the aggressor exploited a communication loophole to push an unwanted interaction. In many cases, the victim went through with the unwanted interaction. The fact that they didn't actively fight back doesn't mean that the violation didn't happen. I'm not directly comparing these stories to DACUCK's situation - just saying I find this premise quite iffy.

Personally, if someone made it clear that they weren't sexually attracted to me or my gender, I wouldn't try to push phone sex or some other "sex adjacent" activity on them. At least not without a hell of a lot of discussion beforehand to make sure everyone was really ok with what was being proposed. Communication is everyone's responsibility; but the onus, for me, is on the initiator of the activity, which in this case is DACUCK's friend.

The best part of recording this is he can use in numerous times, maybe even for numerous years...

Going to LW 2, I’m going to say, find a trusted confidante (who may or may not be a professional therapist, and who definitely should NOT be a religious person given that “in the south” is a major plot point) and talk long and hard about whether she should keep seeing this man. Definitely she needs to not make any plans to marry this man, and even more so when they do have sex make sure her birth control game is Olympic level.

Boyfriend is telling LW2 that at some level he’s not interested in fucking HER. It’s not that he’s not interested in fucking, it’s that fucking her specifically and exclusively for years is unpalatable at some level (that’s what “I’m having trouble with monogamy” means here, as he avoids fucking his partner). The reasons why HE is having trouble with monogamy are unimportant...the question is, can SHE live with that price of admission?

The bit about “being in the south” to me suggests that they live in a culturally conservative area, not a rowdy bawdy hot and steamy (literally and figuratively) big city where our homegrown heroines rap about their WAPs or force corrupt POS’s to sell their WNBA teams. In a place like that, open relationships are a hard road to hoe (pun intended), especially if they’re members of a Christian church. Even if LW2 is out in the leafy suburbs of Atlanta or NoLa or Houston, it can be tough going. In a smaller city like Lafayette or Montgomery or Hattiesburg, where there are enough university students that a dude on Tinder who gets in the mood once or twice a month can find adequate and unique strange but are also culturally conservative, the rumspringa ends at graduation. LW2 may not have thought of that, but I guarantee her boyfriend has. If he is seeing her as a consolation prize, or as the next step in the high school-college-Wife2.5KidsAndDog progression instead of as the person he wants for his life, then she needs to sort that out ASAP.

This isn’t an automatic DT(N)FA, it’s a hard pause until she sorts herself out first and then sorts out what they want. “Get adult novelties” or “open the relationship” are distractions to the much harder underlying realities. Could that work? Maybe. I’m a gambling woman, though, and if I were betting on this relationship I would bet on a breakup. Hopefully it would be before marriage and definitely before kids.

Ms. Cummins @71: Somehow my brain parsed your post and picked out "my husband and by law our assets will be split down the middle" and imagined the poor chap cleft in two.

@49 SNJ-RN: lol--I didn't even see your comment to fubar (@67). As you both can see, your kind gesture has indeed been granted. Savor your SECNOD and THIRDT honors. :)

Speaking of Number Game honors...

@69 WA-HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Congratulations, nocutename, on scoring this week's luscious Lucky @69 Award honors! Savor the decadence and bask in the glory of your newfound riches. :)

Griz has some LWs to Dan to catch up on this week. It may take a while. I am adapting to Daylight Savings Time, dealing with the unwanted stress of terrible financial woes (promised money that STILL isn't in my account!), and further struggles with physical therapy. I feel like I'm falling apart at 56+. But---enough about me. We all have stressors. I'm just wishing I had the automotive company of my beloved VW. Soon.
Back to Dan, the LWs, and comments. I shall return after a diversion of films, red wine, and dark chocolate with almonds, and sea salt tonight. I think I need some movies.
Happy belated Birthday Judd (best known for his regular role of cab driver Alex Reiger on classic TV's Taxi) Hirsch, who turned 86 on Monday, March 15, 2021, and Happy Birthday today, March 17th and St. Paddy's Day, to Gary Sinise (Lieutenant Dan!) celebrates his 66th.

Who's hungry for this week's Big HUnsky? Tick...tick...tick...

What is the story here, between husband & wife. She seems to not know her boundaries re her marriage if she’s telling the LW that a) her husband’s kink does nothing for her. b) telling the LW she wants to keep the sex going, even though it’s her husband’s kink which got the sex rolling.
LW1, if you and this woman want to unhook the sex you have together, from her husband’s kink, you both have to tell the truth to him.

Good points slinky @79. Why is a young woman in her twenties putting up with a guy who never initiates sex: can’t do her self image much good. And saying monogamy is hard. Red flags here, LW2, and you being so young. This is a scenario will not improve and you’ll miss an opportunity to be with young men who want to jump your bones daily. This man is not being honest with himself or you.

Harriet @62: "Renegotiating what he does for them will of course entail talking to both friend and wife." Yes. He should speak to them together because he is in a sexual relationship with both of them. The sex with the wife is physical, and with the husband it is verbal. He should open by apologising for not realising Husband would be masturbating while they conversed (not that he really owes an apology for that, but it would be a great way to show he is not blaming this couple) and that this is a turnoff for him. As Musicbiker @56 summed up so well, "If the LW is bothered by engaging in one-way phone sex with the husband, and if that is part of the deal, then the LW has to decide whether or not having sex with the woman is worth the price of admission." He needs to decide this before speaking to them, he can't go in expecting to drop the husband half of the arrangement and keep the wife half. If he wants to keep the wife half, he should consider what he -is- willing to do to get the husband off. Pre-record something? Have phone conversations on mute? "Nothing" isn't an option. The couple are, of course, free to reject his counter offer and pull the deal entirely, so he should expect this possibility.

Indeed, we know little about what the wife wants. Does she independently want an open relationship, to keep fucking DACUCK? If so, that is something she will need to negotiate with her husband, and since neither of them wrote in, it seems pointless to advise them. I'm assuming she's on board with fucking other men as a way of fulfilling his kink which she also happens to enjoy. Lucky them!

Griz @63, I hope your check arrives soon!

Harriet @66, "The lw didn't seem to ask or wonder about this." Nope, he only thought as far as, "I get to fuck this hot woman? Awesome!" Dickful thinking indeed.
And Robert Denby @35 was responding to Dan's assertion to BANAL that "monogamy is difficult for everyone," and likely Brooklyn Reader @15's general observation that boring is also comfortable and drama-free. Which does correspond to both letters: L1 is interesting but laced with drama (will he lose this friendship and this fuckbuddy?), and L2 describes a "very happy" relationship with "intense and satisfying" but routine sex.

Alison @71: "I can have sex with whoever I want and it’s perfectly ethical as long as my husband knows." Yes, because that's the arrangement you two have negotiated with each other. In a relationship that was agreed to be monogamous, having sex with whoever you wanted would not be ethical even if your husband knew. Or if your relationship included a veto, or was a DADT (your husband knowing being the unethical part in that case). The key here isn't finances, it's agreeing to something and sticking to that agreement. If this couple have agreed that their marriage is monogamous except that they are into cucking, which I see no reason to not presume the case, if she were to then go fuck someone else who did not want to participate in the cucking arrangement that would be unethical. Sure, she could try to renegotiate their agreements. Renegotiating agreements isn't unethical; breaking them is.

Fubar @72: "The couple hasn't negotiated non-monogamy; they've negotiated cuckolding with certain bells and whistles." Exactly.

Erica @73: "Just because the wife is likely to cave to her husband's preferences" -- why are you assuming these are -his- preferences and that she would be "caving"?
These two are a package deal. That's what was offered and that's what he accepted. He doesn't have to continue, of course, but he can't retain only half the package and discard the other half. That's dickful thinking. He should ask them both how they want to handle the situation, not go behind his friend's back to seek an affair with the wife.

Fubar @76: "We only have the LW's opinion that she's not into the cuckolding." Correction -- LW doesn't say she's not into the cuckolding, but that she's not into the post-cuckolding phone sex. Why would she be? She's lived the sex, she doesn't need to relive it with extra alpha-male humiliation.

Tim @78, good point!

Slinky @79, good catch. In their circles they may not realise ENM is a thing. They may be thinking either single and screwing whoever you want or partnered and completely monogamous. I'm not sure I buy that a guy who's shagged 100 women is a conservative Christian, but the dating pool of a partnered man in the rural South may be limited.

@73. Erica. If what you describe is what's happening here, the couple are strongly at risk of doing ENM 'wrong'. I was mistaken, or not fully correct, when I said we didn't know much of what the wife feels about the hotwifing. DACUCK has said that she wants to go on fucking him, and that she isn't personally aroused by the phone calls (it's not an essential component of the sex to her). Let's give DACUCK the benefit of the doubt here and say he's had a conversation with his friend's wife in which he's listened to her--he hasn't just supposed something that suits him on the back of cursory communications.

If this is so, it would seem to be going wrong; and the situation could blow up in their faces, or just prove unsustainable. The wife is potentially at fault for having heart-to-hearts with the bull behind her husband's back. However, we don't know the extent of this. DACUCK finds her 'incredibly hot', 'incredibly beautiful', 'great'--it sounds as if he likes her, rather than is enjoying his interesting service arrangement with a couple.

I have to think there is something about the whole set-up--not just getting fucked by an attractive guy--that rings her bells--e.g. getting fucked by her husband's friend? It can't just be a new sex partner--surely?

My advice to DACUCK is to pull back if he can't handle being in a sexual relationship with a man.

@75. Erica. Yes--I think I missed the P.S.! I'd want to know, though, quite what conversations they've been having.

I've guest-starred (not bulled) for a few het married couples, and it wouldn't be true that the desire to do that has overwhelmingly and across the board originated with the guy. Maybe expressing the desire and initiating things is more socially acceptable for a man?

@77. Lost. I think I'd take it as an 'as-read', an 'as-given', in the initial set-up of the kinky contract that the friend might--might well--be beating off during the phone debriefs. The conversation has gone something like, 'I won't even be in the room'. 'You won't be in the room?' 'All you have to do is phone me afterwards and describe the sex?' 'That's it?' And in his undue haste to get what he wants, virtually unzipping, DACUCK hasn't enquired too closely about the phone calls.

So he should renegotiate now.

I think the onus is on him because he doesn't like the jerk-off grunts.

@80. slinky. She's dissatisfied with the routinised sex, but what does he feel about it? Maybe he's quite happy with it.

@83. Bi. We are completely and down the line in agreement--esp. on the point that he should talk to the couple together. I also agreed down the line with musicbiker's comment, but didn't note it as it didn't add anything to the ongoing discussion; musicbiker would have responded to the letter without dipping in the comments, I guess, as one does, and unerringly put her finger on the marrow and said what has to happen.

I am happy to reassure Robert Denby that the commentariat does not agree with outlier hounddog Daniel Savage that 'monogamy is hard for everyone'. I will say that for the only part of the commentariat I can speak for, myself, that I believe some people are naturally monogamous; and that these people would, for instance, find it much harder, more challenging, to preserve an emotionally invested, worth-saving, monogamous relationship by opening it, than they find keeping to the straight and narrow of monogamy.

tim @78
"The best part of recording this is he can use it numerous times, maybe even for numerous years."

Good point. But that's also a potential drawback for DACUCK: maybe if the husband accumulates a big enough library of recordings, the husband will rescind his stated desire for DACUCK to keep fucking his "incredibly hot" wife.

Though I agree with EricaP, that the husband having opened Pandora's (IIRC the wife's name is Pandora?) box, the wife might /indeed/ decide to (perhaps jeopardizing the marriage in doing so if DACUCK can't surf the waves he created) hold the ground that DACUCK is fucking her on (by which I mean continue to fuck DACUCK).

BiDanFan @84: The post-encounter phone sex, with its alpha male humiliation, IS the cuckolding in this case, as the husband is not present during the actual performance.

DACUCK believes that the wife "loves having sex with me but the calls to her husband don’t do anything for her" and my first thought was "dickful thinking." Regardless, for the wife, the cuckolding is the price she pays - and DACUCK pays - to get to have sex with one another.

If DACUCK were to send him a recording, husband could spank over that for years to come (pun intended). Then he wouldn't really need DACUCK's services on a go-forward basis.

DACUCK could ask the husband to put himself on mute during their phone calls, and could certainly abstain from in-person meetings, but personally, I'd advise him to deal with his homophobic anxiety that he's somehow having sex with another man.

BiDanFan @84, who said he’s from the rural south? The Lafayette, Louisiana metro area is almost 500,000 people. Montgomery, Alabama metro area is over 300,000. Nashville has 600,000 people, several universities, and loooots of god-bothering going on.Waco of Chip and Johanna fame, plus Baylor University where the girls have a socially acceptable baptist boyfriend they take home to meet their parents and a nice boyfriend from Texas Technical College that they date for themselves, is an hour and a half from Austin. Lafayette is only an hour and a half from New Orleans, and Memphis is only a few hours drive from Nashville. There are plenty of opportunities to find tail for the tail-chasing connoisseur.

@Harriet, it’s more than just the frequency of them getting busy...this man, by his own admission, does not like (exclusively) fucking his girlfriend. That’s what “monogamy is hard” means in this context. Why that is doesn’t matter for her—what matters is if this is a long-term price of entry she’s willing to pay.

Harriet @86, you may take the wanking over the phone "as given" in this situation, but I wouldn't, and it sounds like DACUCK didn't either. I certainly don't think it's the ONLY possible reason anyone may have to want to talk to a metamour after they've been with your partner, which is why I don't agree with the commenters who said "well what did he think the husband would be doing?". We don't have enough details about that preliminary conversation, so I have no idea if that was a reasonable and obvious inference or not. Some non-monogamous people like to know the details of their partner's extramarital activities, because it makes them feel involved, helps with feelings of jealousy/compersion, or gives them a sense of control over the proceedings (in a D/s sense or otherwise). Some might even do this to ensure their partner's safety. Cuckolding kink is not the only possible explanation, and even if it was, not every cuckold would just start wanking over the phone there and then. I think it's totally wrong to just presume consent for something like this, and it's wrong to put all the onus on the person on the receiving end to put a stop to things (once their boundaries have already been crossed).

I'm reminded of an incident some years ago, when I was new to the kink community, and struck up a conversation with a rope top on Fetlife. I was just getting into shibari then. After messaging back and forth about the philosophical and technical aspects of rope bondage, we agreed to chat on the phone to see if we would want to meet and maybe do some tying. Five minutes into this phone call, I knew he was wanking. This was never discussed or even hinted at in our previous conversations. I hung up and later blocked him on Fet. Although minor in the scheme of things, it was a very off-putting experience, and kinda marred my early kink and rope explorations. Some folks may say "well what did you expect, chatting to a random dude off Fet?" and agree that the onus was on me to stop the interaction if I "didn't like the grunts". Personally, I think that's a shitty view of consent.

Curious @87, indeed, this is another potential way this arrangement could blow up in all their faces. DACUCK could say he's not into the phone sex, Husband could say the deal is off absent the phone sex, Wife could say no, I want to keep DACUCK as a fuck buddy, Husband and Wife have a huge conflict to deal with now. I think it is less likely but who knows.

Fubar @88, perhaps we need Hunter here to clarify the definition of cuckolding. I thought it was the act, at one's request, of another man fucking one's female partner for the purpose of humiliating one. That at least is the traditional definition. Otherwise no fucking need take place, one could simply ask another man to describe a fantasy scenario involving one's wife, could one not? In this case, as you yourself said, the postmortem is a "bell and whistle" tied to the cuckolding.

Slinky @89, you did: "The bit about “being in the south” to me suggests that they live in a culturally conservative area, not a rowdy bawdy hot and steamy (literally and figuratively) big city where our homegrown heroines rap about their WAPs or force corrupt POS’s to sell their WNBA teams."

I will walk back part of my statement @47. DACUCK absolutely has a right to feel squicked out about his friend's masturbating on the phone, and his friend should have made it more clear what he'd be doing during those calls. "I won't even be in the same room" (in response to DACUCK's assertion that he is not at all interested in sex with men) now sounds like a thinly-veiled attempt to downplay the sexual nature of this arrangement as pertains to the men in the equation. DACUCK's friend acted a bit in bad faith I think, either intentionally or dickfully. Maybe Mr. Cuck hasn't read enough SL, but going forward, he needs to better understand that a cuckolding relationship is still a sexual arrangement between all three people, regardless of whose genitals are touching whose, and he needs to find a bull who is enthusiastic about providing this very specific sexual role in the life of a committed couple. Let me rephrase that: moving forward, this * couple * need to find a bull who is interested in meeting the couple's needs.

Good call whoever first pointed out that DACUCK and Mrs. Cuck appear to be having some pretty intimate conversations about Mr. and Mrs. Cuck's relationship without including Mr. Cuck (Harriet, I believe it was you?). And maybe Mr. Cuck would be all about that. But as with many other aspects of this arrangement, there seems to be a lot of assuming what people will be comfortable with, and not a lot of conversation happening with the pertinent people.

And maybe I'm getting out in the weeds a bit here, but I think Harriet raises a lot of good issues about intentions and feelings. DACUCK does lay it on a bit in his letter how beautiful and wonderful this woman is, that she's "attracted to" and "loves having sex with" DACUCK (according to DACUCK). Maybe he's developing feelings for Mrs. Cuck or vice versa. Upon re-reading, the bit about Mrs. Cuck being "attracted to" DACUCK jumped out at me. This could just be a semantics thing, but I know we've gone round this on the comment board before, there being a difference in finding someone objectively attractive versus being attracted TO someone. This word choice could be telling.

Anyway. DACUCK can and should have a conversation with the couple all together. I like BDF's suggestion of starting with a humble apology, and explain that he agreed to this arrangement before fully understanding what he was getting himself into. From there, he can either offer some renegotiation points, or bow out completely. And while DACUCK has every right to ask to renegotiate terms, he does not get to do so in a way that cuts Mr. Cuck out of his own kink. Unfortunately, upon reading the letter closer, it seems that is what DACUCK is angling for ("Isn't it enough for him to know I'm fucking his wife?"), and that is not likely to go over well. Frankly I think the best course of action is to pump the brakes on the whole situation, something along the lines of "hey, this was a fun adventure, but this really isn't what I thought it would be/I'm feeling uncomfortable about this/this isn't working for me. It was fun, but now it's done. Let's all have a chuckle and go grab a beer and watch the game." Assuming the friendship is salvageable and hasn't been made to be horribly awkward now (one of the many, many things DACUCK and Mr. Cuck should have thought about before pushing this idea through to reality).

Also! Upon re-reading DACUCK's letter, it is now apparent that the time the two men were together in person and DACUCK was made uncomfortable by his friend's obvious arousal, it was shortly after DACUCK and Mrs. Cuck had had a romp. This context makes Mr. Cuck significantly less creepy and less guilty of inappropriately sexualizing his friendship, and adds to the arguement that DACUCK grossly underestimated and misinterpreted what this cucking situation was going to be.

Actually, no. Mr. Cuck is still acting in bad faith. His friend said he was not comfortable with sex with men in any way, told his friend he "wasn't even going to be in the same room" as a way of talking his friend into something he's not comfortable with, is less than forthcoming, then he's getting boners in front of his friend. This arrangement absolutely should end, as DACUCK agreed to it under less than clear terms. His friend is behaving selfishly, and is potentially risking blowing up his friendship and marriage over roping DACUCK into being a bull without his absolutely clear consent. What Lost Margarita said, Mr. Cuck should have dropped this the moment his friend expressed disinterest in sex or sex-adjacent activity with other men.

Also also! Mrs. Cuck of course should vet her bulls and sleep with people she's comfortable with. But this bit about her being "attracted to" DACUCK as a way of talking up the cucking arrangement is sticking in my craw. I'm not sure what Mr and Mrs. Cuck's conversations were like prior to opening their relationship in this way, but when a couple discusses opening their relationship and one of them already has someone in mind.... yeah, I don't really like that. Can of worms, that.

Mrs Fox, it seems the difficulty in figuring out who is in the wrong here stems from the fact that both of them are. They are both thinking dickfully and coming to opposite conclusions. Mr Cuck did not fully describe what he was going to be getting out of it, this is true. But DACUCK -- a regular SL reader! -- failed to consider the obvious truth that cucking is an activity undertaken at the behest and for the benefit of the man involved. Ideally for the wife too -- which seems the case here. He seems to have seen this as more a matchmaking situation between himself and Mrs Cuck. He is wrong to have dismissed Mr Cuck's interest and involvement, and Mr Cuck is wrong for not having been more, well, explicit about how he would be participating.

So yes, given that DACUCK's ideal level of involvement with Mr Cuck is zero, I reckon the best next step is to call this a communication lesson for all involved and move on.

Mrs Fox @94, I actually thought that was, well, a green flag here. If Mrs Cuck is attracted to DACUCK, then the odds are good this isn't something that she agreed to reluctantly, for her husband's sake. I like the idea that she's fucking DACUCK not just to be GGG, but because she fancies him. It's good fortune, I think, that there was a guy she was attracted to among their friends group. How many would-be cucks are stuck for years because they can't find a guy she wants to bang?

fubar @88: "for the wife, the cuckolding is the price she pays - and DACUCK pays - to get to have sex with one another."

What price does the cuckold pay, for getting his fetish fulfilled?

In my view, he pays by not jerking his wife around by ending her happy sexy romps on his timeline.

Harriet @86 "I've guest-starred (not bulled) for a few het married couples" So how much experience do you have with the topic at hand, which is cuckolding? In my experience, from participating in Fetlife cuckold discussion boards, it is generally a male kink which disturbs loving wives when they hear they're now supposed to humiliate their husbands. Husbands put in years of effort to persuade / pressure their wives to go along. The price they should pay for the humiliation they want is giving up some control over their wife's choice of new sex partner. That's my well-established view.

@84 BiDanFan: Thank you and bless you. I hope so, too. Addition insufficient funds charges on top of everything else wrong in my life I don't need right now.
After doing some online research and visiting the IRS's-----of course!----USELESS website, I found an actual phone number still connected (there is a claim that suddenly, the IRS is "backlogged by 2019 returns at this point". That's funny, because I had no trouble with e-filing, getting my tax refund, and first two stimulus payments via direct deposit for tax year 2019 and previously, and the IRS accepted my recently e-filed 2020 return ).
I smell a filthy RepubliKKKan Wall Street bankster plot, just many set in store to undermine everything the President BIden / Vice President Harris Administration is working hard to do for the citizens of the United States. I wish all RepubliKKKans and their ilk would die horrible deaths for al the undue misery they have wreaked upon too many of us.

@89. slinky. You're right about his explanation as to why he's sexually sluggish, and right in your analysis: she has to ask herself whether she can cut him some sexual slack. Does he think he's forsworn pussy for her? That's maybe not a great mindset to be carrying into a ltr / marriage.

@90. Lost. The rope top was an abusive and a consent-busting asshole and a poor advertisement for kink. Nothing you said indicated that you were open to his sexualising your interaction by jerking off while you were discussing the mechanics of something sexy. He was awful and I sympathise with you. But I don't really see your story and the current case as comparable.

Evidently there are lots of motivations for the cuck, or the non-playing partner, to want to know what went down between his partner ('his', in this case) and the bull. But DACUCK could have ruled out some of these motivations: it's unlikely e.g. that the friend is concerned for his wife's safety, because firstly he could ask her, and because he's chosen someone who he trusts will be safe. Further, it must have been apparent to DACUCK that his friend didn't have a cuck kink of the sort that he could gratify just by going over the bulling with his wife. The couple could have these conversations, but this is correctly a black box to the bull. No--he wanted to have the dress-down conversation specifically with the bulling lw. And it isn't as if DACUCK has a resistance to the friendship being sexualised in any shape or form: he's happy to engage in the roleplay, happy to talk demeaningly to his friend apparently in a sexualised way. One would even imagine that, given their roles, this is something in which the friend has given DACUCK a lot of leeway: he anticipates being mock-humiliated in a manner that underscores the lw's superiority and greater manliness.

Of course DACUCK can draw his boundary wherever he sees fit, but it might not have been evident to his friend that he'd choose to draw it precisely there. As a side note, the friend might not have presumed consent for the beating-off, but rather not have realised his jerk-off sounds were audible.

I think we agree, though, on DACUCK's course of action.

Margarita @90: "Some folks may say 'well what did you expect, chatting to a random dude off Fet?'"

I would not be one of them. You should expect someone versed in negotiation and respectful of boundaries. Thankfully, the dude revealed himself before you were tied. But what a shitty early experience for you.

BiDanFan @91: "perhaps we need Hunter here to clarify...'

Nooooo... when the beast is mentioned, the beast arises...

"the act, at one's request, of another man fucking one's female partner for the purpose of humiliating one."

Agreed.

In the classic case, the husband is in the room, tied to a chair, perhaps wearing frilly panties, watching his wife get fucked and getting humiliated in what the kids call "real time'.

But in this case, husband being absent, the fucking is abstract and the actual cuckolding, the humiliation, takes place during the post-game roundup. Without that, wife might just as well have gone to the library.

@BiDanFan, I live in one of those bawdy steamy rough and rowdy big cities. A metro area of 500,000 isn’t a small town or rural but there’s zero comparison between Lafayette or Huntsville and Houston or Atlanta. You can fit almost double the Seattle metro area population in metro Houston, and about 12 metro Lafayettes in metro Atlanta. There’s a lot more Jesus in the smaller cities, especially the whiter they are.

@Harriet, yes, he’s telling her that he thinks he’s forsworn pussy for her, although he might not be able to put that feeling into such a succinct and elegant phrase. And spot on that such feelings are bad news in an LTR.

Off-topic, but has Dan talked about Natalie Palamides' one man show "NATE"? I'm behind on the podcast, and unfortunately the ep. descriptions don't mention what's in the intro section. Oh and I don't have Twitter either lol. Would love to hear Dan's take on this Netflix special!!