currylightskin
Yakhiiiiiiii 😹😹😹😹🤙🤙🤙🤙💦
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
- Posts
- 13,966
- Reputation
- 19,829
the United States of America. A nation that guarantees its people the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, domestic tranquility, and liberty. It's a first world nation with modern comforts, modern education, modern security, and modern science. Yet I live in fear of a Nineteenth Century phenomenon that was originally the product of hallucinations caused by mold-contaminated water.
Americans burned witches, created a plague of violent organized crime via alcohol prohibition, and brought about unfathomable and egregious waste and harm persecuting other-than-heterosexual people. Every time Americans have ceased a witch hunt related to one identity, act, or lifestyle, they have immediately begun a new one. The result has been fractured friendships and families, discrimination, beatings, murders, wasted time and resources in courts and legislative processes, people denied opportunity to contribute to the economy, loss, waste, fraud, abuse, and the spawning of hate groups and extremists.
Last year, the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, thereby marking the end of America's most recent witch hunt. Less than a year passed before the campaign for a candidate (and later, nominee) for the presidency initiated the next witch hunt. Everywhere Donald Trump's supporters congregate online, anonymously, they have spammed the word "cuck," thereby signaling the next group of people to be needlessly tortured, denied rights, and murdered.
The phenomenon comes across as planned because prior to the Supreme Court's decision, psychiatrists invented a psychiatric disorder to accompany the new iteration of the witch hunt phenomenon. By TELLING this class of people their motivations, emotions, and thoughts relative to the sexual interest, rather than ASKING, they have blatantly fabricated justification for the next round of tragedy and waste. That entry in the DSM-V is as much an act of hate as it is blatant fraud.
Cuckolds are TOLD that we enjoy being humiliated, universally. Sometimes, we are TOLD that we enjoy fear and anxiety. Sometimes, we are TOLD that we are emotional masochists. Otherwise, we are TOLD that it's a sexual perversion akin to the enjoyment of pornography. We are not ASKED how we feel about it, how we emotionally respond to its fulfillment of non-fulfillment, how we think about it, nor how it affects our lives. We are TOLD that our preference is the result of abuse. We are TOLD by people who do not share our feelings, do not share our thoughts, and are not deities with the power to dictate how we think and feel as though our neurology would adhere to their presumed divine command.
I do not enjoy humiliation; it is not pleasant to me, and my significant other would never intentionally cause it. I do not seek out anxiety; there's enough to be anxious about in life without inventing new reasons to feel apprehension or stress. I am not an emotional masochist; my relationship with my spouse inspires feelings of closeness, attachment, affection, security, and trust, just like any healthy relationship. I do not simply indulge a sexual perversion; were that the case then just as with the multitude of hypocrites who attempt to impose that explanation for our preferences, it would be easier to simply watch pornography.
It is true that my preference is the result of my experiences, and not all of those experiences were positive. The end result of those experiences IS positive, contributes stability, satisfaction, fulfillment, and intimacy to my life, and causes me no problems whatsoever beyond the anxiety brought about by becoming a coincidental target of America's next great mistake. Had the academic and medical frauds who deemed my preferences a psychiatric disorder ever ASKED about my emotions, thoughts, and the impact of this preference to my life, then I could have gladly explained.
First and foremost, I understand that people who do not share my preference would be impacted negatively by it. They would consider themselves disrespected, would feel humiliated, and would suffer. These things are only true because it's not their preference! If it were, then living according to their preference would be a GOOD thing. Of course living according to something other than their preferences would not be good! If people can understand without explanation that another person's food preferences are not necessarily the same as their own, they can accept that some people eat food they don't like, and they are not possessed of a delusion that someone else consuming food they wouldn't enjoy themselves does not impose upon them the taste of that food, then we should not have to explain this for sexual preferences either.
Second, there is an argument of ethics to consider. Some people have sexual preferences that cause harm to others; for example, habitual rapists. The argument could be made that cuckoldry increases the incidence of sexual promiscuity and therefore affects all the associated risks and harms upon society. This would be a reasonable argument, if in fact the people instigating the new witch hunt were opposing sexual promiscuity. But they are not. These people, as a group, are not objecting to the numerous and varied other cultural, psychological, and incidental contributors to sexual promiscuity in society, but rather are singling out cuckolds exclusively. Furthermore, people in open or half-open relationships are not somehow restricted from practicing the same sensible responsibility that everybody else engaging in sex outside of lifelong, monogamous marriage also practice themselves, nor is there any credible evidence whatsoever that a greater rate of irresponsible sex results from cuckoldry than any other contributor to promiscuity, nor would a witch hunt address or resolve the matter were it even the case.
My experiences and motivations do include a frequency of unfaithful partners that may be much higher than the statistical norm. This is not coincidence, but also does not confer upon me any traits rendering me inferior or justifying any kind of special social consequence. It is not a crime to be cheated on, I am not of particularly great nor small endowment, I do not have medical problems nor lack of knowledge, skill, work ethic, or character that would render one's performance unsatisfactory in intercourse, I am not physically weak, I do not oppose sound, time-honored relationship or household traditions (aside from the fact of being a cuckold itself), nor am I possessed of any special social challenges or ineptitude that some would assume without evidence are common among all cuckolds. All that IS true is that by simple, random luck of the draw, I experiences infidelity enough times that it provided more occasion to think about the experience than perhaps most people are subjected to.
The motivations for my preference are partly sexual in nature, of course, because it is a sexual preference. Yes, I am aroused by the idea of my spouse enjoying sexual intimacy with others. This does not mean that sexual arousal is the only motivator. It is simply one single and distinct fact that there is a sexual component, implying nothing beyond that fact.
An emotional component exists as well. My spouse and I have been together for ten years. Whereas many people advise that a careful process of withholding some thoughts from communication is necessary to maintain a stable, lasting relationship, we enjoy the capacity to be completely honest without each other about everything we think and feel. This absence of a need for a filter means that when we speak kindly of each other, we know by evidence and not assumption that such expressions are sincere. We never have to wonder about unspoken criticism, and we can also criticize each other in a constructive and productive manner because we have no reason or need to interpret criticism as cause to question the positive things we say about each other.
The emotional and relationship utility aspects of cuckoldry extend to the enhancement of intimacy even when no others are involved (we do have regular periods of monogamy, as cuckoldry does not mean that my spouse must ALWAYS have sex with other people). Because my significant other can honestly expose to me the details of her sex life, past and present, to include detailing aspects of her subjective experience to an extent and with accuracy that a person without my preference would be emotionally harmed to hear, I enjoy greater insights regarding her body, mind, and emotions. This insight has enhanced my understanding of my spouse and, indeed, the experiences of the opposite sex in general because I am privy to details and descriptions that would otherwise remain withheld.
Because we practice unfiltered honesty with each other, we benefit from trust that is, logically, nearly unbreakable. It is not possible for us to deceive each other regarding many things that couples without this preference may have difficulty being honest about even if (in the best cases) it arises solely from the challenge of constructing the best phrasing. We can each simply express our true desires, thoughts, and feelings without concern that they will cause alarm, discomfort, pain, or anxiety for the other.
There logically can never be reason for me to wonder what she is not telling me because she will likely have already told me whatsoever I might wonder about, and otherwise, she either likely will soon or has already expressed and received consent to engage in something without the need to discuss it further (which only happens in theory of contingency and never in practice). In other words, if she has an emotionally, cognitively, or physically profound enough experience that she would find difficulty expressing it, she does not have to pressure herself to find the words, in theory. As a result, she can always quickly find those words when she is ready to, and without anxiety, withholding, dishonesty, or pressure, in practice.
Emotional intimacy and pair-bonding are enhanced, and not impeded, by our preferences. Note the use of "our" here, as this aspect highlights that the error of the witch-hunt's focus on the person cuckolded exclusively and not the implicit partner doing the actual cuckolding. Because I love my wife, it makes me happy when she experiences pleasant and sweet things. The sexual arousal aspect merely removes a barrier to empathizing positively with her joy, pleasure, and happiness in sexual experiences. This greater capacity for positive empathy promotes greater frequency of shared positive emotions, and through that, a higher degree of bond and closeness.
Some have proposed that because sexual intercourse promotes pair-bonding, the cuckold's significant other would bond with others and thereby erode the bond with her partner. In couples with more traditional preferences in this regard, that may be understandably true due to a dependency of bonding upon exclusivity arising from a general desire to achieve a permanent monogamous pairing. Projecting that consequence upon us both neglects that we do not require exclusivity for stable, permanent pairing and assumes a kind of nebulously quantifiable finite budget for affection. While it is true that the chemical agents acting neurologically to produce feelings of affection and attachment are measurable and therefore finite, it is an unjustified hasty generalization to assume that this imposes a universally uniform affection budget.
Affection and attachment are indeed products resulting from sexual arousal, intercourse, and climax. The love of my life does indeed sometimes feel an emotional response for an extramarital lover, and in the moment of passion does sometimes feel an exclusive bond and affection for only that person. However, once the moment has ended, the moment has ended. It seems that many men find difficulty understanding that a woman experiences a blunt and repetitive invasion of her body by the most personal and intimate physical channel via another person's most personal and intimate instrument for the act. The physical sensation itself is internal, as emotions and the feelings of pleasure and passion themselves are, and while men too can experience a strong emotional response to intimacy, the association of the experience occurring internally (as emotions do) can (for some women) make a resulting (again, also internal) overwhelming emotional response. Once the internal experience has ended, and the fog of passion has subsided, the stimulus of the moment is no longer so overwhelming as to drown out sentiment for others.
From what I have enjoyed the benefit of access to learn about women in regards to the previous paragraph, I think that this simple difference between the gender in the fundamental physical experience of intimacy produces a great deal of failure of men to understand the opposite sex as well as might otherwise be achieved. It is likely no coincidence that a male-dominated presidential campaign, commented upon by male-dominated anonymous communities of supporters, falsely justified by primarily male-dominated academic and medical frauds have precipitated the beginnings of this country's next great witch-hunt. This paragraph spells out conjecture, but should I presume worthiness to dictate to others their emotions and thoughts as they deem themselves authority enough to do to me, then I would probably conclude that these men are so insecure in their masculinity that simply allowing themselves to empathize with or imagine the experiences of womanhood threatens their fragile, identity-driven, insecurity-revealing egos.
People are different. It is folly to observe in oneself some quality or process of reasoning and then project upon the entirety of the species any form of assumption without even the benefit of inquiry. The scientific method involves asking, guessing, and testing; not declaring, imposing, and dictating to nature via some mentality of presumed self-deification. Politicians who continue to employ tools of division, animosity, and social toxicity should be discouraged from repeating the widespread, costly, tragic harms of the past. No person's way of life is a perfect model of the human experience because there is no singular experience to model upon. And when we really get down to it, none of this is any of your fucking business anyway, assholes.
