Thoughts on literal cucks? Anonymous 39978
What do you think about literal cucks? As in guys that enjoy getting cheated on?
It seems to be turning into something so common and I have no idea how to feel about that.
It's people facing the fact that their partners want to fuck someone else and therefore they just allow it to happen, kind of like going to swinger clubs.
You have no idea how o feel about men who want you to cheat on them? I'm sorry, you must be retarded then.
>another scrote thread
Worry about getting a gf in the first place before you worry about their fetishes anon.
Cuckquean is superior to cuckold in every way. There’s a fairly active cuckquean thread over on /nsfw/ right now, and not a cuckold thread in sight. Do the math.
Lol what kind of dumbass logic is that
Cuckquean is maybe even worse and encourages men to be even shittier than they already are. It takes an extremely mentally-ill handmaiden to be into that garbage. Don't get me wrong cuckolding is disgusting as well. Neither have any place in a healthy loving relationship.
Cuckqueen being popular just confirms the narrative that the natural order is for men to have multiple wives. That just depresses me.
Just keep in mind any woman with healthy self-esteem wouldn't be into this shit. People on imageboards tend to be of lower self esteem.
Take the harempill sister. You'll be so much happier sharing Chad with us than having some beta all to yourself.
Ok, see, that ruins the fantasy for me. I don’t want to be the flavor of the night, along with a half dozen other women who mean nothing to some caricature of toxic masculinity (I hate that term but it works here).
I like the idea of a man who is masculine and insatiable but still mine. So he can rock another woman’s world in bed and then hold me tight and tell me he loves me. It’s no different to me than him giving me a back rub. I could even do a poly relationship with another woman, but the point would be her and me sharing a good man who is mature enough and emotionally capable enough to sustain that much emotional energy.
Does is play into classic gender tropes? Sure. Do I care? As long as I don’t feel pressured, and am emotionally fulfilled, I don’t care in the least. If it’s natural order, there’s nothing wrong with that, and as far as I can figure the only people who get screwed over (kind of) are some men. But I think those are men who couldn’t make most woman happy anyway, so is that really so problematic?
I don't care. There's so much other worse degenerate shit that's becoming mainstream that we need to spend way more attention on kinkshaming than this.
I mostly just meant that post as a joke, but if you want to get serious ok.
At this point "chad" is just a catch all term to refer to a highly desirable man. The man of your fantasy is clearly highly desirable so he's Chad.
And ultimately all you're saying is you just want to be the alpha female of the harem that gets special treatment over everyone else.
I have terribly low self esteem and I have never considered sharing a partner. I think it's more about having loose morals.
I find the fantasy on both sides (cucks and their queans) hot but deem the logistics more trouble than it's worth. This kink, which attracts immature individuals with power fantasies or low self-esteems, requires emotionally mature lovers to succeed. Usually the aforementioned stable relationships remain content with monogamy and don't feel the need to seek out constant sexual variety. Lowkey unicorns may trod the earth, but the loudest scrotes tend to scorch it.
They are pathetic. This woman is also pathetic. God I hate these disgusting wastes of space and resources.
You're literally talking about being in a harem and describing your Chad.
>>40009>is that really so problematic
Nope, I can't see any problems rising from that at all.
Milking a gently used beta's dick is better than milking Chad's used up dick that's been everywhere. Change my mind.
I’d rather eat a leftover salmon fillet from a nice restaurant than a piece of unseasoned fish from a dirty lake that’s been uncooked but is also just for me.
I’d rather buy a Corvette with 50k miles on it than a Toyota Tercel brand new.
I’d rather own a mansion in DC that dozens of other families have lived in over the years than a newly built trailer in rural Kentucky.
>>40043>I’d rather eat a someone else's leftover salmon fillet from a nice restaurant than a piece of unseasoned fish from a dirty lake that’s been uncooked but is also just for me.
>I’d rather buy a Corvette with 50k miles on it that I need to carpool around when I want to use it than a Toyota Tercel brand new.
>I’d rather own a mansion in DC that dozens of other families live in than a newly built trailer in rural Kentucky.
I fixed those for you.
Honestly all three of those would still be true. Would rather someone else’s leftovers than garbage food, would rather share a nice car than have a shit car to myself, would rather share a mansion in a good city than have a trailer to myself in a bad one.
I learned from this thread that men don't cheat sufficiently on women.
Anon you and i have the same dream/fantasy/idk. I personally want something called "polyfidelity" in poly circles, which is basically the loyalty and emptional involvement of two people, but bewteen three or maybe four. Basically the aforementioned anon's idea, but with a "having a husband with my best friend", which would definitely also translate into better childrearing, more capital to spend/invest and less stress for us 3
What's the point? Just a third income? Or is it that you're bi and want to be with your "best friend"?
Huge difference between fetish cuckqueaning and cheating, or poly and cheating for that matter.>>40050
NTA but I am in a married, monogamous relationship; I have one child. I have a number of close female friends who are single, good women with good careers and who are beautiful women. If any of them wanted to enter into my family, have babies with my husband, and co-mother any children that unit produced, I’d welcome them with open arms. My husband is a good man who treats my friends no different than his male friends, and who loves and respects me, so I feel like we could definitely handle another woman in our life in the right way. I don’t desire that necessarily, but I’d be open to it.
Cuck stuff, both old and quean, seems to focus on humiliation, which is a big “no” for me sexually. I would be disgusted if my husband wanted to be a cuck, and I don’t want to be one for him.
So you'd accept that out of generosity because your husband is so great and your friends can't find any good men? And you wouldn't have any jealousy?
All of that but also including having a bigger family/more people to rely on/love. Its not even about sex since that for me is largely secondary when im not romantically invested on someone. Loving someone is a very beautiful thing, and sharing that between 3 people is wonderful, just as wonderful as keeping it between 2, and maybe even more wonderful than that.
So why add only other women to the relationship and not other men?
(not the married anon) men are definitely welcome. it makes 0 difference if its a guy or a girl. i just said women since thats the "default"/to counter jealousy arguments/to not get told im being "greedy" or "want to cheat".
Nah, they already cheat enough. I think women should cheat more. Most men with few exceptions deserve to be cheated on.
I learned that female cucks are just as mentally ill as male ones.
>>40061>based man-hating radfem
Or cuck m*id trying to subvert and destroy idk. Either way have a noble fighter against cuckolds, cheaters, and other degenerate males
>>40054>Huge difference between fetish cuckqueaning and cheating, or poly and cheating for that matter.
No there really isn't. The only difference is that one circumstance you personally like, and another you don't. 'I like it so that makes it okay.' That's your entire attitude.
>I am in a married, monogamous relationship; I have one child, me me me me me etc.
You're just kind of extremely selfish and reading your posts makes me slightly nauseated.
Ummm consent makes a huge difference. It is the difference sex and rape, between martial arts and assault, between a surprise vacation and a kidnapping.
It’s not selfish to give context on yourself and then present your attitude or mindset.
>>40009> If it’s natural order, there’s nothing wrong with that
that's not how it works, natural =/= "right"
and if humanity was all about what's natural you would still bang a rock on your head in some cave
I’m not saying natural order is a defense, just that the fact that some people ineffectively argue it as a defense isn’t a criticism.
I'm not sure if it's a "natural order".
Prehistoric humans, like paleolithic tribes observed in modern times, always lived in monogamous couples, ever since they became humans. In fact monogamy might be a key point of what made human society possible and necessary. Harem societies existed before (in great apes and possibly pre-human primates, where the group's patriarch has exclusive access to all the females until he is replaced by a new patriarch), but also after, during the neolithic revolution when wealth and possessions became established concepts and became concentrated in the hands of a small minority of men. At that point women became essentially cattle, originally not because of some sudden oppression, but simply because their sexual behaviour makes them indistinguishable from property: they all flocked to the small minority of high status men. This is evidenced by the massive neolithic male ancestry bottleneck: we have about 17 times more female ancestors from that period than male ones. Meaning on average only 1 in 17 males reproduced, and did so with an average of 17 different women.
But that's only the last 7000 years, like I said before that humans were monogamous for a million years. Although that too was cultural rather than natural, so maybe we're just reverting to pre-human instinct.
not to be the one asking for sources on a IB but, do you got sources for that, matey?
For which part? The 1 to 17 ratio in the neolithic? Just google "neolithic y-chromosome bottleneck".
As for the fact that paleolithic societies are almost always monogamous and women are considered properly human and members of the tribe (never livestock like in neolithic societies), that's well documented by anthropology and archaeology alike. By the way I'm counting as monogamous the minority of societies that have "serial monogamy" (meaning several partners over a lifetime but only one at a time) and also those which practice ritualised non-monogamous sex, which is something very different.
And if you mean the question of whether pre-human primates were patriarchal rather than monogamous, like I said that's more speculative, as we don't know for sure how their societies functioned. However australopithecus and especially habilis have a high (and increasing) level of sexual dimorphism, which points towards patriarchal mating. This dimorphism then rapidly diminishes again with the appearance of homo erectus (the first humans). This also matches our understanding of psycho-social humanisation, first suggested by Freud as implying the literal murder of the father, and the emergence of social customs, including monogamy but also for example the taboo on incest, designed to keep the group from tearing itself apart in violent conflict.
Thought you girls might enjoy this piece. It's from NPR and it's about polygamous wives in Mormon society.https://www.npr.org/2017/01/17/510246850/how-mormon-polygamy-in-the-19th-century-fueled-womens-activism
Ms. Ulrich argues that multiple-women homes were empowering even as early as the 19th century. I wouldn't want to participate in one but it helped me to understand these cucks a little better.
Horrible thread filled with shilling scrots.
Cuckolding enables primitive behavior and a displaced sexual market somewhat benefiting low-status women (in male cuckoldry) and definitely benefiting alpha-negative men (in both cases). If men's sexual behavior was suppressed and women completely controlled the sexual dynamic there wouldn't be a Chad/beta lover/provided split - all women would choose to fuck and commit to the best Chad they could find and they damn well wouldn't share while the betas would just die away. Ironically the traditional model of marriage is the most beneficial and sympathetic to women's sexuality because it beats alpha men into submitting to monogamy. The only catch is that you only get what you deserve - if you're a low-status woman you can't get the best man, he'll be taken by a woman superior to you and that's what makes it fair to beta men too since they have a chance to find their equal.
Male cuckoldry enables low-status women to fuck above their station while keeping a secure partner and lets Chad indulge at the expense of high-status women and beta men who want a monogamous equal. This is also a compromise for the woman since naturally she would prefer a Chad provider and lover in one but this is the only way she can get to men above her status. Meanwhile her cuck partner gets an anxiety relief that he can keep his mate while she gets her needs met through an outside source.
Female cuckoldry lets Chad indulge again at the expense of high-status women who want a monogamous equal and it's again a compromise for the cuckquean since she gets to be with Chad but can't have him only to herself.
If you pay attention to people who commit infidelity - the women tend to cheat with a man (usually one) who is better in some way to their husbands while men cheat with women (often multiple) who are often inferior to their wives. It's always been quality (for female sexuality) vs quantity (for male sexuality).
Cukolding is women comprising their natural sexuality and adjusting to the worst aspects of male sexuality to try and get the best deal while fucking up the sexual dynamic for everyone else.
So what's the best solution? The harem pill?
I don’t think the first poster would want to be in a harem or would support harems, but that would seem to be the obvious best solution based on what’s she’s saying.
Kill all beta males and replace them with manual labor robots.
>>40254>low-status human>superior human>inferior human>beta human
This is why humankind must be wiped out. A new world must be created where everyone is equal.
It's the opposite of incel tier. Incels hold fast onto the primitive alpha Chad-beta dichotomy.
That's kind of my hope for the future of AI. That they will be our descendants but free from all the lizard brain bullshit
equality is an unachievable unicorn
if you work harder, you get paid more
if you are more handsome, you get laid more
if you are weak and ugly, bad luck i guess
no 2 persons are the same
Please tell me the black transfer student and the cute girl are going to team up and fuck Hiroki in his little boyhole.
Pretty much this, my analogy is like being the top lioness in a pride with the guy being the lion
Out of all the scenarios people could fantasize about and they think about sharing their partners with other people. Pathetic and an obvious sign of low self-worth.
This. It just makes me think that they have submitted to the idea that their partner will never be happy with just them so they might as well try and make it a "kink" to pretend they aren't total relationship failures. Like fuck, just get into BDSM or something like everyone else.
The one with the white guy bleaching the girl is better. Always hated the blacked spam. That's male fantasy.
>women are afraid of being killed by men
>men are afraid of being humiliated by women
>more women with one man means as a whole they trust him enough and he won't kill them
>more men with one woman means they will not be humiliated since the woman will always come back to each man and make him feel secure
Does this even make sense?
>>41460>more men with one woman means they will not be humiliated since the woman will always come back to each man and make him feel secure
That won't work since it'll always come back to men one-upping each other and if there is any setback in the relationship where one gets left out of intimacy it would breed murderous feelings of injustice in men against each other and the woman.
>>41451>I came just from him petting me
I'm losing it
Depends what part he's petting ༼ຈلຈ༽
From what you're saying it sounds like you treating your partner as just a possession of yours.