Cuckolding (NSFW)

[Blue Jam]

How do people into cuckolding find the third person?

Center Parcs.

[chveik]

CAB meet

[Ham Bap]

CAB meat

[TrenterPercenter]

Not really, no.

Well it's quite simple; the book is called "Ways of Seeing" it's got 4 literal essays in it each on "a way of seeing" perhaps if you were not such a pedant that enjoys trying to humiliate people for their prose and grammar then you'd quite easily realise your mistake here, but I'll spell it out for you.

John Berger in Ways of Seeing

refers to the book and its title.

It's not an all encompassing theory, rather a commentary on how these paintings represent "a way of seeing".

refers to the impact of these paintings on the viewer (and the theme of the book Ways of Seeing)

Cheers.

[kalowski]

I think it would be as simple as going up to a person and saying "would you like to fuck my wife while I watch". I mean you could ask pretty much any bloke not paired off at the end of a night out and they'll say yes.

I'd just assume they were planning on murdering me in their home.

[Blue Jam]

CAB meat

We'd all like to be the CaB meat in a Ham Bap

[rectorofstiffkey]

How do people into cuckolding find the third person? I are their special magazines or websites for such a thing?

What do people tend to look for in the third person? I presume they need to be very sexy and very manly.

I always imagined (and by 'always' I mean since I started thinking about it yesterday) it would be one of two possibilities: either as you presume, very sexy and manly, or alternatively to be not very sexy or manly.  Because if it's about humiliation, albeit in a controlled way, wouldn't it be even more humiliating to be cuckolded by someone who was a bit pathetic?  I may have the psychology of this all wrong though.

[chveik]

will you partake in some scopophilia with us

[Buelligan]

Well it's quite simple; the book is called "Ways of Seeing" it's got 4 literal essays in it each on "a way of seeing" perhaps if you were not such a pedant that enjoys trying to humiliate people for their prose and grammar then you'd quite easily realise your mistake here, but I'll spell it out for you.

refers to the book and its title.

refers to the impact of these paintings on the viewer (and the theme of the book Ways of Seeing)

Cheers.

You should try relaxing a bit.  You seem very angry.

[TrenterPercenter]

You should try relaxing a bit.

Don't worry I've very chill thanks.  Just mowed the lawn in the lovely sun, cut the old man's hair (not a euphemism) and now in the process of making an awesome Sunday lunch with all the trimmings.

PS btw is that what relaxed people do now is it? Pull people up on imaginary mistakes about plurals and such.  I'll have to remember that. Cheers.

PPS - anyway that is enough now no-one cares about this silly stuff you insist on doing - the conversation is about cuckholding perhaps get back to that eh?

[Blue Jam]

Just another reminder that the Ignore function makes this place much more pleasant. It makes some threads completely unreadable but that's for the best.

[Buelligan]

Don't worry I've very chill thanks.  Just mowed the lawn in the lovely sun, cut the old man's hair (not a euphemism) and now in the process of making an awesome Sunday lunch with all the trimmings.

PS btw is that what relaxed people do now is it? Pull people up on imaginary mistakes about plurals and such.  I'll have to remember that. Cheers.

PPS - anyway that is enough now no-one cares about this silly stuff you insist on doing - the conversation is about cuckholding perhaps get back to that eh?

I'm sorry, you misunderstood me.  I wasn't pulling you up on an imaginary mistake, I mentioned it purely because of the meaning of the words.  Ways of seeing things, plural, reminds one that there is more than one way (to see a thing).  Do you understand?

[TrenterPercenter]

I'm sorry

You're welcome.


So I think there is probably something in the detached manner that men have been exposed to pornography; that is of being a viewer.  I suppose in relation to Kanks and thenoises posts these men might be confusing voyeuristic elements of porn i.e. wanting to see their partner in the role of their favourite porn actresses with actual cuckholdery in which they enjoy the humiliation and shame of someone fucking their partner. 

There are different kinds of cucks are there not? ones for who it is control of getting there wife to fuck someone else on their demand and those that enjoy the humiliation of being cucked.   With the former not realising their wife might actually enjoy shagging someone else.

[Buelligan]

I imagine there are many wives (and partners) that do.  And, in some cases at least, who the fuck can blame them?

[Better Midlands]

How do people into cuckolding find the third person? I are their special magazines or websites for such a thing?

Fabswingers

[bgmnts]

In ancient Athens, a cuckolded man could kill his wife's lover without any fear of reprisal.

Food for thought.

[Kankurette]

Killing Kittens as well.

I admit I wouldn't mind being the third wheel. It's just the thought of being cucked I don't like.

[imitationleather]

Killing Kittens as well.

Is that why he's disappeared off the forums then?

[Icehaven]

In ancient Athens, a cuckolded man could kill his wife's lover without any fear of reprisal.

Food for thought.

That'd be great, you could kill anyone you liked and just say it was because they shagged your wife. I mean it's not like you'd have had to provide photo evidence or anything. Got a promotion I wanted? Cut me up in his chariot? Dead. "He cucked me your honour." "Case dismissed."

[thenoise]

In ancient Athens, a cuckolded man could kill his wife's lover without any fear of reprisal.

Food for thought.

Gesualdo seems to have got away with it too, in 16th C Italy.

[Blue Jam]

That'd be great, you could kill anyone you liked and just say it was because they shagged your wife. I mean it's not like you'd have had to provide photo evidence or anything. Got a promotion I wanted? Cut me up in his chariot? Dead. "He cucked me your honour." "Case dismissed."

No DNA fingerprinting then either, job's a good 'un.

[chveik]

So I think there is probably something in the detached manner that men have been exposed to pornography; that is of being a viewer.  I suppose in relation to Kanks and thenoises posts these men might be confusing voyeuristic elements of porn i.e. wanting to see their partner in the role of their favourite porn actresses with actual cuckholdery in which they enjoy the humiliation and shame of someone fucking their partner. 

There are different kinds of cucks are there not? ones for who it is control of getting there wife to fuck someone else on their demand and those that enjoy the humiliation of being cucked.   With the former not realising their wife might actually enjoy shagging someone else.

masochism, voyeurism and whatnot existed before the wide exposition to pornography. porn can shape those scenarios but i think it comes from somewhere else (this stuff's already in Venus in furs. if it's all consensual there's not need to pathologize it like that really

[paruses]

Killing Kittens as well.

I admit I wouldn't mind being the third wheel. It's just the thought of being cucked I don't like.

Have to say Killing Kittens is more a swinger party business with weight, age, and income barriers. These days it's fabswingers or meeting people at parties. In the old days it was those glossy but cheap A5 contact mags. As to being manly / super attractive I would say attitude plays more than looks but that dad bod seems popular. White alpha guys will say they are bulls - it's another term that seems to have been taken and slapped on any black male filmed in portrait in a hotel room with a white wife.

Whatever the contact medium organising things is always a nightmare and often ends in no-shows Turns out men will stick their dicks in anything but only on their own terms and rarely is that in line with their favourite porn scenes.

Have to say I don't get the proper cuck thing (again not the Co-opted porn site black men/white woman thing) of one partner being humiliated / controlled but then I don't get being pissed on and some people love it. I probably have more experience of the hot wife thing which generally seems to be driven by the woman.

[PlanktonSideburns]

No DNA fingerprinting then either, job's a good 'un.

Hate it when the rozzers have to come round and dust me for prints because the wife's been trying to get her supervisor taken out under ruse of cuckqueenery

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Cuckholding has been a very common theme in fiction and erotic art since the middle ages. Medieval poets loved it, it was hugely popular in theater in 1800s, etc. It's not always a sexual thing either, its just a good narrative or allegorical device sometimes. It shows up world wide, its probably universal. Whenever one nation or people has conquered or colonised another, it'd be surprising if there isn't a bunch of satirical fiction or imagery produced about that involving cuckholdry.

If anything the enshrining of the nuclear family in the 20th century, and fear of miscegenation, meant it fell out of fashion rather into fashion. If I wanted to be really broad about it I'd say that the difference is it used to be see as a very natural thing - like something cuckoos and stags do, whereas now its presented as trangressive or unnatural, due to the racial or anti-family meaning American conservatives attach to it.

[TrenterPercenter]

masochism, voyeurism and whatnot existed before the wide exposition to pornography. porn can shape those scenarios but i think it comes from somewhere else (this stuff's already in Venus in furs. if it's all consensual there's not need to pathologize it like that really

Sorry to do this Chveik but I'm not sure you know what pathologising means[nb]you've made this mistake before[/nb] (it means seeing symptoms as illnesses and disorders) in the context you are using it you are referring to just thinking; well that is exactly what you are doing and "Venus in furs" is doing to (on a metaphysical level).  You don't have masochism, voyeurism etc.. without a mind to conceive of them so you know sometimes it's best to not shoe horn your anti-psychology schtick into everything.  Nothing mentioned by me is a "pathology", fetishes are not akin to pathologies as default.

Where "it" comes from of course is beyond modern day porn; I made this very point, Berger just quite interestingly did a study on European art paintings to demonstrate this point; I'm not sure why your book written after the creation of most of these oil paintings can be considered a precursor to them.

My point on modern pornography that is uses the same technique of having women looking at the viewer as opposed to the man; as pointed out in Berger's study; this channels "a way of seeing" there is a context that lovers on the screen are not actually fucking for their benefit (they are monetarily) but for the the viewer (they are for detached gratification and not for the illusion).  Of course it is older than pornhub.

[Buelligan]

As you seem to have studied the papers on this - how many famous paintings are there of nude women that include the woman's lover where the (nude) woman is ignoring him(?) and looking at the viewer?

[Video Game Fan 2000]

There's something very weird/pathologising about taking broad sets of imagery and narrative setups that have been popular practically since people first started daubing knobs on cave walls and reducing them to "fetishes" 

My point on modern pornography that is uses the same technique of having women looking at the viewer as opposed to the man; as pointed out in Berger's study; this channels "a way of seeing" there is a context that lovers on the screen are not actually fucking for their benefit (they are monetarily) but for the the viewer (they are for detached gratification and not for the illusion).  Of course it is older than pornhub.

Don't want to derail but the problem I have with Berger is that he seems to conflate three things: psychoanalytical gaze, philosophical or discursive gaze and actual perspective. He kind of swaps between them to make his points without really remaining consistent about which is which and why they're appropriate. It's one thing to say - in this situation the viewer isn't identifying with their own desire, but the desire that is constituted by the gaze itself (the gaze being the desire of some other who I identify with rather than acknowledge my own desires) - but if you just 1:1 that with sociological gaze or actual concrete examples of perspective in paintings and movies, it kind of falls apart.

I don't have so much of this problem with the Laura Mulvey or Jacqueline Rose version of the same thing. Jacqueline Rose is good on this.

[chveik]

Sorry to do this Chveik but I'm not sure you know what pathologising means[nb]you've made this mistake before[/nb] (it means seeing symptoms as illnesses and disorders) in the context you are using it you are referring to just thinking; well that is exactly what you are doing and "Venus in furs" is doing to (on a metaphysical level).  You don't have masochism, voyeurism etc.. without a mind to conceive of them so you know sometimes it's best to not shoe horn your anti-psychology schtick into everything.  Nothing mentioned by me is a "pathology", fetishes are not akin to pathologies as default.

Where "it" comes from of course is beyond modern day porn; I made this very point, Berger just quite interestingly did a study on European art paintings to demonstrate this point; I'm not sure why your book written after the creation of most of these oil paintings can be considered a precursor to them.

My point on modern pornography that is uses the same technique of having women looking at the viewer as opposed to the man; as pointed out in Berger's study; this channels "a way of seeing" there is a context that lovers on the screen are not actually fucking for their benefit (they are monetarily) but for the the viewer (they are for detached gratification and not for the illusion).  Of course it is older than pornhub.

the fact that i don't express myself very well (not being an english native speaker) doesn't mean i don't know what pathological means. i wasn't even really disagreeing with your post, i just think the casual porn viewer wouldn't get the particular incentive to act on those fetishes. i don't understand why you thought i was being anti-psychology, i know there's an intentionality behind those fetishes. i meant venus in furs being a precursor to modern porn, i dunno much about paintings (although i would say titillation is not necessarily the main goal of nude paintings, compared to porn).

[Video Game Fan 2000]

With cuckoldry its interesting to me because the set up is that the 'cuck' is being humiliating and getting masochistic pleasure from being shut out of the circuit because a stronger, more virile party has inserted himself into the couple.

But in porn/cuckoldry in art, the viewer who is supposedly getting off by identifying with the person being cucked isn't submitting to the pleasure of the wife/guy fucking her, he's submitting to the fictional position of the character being cucked. The "desire of the other" that is supposedly the thing a cuckold is submitting to, isn't the desire of the woman/wife but another masculine desire that is in the "gaze", which is I think why feminist critics tended to describe voyeuristic fantasies as inherently masculine or anti-feminine, because it involves a second male gaze overshadowing desire or fantasy.

i meant venus in furs being a precursor to modern porn,

I always thought a pivotal thing in Venus in Furs is that the dude walks behinds his partner and watches her, rather than being right next to her and involved or peaking from the bushes somewhere. I've heard this called the "modern" part of it, what makes it different from earler stuff. The masochistic party is close, but kept at a distance.