A cuckolding and strong woman to share her adventures and advice. I like to share :).

Archive for the ‘General Information’ Category

Taking a break…

Since it has been a while since I posted anything, this is not a surprise to many of you, but I need to take a break from this blog and from posting.  With school starting up and all the other activities with the family, something has got to give and this blog and much of my online communication is it.

That doesn’t mean the lifestyle will end, only my publishing and talking to others about it will stop for the moment.  So that means this blog, my Facebook, Twitter, and email will end or will have next to nothing come from them. Even my Tumblr activity will fade lots.    When things slow down I’ll be back and in the downtime, I will be looking for more articles and trying to collect more information to better inform the world about it and to show it is not so far out there as some people think.

Enjoy your Fall and Good Luck to everyone in your choices!!!!!!


Please excuse the mess

Greetings All!!!

This blog started off as a personal brain dump.  A place to dump all the thoughts that were in my head on cuckolding.  Then it became a melting pot of information I found across the web from various authors and sites; some of it good, some of it not so good.  My goal has become to create a single resource where those looking for information on the cuckolding or hot wife lifestyles and come for information.

From personal experience, I know it can be difficult to come to grips with all this lifestyle offers and even how real it is, especially for women.  We have been taught our whole lives that good girls don’t do certain things and married women don’t even consider certain things.  We are also taught that our husband’s love towards us should be expressed in certain ways.  And all of these things we have been taught are completly opposite to this lifestyle.  It can be puzzling, frustrating, hurtful, and exciting all wrapped up in one.  I struggled to find real information from real people to find out just how real all this is and what it means about me, my husband, our family, and our future.  So this blog is meant to provide that single resource.

As I have grown this blog, I have not taken great care in obviously distinguishing my original work from that of others.  I do not intend to take credit for or plagarize the work of others and so I apologize for the confusion I created by not making that obvious distinction.  I will be putting some thought into how better to organize this blog and the information it has in it to make it easier to read for everyone.

Please be aware that when I post work from another author, I make no claims to the accuracy of their work to any scientific evident they produce, how factual it is, or even how realistic it is.  I just want to provide information for men, women, and couples to use to discuss this lifestyle, all it has to offer, and how they want to shape it to fit their own preferences.

Thanks for reading and I welcome all comments or critiques.  Let’s make this our site by working together to build it!!!


Good Luck!!!!



Another reason women are not meant to be monogamous.

 Another long artcle, with the original here:http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep021223.pdf


My summary:

The human penis shape has evolved into an efficient semen displacement device.  This would only be true if we women would be expected to have mulitple sexual partners.  So this is yet another clue that we women are not expected, designed, nor evolved to be monogamous.  So live life and enjoy it for all you can!!!


 Evolutionary Psychology

human-nature.com/ep – 2004. 2: 12-23


Original Article

 Semen Displacement as a Sperm Competition Strategy in Humans

 Gordon G. Gallup, Jr., Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 12222, USA. Email: gallup@albany.edu.

 Rebecca L. Burch, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126, USA. Email: rburch@oswego.edu.

 Abstract: We examine some of the implications of the possibility that the human penis may have evolved to compete with sperm from other males by displacing rival semen from the cervical end of the vagina prior to ejaculation. The semen displacement hypothesis integrates considerable information about genital morphology and human reproductive behavior, and can be used to generate a number of interesting predictions.

 Keywords: penis morphology, semen displacement, sperm competition, sperm retention, premature ejaculation, double mating, circumcision, penile hypersensitivity, refractory period, fertilization by proxy, last male precedence, infertility, self-semen displacement, semen coagulation, wife rape.


The human penis as a semen displacement device

 The penis evolved as an internal fertilization device. There are, however, striking differences in penis morphology between different species (see Birkhead, 2000). In addition to the ostensible impact of female choice on the evolution of more elaborate male genitalia (Eberhard, 1996), there is reason to believe that sperm competition played a role in shaping the human penis. The human penis, with a relatively larger glans and more pronounced coronal ridge than is found in many other primates, may function to displace seminal fluid from rival males in the vagina by forcing it back over/under the glans. During intercourse the effect of repeated thrusting would be to draw out and displace foreign semen away from the cervix. As a consequence, if a female copulated with more than one male within a short period of time this would allow subsequent males to “scoop out” semen deposited by others before ejaculating (Baker and Bellis, 1995).

 To test this hypothesis, Gallup, Burch, Zappieri, Parvez, Stockwell, and Davis (2003) simulated sexual encounters using artificial models and measured the magnitude of artificial semen displacement as a function of phallus configuration, depth of thrusting, and semen viscosity. The displacement of simulated semen was robust across different prosthetic phalluses, different artificial vaginas, different semen recipes, and different semen viscosities. The magnitude of semen displacement was directly proportional to the depth of thrusting and inversely proportional to semen viscosity. By manipulating different characteristics of artificial phalluses, the coronal ridge and frenulum were identified as key morphological features involved in mediating the semen displacement effect.

 Under conditions that raise the possibility of females engaging in extra-pair copulations (i.e., periods of separation from their partner, allegations of female infidelity), Gallup et al. (2003) also found that males appear to modify the use of their penis in ways that are consistent with the displacement hypothesis. Based on anonymous surveys of over 600 college students, many sexually active males and females reported deeper and more vigorous thrusting when in-pair sex occurred under conditions related to an increased likelihood of female infidelity.

 Implications for species differences in penis length and morphology

 Semen displacement as a means of competing with sperm from rival males is not an uncommon strategy in animals. The males of some species possess penile barbs, hooks, combs, or a textured glans to remove copulatory plugs and semen from the female reproductive tract (for a review see Baker and Bellis, 1995). In humans, the distinctive characteristics of the penis, relative to other primates, are its length, circumference, glans, and coronal ridge. In order for the human penis to serve as an efficient semen displacement device, it needs to be of sufficient size to fill the vagina and supplant foreign semen. The typical erect human penis ranges from 127mm to 178mm in length (Masters & Johnson, 1966), with an average circumference of 24.5mm (Wessells, Lue, and McAninch, 1996). In contrast with our closest living relative, the human penis is roughly twice as long and wide as that of the common chimpanzee (Short, 1980). The glans and coronal ridge of the human penis are also uniquely configured (Izor, Walchuk and Wilkins, 1981). The posterior portion of the human glans is larger in diameter than the penis shaft, and at the interface between the glans and the shaft the coronal ridge is positioned perpendicular to the shaft. Common chimpanzees have no clearly differentiated glans or coronal ridge (Kinzey, 1974).

 As evidence that the human penis may have been shaped by the recurrent adaptive problem posed by sperm competition consider the following. Magnetic resonance imaging studies show that during coitus, the typical penis fills and expands the human vagina, and with complete penetration often pushes up against the cervix (Weijmar Schultz, van Andel, Sabelis, and Mooyart, 1999). When ejaculation occurs, thrusting diminishes and vaginal penetration reaches its maximum point (Masters and Johnson, 1966). Not only does this serve to release semen in close proximity to the cervix, but data on ejaculatory pressure shows that the first several ejaculatory contractions project seminal fluid with such force that it can be expelled at a distance of 30-60cm if not contained in a vagina (Masters and Johnson, 1966). Thus, there appear to have been a series of adaptations that serve to confine or focus the release of semen to the uppermost portion of the vaginal tract, possibly as a means of making it less vulnerable to displacement by other males. A longer penis would not only have been an advantage for leaving semen in a less accessible part of the vagina, but by filling and expanding the vagina it also would aid and abet the displacement of semen left by other males as a means of maximizing the likelihood of paternity.

 In addition to competing with sperm from rival males, there may be other benefits of deep semen placement. In contrast to organisms that walk on all fours, the assumption of an upright posture and the emergence of bipedalism brought the human female reproductive tract, and the vagina in particular, into a perpendicular orientation with gravity that is poorly suited to semen retention. Copulation in the ventral-ventral mode with the female in a supine position brings the female reproductive tract back into a more primitive parallel orientation with gravity, and enhances the likelihood that semen will be retained. However, due to the effects of gravity, the resumption of an upright posture following coitus has the potential to endanger semen retention. Consistent with this hypothesis, there are several mechanisms that appear to postpone getting up after a sexual encounter, such as post-copulatory petting, patterns of nocturnal copulation, and the sedative-like effects of orgasm (Gallup and Suarez, 1983). Likewise, a long penis that provides for the release of semen deep in the vagina could also serve as a hedge against semen loss.

 Ordinal ejaculation effects

 It follows from the semen displacement hypothesis that sperm competition among humans ought to involve ordinal ejaculation/mating order effects. Under conditions in which several males copulate with a female in close temporal proximity to one another the male who mated with the female last would have an advantage, known as last male precedence (see Birkhead, 2000). In the case of humans, the last male to copulate would be in a position to displace the semen left by previous males before inseminating the female with his own semen. This assumes, of course, that other factors such as sperm quality, ejaculate size, penis length, and female control of mating are constant. As yet, little research has been conducted on this topic, but in the sections that follow we elaborate a number of potentially testable implications of the semen displacement hypothesis.

 Double Mating

 For semen displacement to be adaptive it presupposes situations in which human females have sex with multiple (two or more) males in fairly close succession/temporal proximity to one another. Situations that satisfy this criterion include 1) consensual sex with multiple concurrent partners, 2) nonconsensual sex with multiple concurrent partners, and 3) multiple successive consensual and/or nonconsensual sexual encounters that occur within a relatively brief period of time. Examples include, group sex, gang rape, extra pair copulations, promiscuity, prostitution, and resident male insistence on sex in response to suspected infidelity (see subsequent section on female reproductive strategy). Instances of human heteroparity, or heteropaternal superfecundation, where members of a pair of fraternal twins are actually half sibs as a consequence of being conceived by different fathers, are well documented (e.g., Ambach, Parson, and Brezinka, 2000; Wenk, Houtz, Brooks, and Chiafari, 1992), and testify to the existence of double mating by females. It is also worth noting that patterns of consensual concurrent mating with multiple males by female chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, are common (Tutin, 1979), and as such may have been prevalent during earlier phases of human evolutionary history as well.

 Effects of circumcision

 What effect, if any, does the practice of surgically removing the foreskin have on the semen displacement properties of the human penis? For intact males, when the penis is fully erect the foreskin is pulled back over the glans and down the shaft of the penis. As a result, whether a man has been circumcised is often only apparent when the penis is flaccid. However, depending on how thick the foreskin is and how far it extends over the end of the glans, circumcision could affect the magnitude of semen displacement. During circumcision the foreskin is cut away from the shaft of the penis immediately behind the glans (Holman and Stuessi, 1999). As a consequence of removing the foreskin the circumference of the shaft posterior to the glans may be slightly reduced, causing the coronal ridge to be more pronounced and creating a larger area for semen to collect where it could be scooped back away from the cervix.

 Laumann, Masi, and Zuckerman (1997) found that circumcised men masturbate more often and engage in more elaborate sexual behaviors. Anecdotal reports of adult circumcision by affected males and their partners also suggest that the procedure leads to changes in sexual behavior. Money and Davison (1983) and Fink, Carson, and De Vellis (2002) found that among males who underwent circumcision as adults, the majority reported a loss of penile sensitivity and a prolongation of sexual intercourse, and some reported less sexual gratification.

 Anecdotal reports from females also bear on the semen displacement properties of the circumcised penis. In a study of 139 women who had experienced intercourse with a number of both circumcised and uncircumcised partners, O’Hara and O’Hara (1999) found most (73%) reported that circumcised men thrust harder and deeper, and used more elongated strokes than their uncircumcised counterparts. The majority of the respondents preferred sex with uncircumcised males, citing greater displacement of vaginal secretions and resulting vaginal dryness, increased friction, and physical discomfort during intercourse with men that were circumcised. Among the minority of respondents who preferred circumcised partners (N = 20), the most common reason given was prolonged intercourse. But complaints about the loss of vaginal secretions, friction, and discomfort were still prevalent in this group. Perhaps due to reduced penile sensitivity, circumcised men thrust deeper and withdraw farther and thereby displace more vaginal fluids. O’Hara and O’Hara conclude that the loss of vaginal lubrication and discomfort is “because of the tight penile skin, the corona of the glans, which is configured like a one way valve, pulls the vaginal secretions out of the vagina when the shaft is withdrawn” (p. 82). Therefore, although practiced primarily for religious and/or hygienic reasons, an unintended consequence of circumcision may be to enhance the semen displacement properties of the human penis.

 Another, albeit indirect, way to examine differences in the effectiveness of semen displacement would be to compare the incidence of cuckoldry between men that have and have not been circumcised. It follows from the displacement hypothesis that the risk of extra-pair paternity might vary with variation in semen displacement effectiveness. In addition to DNA testing to assess paternity, a less obtrusive (but far from perfect) measure of paternity would be to examine the extent to which children ostensibly sired by circumcised males exhibit a higher incidence of paternal resemblance (Platek, Burch, Panyavin, Wasserman, and Gallup, 2002).

 The Piggy Backing Hypothesis

 Another intriguing implication of the difference between circumcised and intact males is the question of self-cuckoldry. Put another way, is it possible (short of artificial insemination) for a women to become pregnant by a man she never had sex with? We think the answer is “yes.”

 If an uncircumcised man (Male B) were to have sex with a women (Female A) who recently had sex with another man (Male A), in the process of thrusting his penis back and forth in her vagina some of Male A’s semen would be forced under Male B’s frenulum, collect behind his coronal ridge, and be displaced from the area proximate to the cervix. After Male B ejaculates and substitutes his semen for that of the other male, as he withdraws from the vagina some of Male A’s semen will still be present on the shaft of his penis and behind his coronal ridge (see Ordinal Ejaculation Effects above). As his erection subsides the glands penis will withdraw under the foreskin, raising the possibility that some of Male A’s semen could be captured underneath the foreskin and behind the coronal ridge in the process. Were Male B to then have sex with Female B several hours later, it is possible that some of the displaced semen from Male A would still be present under his foreskin and thus may be unwittingly transmitted to Female B who, in turn, could then be impregnated by Male A’s sperm. Were Male B circumcised, this would be a far less likely outcome because the residual foreign sperm on his penis would not be afforded the protection by the foreskin from desiccation, light, and cooling and would likely perish during the interim separating sexual encounters with different partners.

 The transfer of another male’s semen from one female to the next as a consequence of genitals specialized for sperm removal, is also known as fertilization by proxy, and has been documented in insects (Haubruge, Arnaud, Mignon, and Gage, 1999). If the foreskin makes the human penis a vector for fertilization by proxy, why is the foreskin still there? We assume that during human evolutionary history the incidence of self-cuckoldry was not high enough to offset either the advantages of semen displacement or the advantages of the foreskin, which affords protection of the glans. Indeed, it is possible that the adaptive problems posed by the existence of piggybacking semen from rival males led to compensatory adaptations that incapacitate foreign sperm. For example, it would be interesting to determine if smegma, a glandular discharge that collects under the foreskin and lubricates the glans, has spermicidal properties. Alternatively, because smegma tends to be sticky and viscous it may entrap piggybacking sperm from rival males and minimize self-cuckoldry.

 Adaptations to self-semen displacement

A potential pitfall of the displacement hypothesis is the problem posed by self-semen displacement. If the human penis evolved to displace semen left by other males, what is to prevent this adaptation from displacing the male’s own semen? The data derived from artificial genitals (Gallup et al., 2003) strongly suggest that continued thrusting beyond the point of ejaculation would lead to displacement of the male’s own semen. Therefore, the tenability of the displacement hypothesis is predicated on identifying putative collateral mechanisms that serve to minimize the likelihood of self-semen displacement.

 Obvious candidate mechanisms that appear to preclude or at least diminish self-semen displacement include the following post-ejaculatory changes: 1) penile hypersensitivity, 2) loss of an erection, and 3) the refractory period. Due to ensuing penile hypersensitivity, continued thrusting for many males can become unpleasant and even mildly aversive following ejaculation (e.g., Aversa, Mazzilli, Rossi, Delfino, Isidori, and Fabbri, 2000). Post-ejaculatory thrusting may also be diminished as a consequence of an inability to sustain an erection. Typically within the first minute after ejaculation half of the erection is lost, and many males experience complete penile tumescence (Byer, Shainberg and Galliano, 1999). The refractory period, as measured by the inability to achieve another erection following ejaculation, varies with age, lasts from 30 minutes to 24 hours (Rathus, Nevid and Fichner Rathus, 2000), and also qualifies as an obvious adaptation that would serve to minimize self-semen displacement. It is interesting that the “Coolidge effect” as measured by an abbreviated refractory period, is usually a consequence of an opportunity to mate with a different female, and as such precludes the problem of self-semen displacement.

 As still another corollary adaptation to self-semen displacement, we predict that males who continue to thrust past the point of ejaculation will show post-ejaculatory thrusting that is noticeably shallower and less vigorous. In contrast to deep thrusting, Gallup et al. (2003) found that shallow thrusting with prosthetic genitals failed to produce semen displacement.

 Finally, one practical implication of this analysis of self-semen displacement would be to advise couples with infertility problems to refrain from engaging in post-ejaculatory thrusting. Indeed, it would be interesting to see if patterns of robust post-ejaculatory thrusting are more common among couples experiencing fertility problems.

 Semen coagulation

 Semen coagulates within seconds after ejaculation and then liquefies or decoagulates about 15-30 minutes later (Mandal and Bhattacharyya, 1985; Robert and Gagnon, 1999). While semen hyperviscosity is associated with infertility (Gonzales, Kortebani and Mazzolli, 1993), the first part of the ejaculate does not typically coagulate, only the last fraction (Baker and Bellis, 1995). Baker and Bellis speculate that this keeps the semen in place while sperm travel to the cervix, and at the same time prevents the passage of rival sperm from subsequent males.

 s evidence that semen coagulation may have emerged (in part) as a sperm competition tactic that functions to block sperm from rival males, Dixon and Anderson (2002) examined semen coagulation and copulatory plugs in 40 species of primates. Coagulation rates were highest in species where females commonly mate with multiple partners, and lowest in those where females are primarily monogamous or belong to polygynous groups. Likewise, Mandel and Bhattacharyya (1986) measured semen coagulation in humans, and found that if the male had not ejaculated in the previous two days liquefication times were significantly decreased. Thus, by implication, men who copulate frequently (which may include multi-partner matings) deposit semen that coagulates for longer periods of time.

 The data derived from artificial genitals (Gallup et al., 2003) also show that viscous semen is more difficult to displace, and as a consequence another function of semen coagulation may be to minimize self-semen displacement and/or displacement by other males.

 Implications for premature ejaculation

 The latency between insertion of the penis into the vagina and the occurrence of ejaculation in humans ranges from 2 minutes to an hour (Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata, 1994). The average duration of coitus is 7.9 minutes (Grenier and Byers, 2001), with 100 to 500 thrusts per encounter (Hrdy and Whitten, 1987). Premature ejaculation is one of the most common forms of male “sexual dysfunction,” affecting as many as one in four men (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels, 1994). Premature ejaculation takes two forms. The least common is when the male ejaculates prior to achieving intromission. The other is when ejaculation occurs upon or shortly after insertion of the penis into the vagina. Men who suffer from this form of premature ejaculation have an average ejaculation latency of l.1 minutes following intromission (Spiess, Geer and O’Donohue, 1984).

 Ejaculation that occurs outside the vagina is reproductively nonfunctional. However, after achieving intromission, selection may have operated to minimize the amount of time it takes to inseminate a female; i.e., premature ejaculation may have been ancestrally adaptive. Indeed, one article that champions this hypothesis is entitled “Survival of the Fastest” (Hong, 1984). This thesis is based on the fact that there are a number of potential costs associated with extended bouts of copulation. For example, the longer it takes to ejaculate the greater the risk of predation, the greater the likelihood of detection by jealous mates or offended kin, and the more one might have to contend with competition or interference from other sexually aroused males.

 On the other hand, these potential costs have to be weighed against the existence of several compensatory benefits that might accrue to sexual encounters of longer duration. As the duration of coitus increases, the likelihood of female orgasm also increases, and it has been theorized that the vaginal and uterine contractions that accompany orgasm in females may be conducive to sperm uptake, transport, and retention (Baker and Bellis, 1993). From the standpoint of sperm competition, another benefit of extended periods of copulation would be more effective displacement of rival semen from the female reproductive tract. Indeed, premature ejaculation can be thought of as a failure to achieve semen displacement. This line of reasoning leads us to predict that among males with premature ejaculation, jealousy induction procedures (such as watching pornography which features infidelity) might antagonize such symptoms.

 It is interesting that Spiess, Geer, and O’Donohue (1984) found men who suffer from premature ejaculation had fewer sexual encounters. Indeed, the longer they went without intercourse, the more prone they were to premature ejaculation. Thus, sexually disadvantaged males appear to be at greater risk of premature ejaculation. Perhaps premature ejaculation functions as an adaptive mechanism that enables subordinate males to minimize the risk of detection and retaliation by dominant/rival males during opportunistic sexual encounters.

 Impact of semen displacement on female reproductive strategy

On the basis of retrospective reports from both males and females, Gallup et al. (2003) found that human males often modify the use of their penis under conditions in which their long-term female partner may have been unfaithful. Using anonymous surveys of sexually active college students, it was determined that when males accused their partner of cheating, or when the couple had been separated for a period of time, many males thrust deeper, quicker, and more vigorously than during a typical sexual encounter.

 Like many other features of the displacement hypothesis, this has interesting implications for future research. For example, we would predict that the sexual behavior of chronically or pathologically jealous men would feature strategies that might produce greater displacement; e.g., deeper and more vigorous thrusting. It would also be interesting to determine whether displacement behaviors are sensitive to contextual cues. Are there fluctuations in displacement behaviors that reflect cyclic changes in female receptivity? Do parameters of female attractiveness (facial features, waist to hip ratio, age, fecundity) affect displacement behaviors? Does variation in paternal resemblance among a male’s ostensible offspring affect semen displacement behavior?

 If females use extra-pair copulations with alpha males to cuckold their mates, the resident male’s capacity for competing with and displacing the interloper’s semen puts the reproductive best interests of the resident male and female at odds with one another. The effectiveness of sperm competition strategies in general, and semen displacement in particular, is time dependent (i.e., related to the elapsed time since the extra-pair copulation). Therefore, if semen displacement and other sperm competition strategies have been featured prominently during human evolutionary history, we would expect the desired timing of in-pair copulations by males and females following a female extra-pair encounter to be very different. Other things being equal, the effectiveness of sperm competition ought to be inversely proportional to the amount of time that has elapsed since insemination by the extra-pair male. Therefore, following an extra-pair encounter we would expect females to attempt to postpone copulation with the resident male, as an evolutionary strategy for minimizing sperm competition and increasing the likelihood of impregnation by the extra-pair male. Just the opposite strategy would hold true for males. We predict resident males who have reason to suspect female infidelity would attempt copulation immediately with their partner following a possible extra-pair encounter, as an adaptation to displacing and substituting their semen for the interloper’s. In support of both these predictions, Goetz and Shackelford (in press) have uncovered preliminary evidence that a substantial proportion of wife rapes involve husbands who suspect their wives had been unfaithful.

 Thus, as illustrated by the different predictions we derive in this paper, the possibility that semen displacement may function as a sperm competition strategy among human males serves to both integrate many diverse features of human sexuality, and it can be used to generate a number of testable hypotheses.

 Received 22nd August, 2003, Revision received 26th January, 2004, Accepted 29th January, 2004.


 The authors thank Todd K. Shackelford and Aaron Goetz for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

 Literature cited:

 Ambach, E., Parson, W., and Brezinka, C. (2000). Superfecundation and dual paternity in a twin pregnancy ending with placental abruption. Journal of Forensic Science, 45(1), 181-3.

 Aversa, A., Mazzilli, F., Rossi, T., Delfino, M., Isidori, A. M., and Fabbri, A. 2000. Effects of Sildenafil (Viagra) administration on seminal parameters and post-ejaculatory refractory time in normal males. Human Reproduction, 15, 131-134.

 Baker, R. R., and Bellis, M. A. (1993). Human sperm competition: Ejaculation manipulation by females and a function for the female orgasm. Animal Behavior, 46, 887-909.

 Baker, R. R., and Bellis, M. A. (1995). Human sperm competition: Copulation, Masturbation, and Infidelity. Chapman and Hall, London.

 Birkhead, T. R. (2000). Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

 Busse, C.D., and Estep, D. Q. (1984). Sexual arousal in male pigtailed monkeys (Macaca nemestrina): Effects of serial matings by two males. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 98, 227-231.

 Byer, C. O., Shainberg, L. W., and Galliano, G. (1999). Dimensions of Human Sexuality. Boston, McGraw Hill.

 Dixson, A. L., and Anderson, M. J. (2002). Sexual selection, seminal coagulation and copulatory plug formation in primates. Folia Primatologica; International Journal of Primatology, 73(2-3), 63-9.

 Fink, K. S., Carson, C. C., and DeVellis, R. F. (2002). Adult circumcision outcomes study: Effect on erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction. Journal of Urology, 167(5), 2113-6.

 Gallup, G. G. Jr., Burch, R. L., Zappieri, M. L., Parvez, R., Stockwell, M., and Davis, J. A. (2003). The human penis as a semen displacement device. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 277-289.

 Gallup, G. G., Jr., and Suarez, S. D. (1983). Optimal reproductive strategies for bipedalism. Journal of Human Evolution, 12, 193-196.

 Gonzales G. F., Kortebani G., and Mazzolli A. B. (1993). Hyperviscosity and hypofunction of the seminal vesicles. Archives of Andrology, 30, 63-8.

 Grenier, G., and Byers, E. S. (2001). Operationalizing premature or rapid ejaculation. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 369-378.

 Haubruge, E., Arnaud, L., Mignon, J. and Gage, M. J. G. (1999). Fertilization by proxy: Rival sperm removal and translocation in a beetle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 1183-1187.

 Holman, J. R., and Stuessi, K. A. (1999). Adult circumcision. American Family Physician, 1559(6), 1514-8.

 Hong, L. K. (1984). Survival of the fastest: On the origin of premature ejaculation. The Journal of Sex Research, 20,109-122.

 Hrdy, S. B., and Whitten, P. L. (1987). Patterning of sexual activity. In Smuts, B. B., Cheney, D. L., and Seyfarth, R. M. (Eds) Primate Societies (pp. 370-384). University of Chicago Press, London.

 Izor, R., Walchuk, S., and Wilkins, L. (1981). Anatomy and systematic significance of the penis of the pygmy chimpanzee, Pan paniscus. Folia Primatologica, 35, 218-224.

 Kinzey, W. G. (1974). Male reproductive systems and spermatogenesis. Comparative Reproduction of Nonhuman Primates, Academic Press, London, pp. 85-114.

 Kvist, U. (1991). Can disturbances of the ejaculatory sequence contribute to male infertility? International Journal of Andrology, 14, 389-393.

 Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., and Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 Laumann, E. O., Masi, C. M., and Zuckerman, E .W. (1997). Circumcision in the United States: Prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(13), 1052-1057.

 Mandal A., and Bhattacharyya A. K. (1985). Physical properties and non-enzymic components of human ejaculates. Relationship to spontaneous liquefaction. International Journal of Andrology, 8(3), 224-31

 Mandal, A., and Bhattacharyya, A. K. (1986). Grouping of human ejaculates according to the degree of coagulation and the relationship to the levels of choline and cholinesterase. International Journal of Andrology, 9(6), 407-15.

 Masters, W. H., and Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown and Company, Boston.

 Michael, R. T., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., and Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. Boston: Little, Brown.

 Money, J. and Davison, J. (1983). Adult penile circumcision: Erotosexual and cosmetic sequelae. Journal of Sex Research, 19(3), 289-292.

 O’Hara, K., and O’Hara, J. (1999). The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. British Journal of Urology, International, 83, 79-84.

 Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., Panyavin, I. S., Wasserman, B. H. and Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2002). Reactions to children’s faces: Resemblance affects males more than females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 159-166.

 Rathus, S. A., Nevid, J. S., and Fichner Rathus, L. (2000). Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

 Robert, M., and Gagnon, C. (1999). Semenogelin I: a coagulum forming, multifunctional seminal vesicle protein. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 55(6-7), 944-60.

 Short, R. V. (1979). Sexual selection and its component parts somatic and genital selection, as illustrated by man and the great apes. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 9, 131-158.

 Short, R. V. (1980). The origins of human sexuality. In Austin, C. R and Short, R. V. (Eds.) Reproduction in Animals, Book 8, Human Sexuality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

 Smith, R. L. (1984). Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems, Academic Press, London.

 Spiess, W. F. J., Geer, J. H., and O’Donohue, W. T. (1984). Premature ejaculation: Investigations of factors in ejaculatory latency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 242-245.

 Tutin, C. E. G. (1979). Mating patterns and reproductive strategies in a community of wild chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 6, 29-38.

 Weijmar Schultz, W., van Andel, P., Sabelis, I., and Mooyart, E. (1999). Magnetic resonance imaging of male and female genitals during coitus and female sexual arousal. British Medical Journal, 319, 18-25.

 Wenk, R. E., Houtz, T., Brooks, M., and Chiafari, F. A. (1992). How frequent is heteropaternal superfecundation? Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae, 41(1), 43-7.

 Wessells, H., Lue, T. F., and McAninch, J. W. (1996). Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: Guidelines for penile augmentation. Journal of Urology, 156, 995-997.

Why do we do this??


For anyone more interested in any actual science behind why we do what we do in cuckoldry and maybe even some insight into why more don’t do it, here is a nice article. It is more a book review than anything, but still some interesting information. I’ll summarize is below but I don’t use the same pretty words that the researchers do, so read on and enjoy!!

The original work can be found here: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP05358362.pdf

My summary (feel free to disagree):

Two things I pulled from the review of this book:

1) Women cheat because of the evolutionary psychology that forces them to be selective in the qualities of their sexual partners.  Reproductive preferences makes a woman ‘want’ a male partner who is socially well off (stable and able to provide for the family) AND a male partner who has good genes (strong, healthy, good looking…).  Women struggle to find one man who can provide both, so this ‘mating strategy’ often forces women to find multiple partners; one to provide socially and one to provide sexually.

2) One way men have evolved to try to prevent their wives from cuckolding them is semen-displacement.  That is husbands displace the semen from any other potential lovers with their own.  This forces the husband to become sexually aroused by the thought of his wife having sex with other men, even if it is something they never want to happen.  Thus, the man is now sexually aroused by just the thought of his wife being with other men.

My summary:

We have evolved to do this!!  Women’s psychology forces them to look for partners that can contribute good genes to the reproductive pool. Men’s psychology forces them to be turned on by the thought of their wife being with other men to increase their chances of controlling the genes of their offspring and enabling their legacy.  Of course, we have evolved further and now just enjoy the perverseness our ancestors ingrained into us by just enjoying the sex and not worrying about using it to produce children.

I might see if this book can be added to our reading club 🙂

Evolutionary Psychology
www.epjournal.net – 2007. 5(2): 358-362

Book Review
The View From the Cuckold1
A Review of Steven M. Platek and Todd K. Shackelford (Eds.), Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty: Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-Cuckoldry Tactics. Cambridge University Press: New York, 2006. 248 pp. US$ 55.00 ISBN 0-521-60734-5 (paperback)

Kelly D. Suschinsky, Department of Psychology, University of Lethbridge; Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, T1K 3M4 Email: kelly.suschinsky@gmail.com (Corresponding author)
Martin L. Lalumière, Department of Psychology, University of Lethbridge; Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, T1K 3M4 Email: martin.lalumiere@uleth.ca

It is often suggested that 10% of children are not biologically related to their putative genetic fathers. In a recent review of 67 studies, Anderson (2006) distinguished between studies of high and low paternity confidence samples, and found median rates of actual non-paternity (determined from blood or DNA exclusion tests) of 2% and 30%, respectively, with much variability across studies.2 These data are supported by fairly high rates of extra-marital affairs in both men and women. In a recent study of a random sample of 9,852 Norwegians aged 18 to 49, 16% of men and 11% of women admitted to having had an affair during their current relationship, with 50% not using any form of contraception (Traeen, Holmen, and Stigum, 2007).
Evolutionary psychologists are curious about the selection pressures that extra-pair opulations have had on the design of men and women’s mating psychology. Because of internal and non-immediate fertilization, men can never be entirely certain of paternity, whereas women are rarely concerned with maternity certainty. Men and women suffer different types of costs from their partner’s dalliances, and thus evolutionary psychologists expect that men and women would have inherited overlapping but different sets of emotions, cognitive biases, and  behavioral responses to the threat of or actual extra-pair mating. But why would men and women have affairs in the first place?

As in most mammals, the human male has a higher potential reproductive rate than the human female, due to differential parental investment—the minimum amount of investment necessary to produce an offspring (Clutton-Brock and Vincent, 1991).

Throughout human evolution, men could increase reproductive output by simply adding sexual partners, whereas women would do better not by simply adding notches in their bedposts but by adding sexual partners who possessed certain qualities: those who would provide better genes and/or resources. The quality of the partner is thus more important to women than to men. This would suggest that men and women would have inherited a tendency for having affairs, but for entirely different ultimate reasons (the degree of similarity of proximal causes—boredom, need for attention, sexual outlet—is an interesting question but not relevant here).
A woman’s ideal mating strategy involves securing a mate who can not only provide good genes, but one who is also capable and willing to invest in offspring.

Carrying out this strategy is not always possible, however, and many researchers have suggested that women would have evolved a suite of behaviors that allow them to achieve the best of both worlds. Women may have evolved the willingness to secure a mate with material resources and emotional investment, while at the same time obtaining a high quality genetic contribution from another partner. Cuckoldry occurs when a woman deceives her male social partner into investing in offspring conceived with another man.
Although the risks of pursuing such a strategy are high for women (e.g., retaliation, loss of social partner leading to loss of resources for offspring), the risks are even higher for the male social partner: Cuckolded men lose both invested resources and reproductive opportunity.
Platek and Shackelford’s (2006) edited book, Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty: Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-Cuckoldry Tactics, attempts to elucidate the strategies men use to thwart women’s attempts to cuckold them. Three groups of strategies are suggested: early prevention methods, intra-vaginal methods, and postparturition paternity assessment methods. Early prevention methods are considered to be the first line of defense in cuckoldry-avoidance, in that men are expected to engage in behaviors that will reduce the likelihood that their partners will be unfaithful in the first place.  Intra-vaginal anti-cuckoldry tactics are employed when a man has failed at preventing his partner from being unfaithful, and attempts to avert fertilization by another man that may result from extra-pair mating. The final line of defense involves assessing the likelihood of paternity of the child post-parturition and adjusting investment accordingly.
The section on mate guarding begins with an excellent introduction by Gangestad, who carefully lays out alternative explanations for female extra-pair copulations. Shackelford and Goetz then examine male prevention tactics. One of the mating strategies examined as an early prevention method is violence against women within partnered relationships. As noted by previous researchers, the evolution of sexual jealousy in men may be related to paternal uncertainty (e.g., Daly, Wilson, and Weghorst, 1982; Symons, 3 Another group of strategies, antedating early prevention methods, involves selecting partners who are less likely to later engage in extra-pair copulation. These are not discussed in this book but have been the subject of prior research (e.g., Buss, 1989).

Based on this observation, Shackelford and Goetz provide data suggesting a link between men’s use of mate retention tactics (i.e., behavioral manifestations of sexual jealousy) and violence towards their partners. Data from three different samples (men, women, and married couples), and from three different perspectives (i.e., the perpetrators’, the victims’, and a combination of the two), suggest that men’s use of direct guarding (e.g., monopolization of time), intersexual negative inducements (e.g., emotional manipulation), and public signals of possession (e.g., physical possession signals) were positively correlated with controlling behaviors, violence, and injuries against their female partners.

The section on intra-vaginal anti-cuckoldry tactics focuses on sperm competition, providing fascinating descriptions of the semen-displacement hypothesis (Gallup Jr. and Burch) and the psychobiology of semen (Burch and Gallup Jr.). Goetz and Shackelford provide interesting data indicating a link between a man’s risk of being cuckolded and the use of mate retention tactics, semen-displacing tactics, and a combination of the two tactics.

Men’s recurrent risk of sperm competition was assessed through the participants’ ratings of their partner’s physical and sexual attractiveness and the participants’ ratings of other men’s evaluations of their partner’s physical and sexual attractiveness, because more attractive women are more likely to be unfaithful (e.g., Dijkstra and Buunk, 2001; Streeter and McBurney, 2003). Recurrent risk of sperm competition was significantly correlated with men’s use of mate retention tactics and semen-displacing tactics, and these two tactics were highly correlated. This section also includes discussions of the interesting notions that the refractory period may function to prevent sperm displacement of one’s own sperm, that women should not be motivated to have sex with their main partner right after an extra-pair copulation because of the possibility of sperm displacement (the penis appears to be shaped to do just that), that a man may manipulate a woman’s mood via semen content (Rice, 1996, has experimentally shown something similar in fruit flies), and that preeclampsia (failure to complete the second implantation phase, at the end of the first trimester) may result from the presence of “unfamiliar” sperm.
An interesting implication of the notion of male intra-vaginal competition is that male sexual arousal need not always be tightly connected to male sexual preferences. In general, men physiologically respond to sexual situations that match their sexual interests (something that is not quite true in women). But intra-vaginal battles demand men to become aroused to situations that are actually unpleasant for them, for instance the suspicion of their partner’s infidelity. Men, therefore, may become very sexually aroused at the idea of their partner having sex with someone else, even though they would strongly avoid such a situation (see work by Pound, 2002). Of note, partner swapping seems to involve older couples and appears to be a way to reignite flagging sexual passions. The last section describes post-parturition assessment of paternity and focuses on sex differences in allocation of resources based on facial similarities. Burch, Hipp, and Platek suggest that men differentially allocate hypothetical resources and punishments toward images of children based on physical resemblance between themselves and a child’s image. As noted by Burch et al., a man’s ability to determine physical resemblance is
dependent on that man having seen his own face—something that may not have been possible before mirrors. As such, men may have been selected over time to rely on descriptions of resemblance from members of their social group.
To test the effect of this “social mirror”, Burch et al. describe an innovative study in which men and women were presented with images of children, some of which had been morphed with the participants’ images. Participants were also provided with feedback regarding resemblance between themselves and the images they were viewing. Similar to previous research (e.g., Platek, Burch, Panyavin, Wasserman, and Gallup Jr., 2002), men were more likely than women to select self-morphed images of children (i.e., images of children that had been morphed with an image of the participant) in response to questions regarding positive resource allocation (e.g., adoption), suggesting that men possess the ability to detect physical resemblance in offspring. Affirmative feedback did not increase men’s likelihood to allocate resources to self-morphed images, but men were significantly less likely to allocate resources to self-morphed images when told the morphed image did not resemble them, suggesting that, to a certain extent, men also rely on ascriptions of resemblance from their family and peers.
Platek and Thomson note in a later chapter that sex differences in resource allocation are accompanied by sexually dimorphic neurobiological correlates: Only men exhibit differential brain activation in the anterior left prefrontal lobe and anterior cingulated gyrus when looking at self-morphed faces in comparison to non-morphed faces (e.g., Platek et al., 2004), and only women show greater activation in other cortical areas (e.g., right and medial prefrontal cortices) in response to all children’s faces. Overall, the material presented in this book provides a concise summary of recent work investigating the evolution of anti-cuckoldry tactics in men. The material is quite interesting and well-written, in particular the section on intra-vaginal tactics. It is clear that this area of mating psychology has been neglected and requires more attention, and that the best is yet to come.
The book’s limitations are mostly due to the fact that the study of anti-cuckoldry tactics is in its infancy. Several chapters cover the same information, and thus the book is at times repetitive, in particular those chapters in sections in which the material presented is relatively recent (i.e., the chapters on early prevention methods and kin recognition postparturition).
Likewise, some chapters are quite thin and could have been merged into more substantial chapters. For instance, although the information described in the post-parturition section is certainly interesting, it would have been beneficial to amalgamate these two chapters, and include other chapters on different post-parturition paternal investment strategies, such as infanticide and child abuse.
In addition, although much of the research in the book is quite compelling, some sections are not. As noted by several of the authors, much of the research presented is correlational, and the direction of the relationship between variables such as mate retention behaviors and violence against partners is far from clear. Many of the authors lamented, with good reasons, the absence of experimental or longitudinal research. We were also surprised that there were no chapters on anti-cuckoldry tactics in other species; not only because we are biophilic, but because nonhuman research sometimes speaks to what is possible, to convergent evolution to similar problems (humans do behave a lot like birds), and also provides a more general scientific context to guide human research. Finally, we would have liked to see more research on female counter-tactics, but that may be a topic for a future book.
This book provides a much-needed compendium in an emergent and fascinating area of mating psychology, while offering a solid basis that encourages further thought into men’s and women’s mating behavior. It would be a valuable resource for graduate and undergraduate seminars in mating psychology, as well as for anyone interested in better understanding the ubiquitous conflicts between the sexes.
Anderson, K.G. (2006). How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Current Anthropology, 47, 513-520.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

Clutton-Brock, T.H., and Vincent, A.C.J. (1991). Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature, 351, 58-60.
Daly, M., Wilson, M., and Weghorst, J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11-27.
Dijkstra, P., and Buunk, B.P. (2001). Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking nature of a rival’s body build. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 335-341.
Platek, S.M., Burch, R.L., Panyavin, I., Wasserman, B., and Gallup, G.G., Jr. (2002). Children’s faces: Resemblance affects males but not females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 159-166.
Platek, S.M. Raines, D.M., Gallup, G.G., Jr., Mohamed, F.B., Thomson, J.W., Myers, T.E., Panyavin, I.S., Levin, S.L., Davis, J.A., Fonteyn, L.C.M., and Arigo, D.R. (2004).
Reactions to children’s faces: Males are more affected by resemblance than females are, and so are their brains. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 394-405.
Pound, N. (2002). Male interest in visual cues of sperm competition risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 443-466.
Rice, W.R. (1996). Sexually antagonistic male adaptations triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature, 381, 232-234.
Streeter, S.A., and McBurney, D.H. (2003). Waist-hip ratio and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique of “a critical test”. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 88-98.
Symons, D. (1979). The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Traeen, B., Holmen, K., and Stigum, H. (2007). Extradyadic sexual relationships in Norway.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 55-65.

The cuckold experience


The Cuckold Experience 

(click title for original source)

Anyone who’s ever been in one of these relationships will tell you that they’re emotionally complex, physical stimulating, extremely passionate, and intensely erotic. Men and women who’ve been in these types of relationships often become captivated by their unique intensity. Multiple studies demonstrate that the emotional impact of these relationships on their participants is so profound that it can permanently alter brain chemistry levels in both men and women. They become addicted to the thrilling surges of adrenalin (power) and dopamine (pleasure) associated with these activities.

For men, the phrase “once a cuckold, always a cuckold” speaks to this powerful desire and effect. Despite the conflicting emotional turmoil experienced by men in these relationships… often referred to as “cuckold angst”, described as the most intensely erotic roller coaster ride a man will ever experience… men find it highly addictive, and often find themselves wanting to experience it again and again in subsequent relationships with different women. So much so that they will actively seek out women who will cuckold them.

It’s said the most natural cuckolds in the world are men who experienced the emotional trauma of being made a cuckold during their sexually formative years, typically between 16 and 20. A man with a beautiful flirty girlfriend who cheats on him with other men, and then takes her back despite her infidelity… often begging and pleading with her to come back to him… is a man destined to be a cuckold all his life. With that experience, the die is cast. Thereafter, this pattern (she cheats, he forgives and takes her back) will tend to repeat itself.

For women, the experience is different but can be just as addictive, which is why men who think they want their wife to cuckold them need to be very careful about what they wish for. They might just get it. Once a woman has experienced the sexual variety and freedom of having sex with other men in the context of marriage, they will never give it up. The popular phrase “once a woman goes black, she never goes back” is a truism if there ever was one. But it’s a concept that applies not just to white women having sex with black men, but to married women having sex with other men besides their husbands. These types of experiences will forever alter her perceptions, and change the way she looks at things.

The reality that every would-be cuckold needs to face is that once a woman experiences the raw masculine power of a nine inch bull cock working between her legs, and feels what it’s like to cum five or six times in one night, she will never again be satisfied with a four inch penis that discharges in two minutes and then goes soft for the night. It changes the entire dynamic. A cuckold will quickly find out that the loving patience his wife previously showed with his erection and premature ejaculation issues will abruptly come to an end once she knows she has options.

Similarly, men and women who’ve been in serious power exchange relationships, either as the dominant or submissive partner, find them to be highly addictive and often discover that the experience has profoundly altered their perceptions, sexual interests, and desires.

If, for example, during or shortly after some intense power exchange activity, a person consistently has an orgasm, their mind will thereafter begin to associate that particular activity with having an orgasm, and they will find themselves wanting to experience it again and again. Given enough time and experiences, especially when their orgasms are otherwise controlled and restricted, this will apply to virtually any activity. This, of course, forms the basis for and explains the powerful addictive fascination some people have to BDSM relationships and the whole dominant/submissive dynamic. It applies to both to the dominant and submissive partner, and to both men and women.

These types of relationships begin and subsequently develop in all different kinds of ways, each with their own twists, turns, spins, and sexual flavors, reflecting the various interests, motivations, needs, desires, fetishes, passions, characters, and personalities of the individuals involved.

Sometimes it’s the wife’s idea, sometimes it’s the husband’s. Other times it’s spontaneous, unplanned, and just happens. Some women, whose husbands suggest experimenting with the lifestyle, find the concept repulsive and immoral. Other women immediately embrace the idea and take to it like a duck to water. Still other women slowly warm to the notion, dip their toe in the pool cautiously, and then, after a few amazing orgasmic experiences, wish they had thought of it sooner.

Some wives secretly have sex with other men, without their husbands knowing, and actively try to hide it, while other wives do so openly. Some women feel nervous, apprehensive, and guilty about it afterwards, others are confident, poised, and self-assured. Many women experience mixed emotions… a little guilt, mixed with genuine concern about their husband’s feelings, tempered by powerful memories of how incredible the sex was… which is roughly analogous to the “cuckold angst” that men feel (i.e., the next day they feel guilty, then a week later they want to do it again).

Some husbands know about their wife’s sexual activities, and some don’t. Some men harbor suspicions about a cheating wife, while others are clueless. Some men, if and when they do find out about their wife’s affairs, angrily confront her, while men are more introspective and quietly keep it to themselves, afraid to rock the boat. It’s not uncommon for secret cuckolds to become increasingly obsessive about their wife’s activities, and begin monitoring her cell phone, computer, checking her car, following her, etc.

Some husbands find the idea of their wife fucking other men to be intensely erotic, while others are repulsed by it. Some men are excited and exhilarated by the idea of having to share their wife’s pussy with other men, while others are deeply hurt and humiliated by the experience. Some men get an instant rock-hard erection just thinking about their wife coming home with a wet creamy used pussy, while other men are nauseated by it.

Some men despise their wives for it, while others love her even more. Some men beg their wives to stop, while others actively encourage her to continue. Some husbands like to watch. Some women don’t want their husbands to be present.

Many bulls don’t mind the husband being in the room when they fuck his wife, while others don’t want him to be anywhere around. Some women love to dress up special for their bulls, in ways they never dress up for their husbands, while other women are more discreet about it. Some women enjoy the ritual of always go to their bulls, while other women prefer to entertain their lovers at home. Still other women love the naughty idea of meeting up with their bull in a cheap roadside motel for a long hot afternoon of fucking. Some women enjoy spending the night with their bulls, while other women and couples have rules against it.

Some men want their wives to be able to experience sexual delights and pleasures that they can’t possibly give her, while other men feel humiliated by the fact that they can’t compete against the stronger, more virile men their wife’s typically choose as lovers.

Some women are sexually submissive, some are more dominant. Some men are sexually dominant, some are more submissive. And some are in between. Still others, after experimentation and experience, discover sides to them that they never knew about, and want to explore deeper.

Men and women in these types of relationships live in all different parts of the world, come from various demographic groups, different ages, income levels, educations, cultural backgrounds, and races.

For women, the criteria for picking sexual partners can be vastly different than the standards they might apply in selecting a life partner or husband. In fact, it’s quite common for women to be sexually curious about and physically attracted to men who are radically different than their husbands in terms of physical appearance, background, community and economic status, and personality. It is, after all, about having fun, experimenting, trying something new, exploring, and fulfilling sexual fantasies.

As far as sex partners go, most women are attracted to strong, powerful, dominant, masculine, mentally and physically aggressive men with unbounded physical stamina. They also tend to prefer muscular athletic men with big cocks. This, in large part, explains the powerful sexual attraction that many white women have for black men. The conventional cliché that we all hear about, and that we see all over the internet, is white women in their 30s and 40s that like to have hot nasty sex with young well-hung black men. It’s a stereotype, to be sure, but one that’s also very, very common.

Cuckold Training Tips

Cuckold Training Tips –

From: tumblr of cucks and hotwives

Although not mandatory, it is common practice to expect the Cuckoldress to receive many more sexual experiences than her cuckolded counterpart. The reasons for this are simple, as the Cuckoldress will have multiple lovers while the cuckold will not, and also because it is generally an accepted practice for the Cuckoldress to have sexual superiority over her cuckold, even to the point of deciding when (or if) her cuckold is lucky enough to be permitted direct sexual contact for the purpose of achieving orgasm. 

Some Cuckoldresses enjoy seeing their cuckolds achieve sexual gratification through direct contact on a regular basis, while others take a completely opposite approach to a cuckold’s orgasms. The path that is ultimately chosen should be decided through obtaining input from both parties, and needs to be carefully explored over the course of time to ensure compatibility, both on the alternative side, as well as the enhancing the core portion of the relationship.  Many Cuckoldresses find additional pleasures in knowing their cuckold receives displeasure or even discomfort, both physically and/or psychologically. Quite often, this may take the form of reduced direct sexual contact, severely regulated acts of masturbation, and sexual and/or orgasm denial. For some Cuckoldresses, it is not enough for the cuckold to remain celibate while his Girlfriend or Wife has other lovers, but sometimes she gains additional pleasure from the knowledge that her cuckold is suffering for her sexual gains as well.  Sometimes, it is very difficult to decide whether denied sexual contact creates greater suffering for the cuckold, or whether not being given the opportunity to masturbate creates greater suffering. For many men, that totally depends on their overall outlook regarding sex. There are men that would be content with regular release, even through masturbation as a legitimate replacement for penetration or receiving oral sex. Many men who have been void of female companionship in their recent past have compensated for the lack of sexual trysts with frequent masturbation. Quite often, this habit has created a situation whereby sex with their significant other is no longer a necessity. If, for example, her cuckold has little or no desire to be denied sexual penetration, then his outlook when visualizing or otherwise knowing another man is penetrating his Wife or Girlfriend may be greatly reduced. Therefore, it is critical that if a Cuckoldress wishes her cuckold to suffer, she needs to be aware of the sexual orientation of her cuckold. Otherwise, she will not be able to achieve the desired effect.

As indicated before, frequent masturbation is a habit that can be broken over a period of time. It takes total and complete dedication on the cuckold’s, as well as the Cuckoldresses’ part, however, the greater responsibility lies with the Cuckoldress. One needs to understand that the motivation for changing this bad habit is generally due to the overall needs of the Cuckoldress. 

Eliminating or greatly reducing a bad habit of over masturbating is done by attacking it in two fronts. Firstly, fitting the cuckold with a male chastity device will greatly assist in the physical aspect of withholding masturbation, but also redirecting his ability to orgasm is just as important. If the cuckold has replaced the joy of intercourse with masturbation, this can be changed over time by utilizing a chastity device to ensure his inability to receive self gratification, but then requiring him to climax only by vaginal penetration over time might tend to re-discovering the rapture of sexual intercourse. Once he has become dependent on climaxing via vaginal sex and that frequent masturbation is no longer satisfying or even possible, his suffering will probably increase when knowing or seeing a lover’s cock deep inside his Girlfriend or Wife vagina. Think of it Ladies – What do you think would happen if your boyfriend or husband found wonderful times pounding your pussy to the best of his ability, only for you to take that away from him by replacing him with another lover or lovers more endowed, or with more stamina, or even possibly discovering the joys of interracial sex, or dare I say, all three? It should also be noted that the same mindset regarding vaginal intercourse can easily be used for oral or anal sex. Let’s face it Girls; if you enjoy seeing your cuckold suffer, just give him great oral sex with all the trimmings and then gleefully take it away and make him watch you give your lovers the same pleasures you used to give him.  In closing, I highly recommend that you listen intently to his sexual history so you can learn all about his likes, dislikes, habits, and fantasies. Naturally, if you still plan on making love with him it is certainly important to know how to make your sex life with him more pleasurable for the both of you. However, if your thoughts have turned to a more sinister (HeHe) course of action, then knowing his weaknesses will go a long way towards cuckolding your honey in ways that will make him more loving, attentive, and compliant to your desires. Suffering may sound cruel for many people, but handled the proper way can help to turn your life, both sexually and otherwise into a very enjoyable situation for all involved.

Women were never meant to be monogamous

I don’t remember where I found this, but I thought I would share!!!!  I like to share!!!  If you know the original source, please pass it along so credit can be given!

Despite thousands of years of cultural programming and conditioning, the truth is that women were never meant to be monogamous. I think we’re currently living through a period of enormous social change in this regard. More single and married women are realizing every day that experiencing as much sexual pleasure as they choose is their natural-born right.

For many, a marriage where the man places his wife’s sexual pleasure above his own, and supports and encourages her to explore her sexuality with other men, while he remains monogamous to her, or even chaste, is not an alternative lifestyle at all. It’s simply a recognition and celebration of the true natural order of things.

It also satisfies the cuckold husband’s deepest, most passionate desires. Paradoxically, the cuckold wife’s act of supplementing and even replacing her husband in the marital bed with better, more well-endowed lovers, and her demand that he live in a state of either temporary or permanent chastity, is precisely what sets him free to become what he knows he was born to be… a cuckold husband with an openly unfaithful wife that spreads her legs for other men.

It takes a great deal of trust for a cuckold husband to admit to his wife that his deepest darkest desire is to be cuckolded and sexually humiliated by her. This too is a paradox. Many outside the Hotwife Cuckold Lifestyle view this with absolute horror, but in the best cuckold marriages, the husband’s sexual humiliation at the hands of his wife is something that he has deeply and passionately longed for, often for a very long time.

When a woman grants a cuckold his deepest wish, and openly has sex with other men, she’s actually helping her cuckold husband to fulfill his sexual and marital destiny. Which is why the wife’s cuckolding of her husband can be simultaneously both an act of sexual humiliation and one of profound understanding and love. 

By agreeing to her husband’s deep-seated desire that she take on other lovers, and exploring her sexuality with them, she’s the one doing him the favor, not the other way around, and she should never let him forget that.