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

Posts tagged ‘Relationships’

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.

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.

Creating an Enjoyable Cuckolding Experience

 Enjoying the Cuckolding ExperienceObviously, there are many different wives and couples who dine from this buffet of sexual preferences the world has to offer, so this post will not apply to everyone, but anyone may be able to take small pieces and use them. 

The dynamics in a cuckolding relationship can be intense, thrilling, and intimidating for everyone involved.  That range is what makes it so exciting, but it also is what makes it so scary.  We often times find it challenging to balance a relationship that has two people in it, so it is natural to cringe at the thought of adding a third (or fourth, or fifth, or sixth…) to the mix.  Or maybe we push back at the idea of getting close enough to the third person to think of them as being in the relationship or we keep the details of our affairs off limits to our husbands.  But that doesn’t need to be the case.

To make the cuckolding experience an enjoyable one for everyone involved and to keep the lifestyle fresh and going, everyone needs to get the maximum benefit from it.  That may seem obvious, but if it is not considered, you may be missing out on the full enjoyment of the lifestyle.

So you may be asking what the maximum benefit is for each person in this lifestyle.  Well, that’s a good question and the details will be different for each, but in general terms it means that the couple and the boyfriend(s) practice cuckolding together.  That is, you practice it as a threesome.  Now don’t freak out if the idea of being with two men at the same time is not your thing.  That is not exactly what I’m suggesting (but if you are open to it, MFM fun can be its own thrill 🙂 ).  But here, what I mean by threesome is three equal parts; hubby, wife, and boyfriend.

First, as the wife, if you are mainly hooking-up with various men at random times or places or if you have a regular boyfriend, but keep him away from your husband and your home, then you are missing out on some of the best experiences of the cuckolding lifestyle.  A steady boyfriend, or group of steady boyfriends, can be create much more rewarding experiences.  Don’t fear intimacy with your boyfriend, it is healthy, natural, and adds to the experience for everyone involved.

Sure it can be scary and intimidating for a couple to bring a steady relationship with another man into their lifestyle, but in reality, it is less risky physically.  If the concern is the emotional risk, then couples really shouldn’t even be thinking about this.  This is not polyamory we are talking about here, where the wife loves multiple partners.  Not to offend anyone, but I do not see how that relationship works.  In my experience, women cannot truly love more than one man.  This threesome setup I describe would be like adding a Friend with Benefit to the couple.  This FWB is available physically for the wife, but the emotional support comes from the husband.

Second, if you never involve your husband directly in your dates or sexual encounters, you are keeping him from experiencing some of the most intense feelings and parts of being your cuck.  Part of the sexual gratification your husband receives from being your cuck is mental and emotional.  The mental torture of the images that are burned into his mind from seeing with his own eyes the lust in your enjoyment of your boyfriend.  The emotional knots in his stomach watching his wife willingly submit to her boyfriend and enjoy her lover’s body like she once enjoyed her husband’s.  The anxiety and worry from seeing how much his wife can enjoy sex without him and what it means for him.  As strange as it sounds, this ‘anguish’ is a HUGE aphrodisiac for a cuck.  He has found a way of turning what would otherwise be debilitating jealously in others into an amazing and addictive stimulant.  It works much the same when you are away from him for the night and return with tales of your encounters, but the intensity increases hundred times over when he sees it with his own eyes.

And you may find that you enjoy the thrill of him watching more than you ever thought.  The thrills of seeing his erection grow with each act.  His lust growing to a point where his body aches for touch, any touch, and it forces him to masturbate looking for any release as he watches you squirm in ecstasy with your boyfriend.

But what if you or your boyfriend is not comfortable with your husband being around?  Well, go slow.  

He will need to be convinced that your husband is fine with the arrangement, that your husband won’t go postal on him when he watches you with your boyfriend, and that there are no ulterior motives at play here (i.e. no bi-sexual switches in the heat of passion).  Your boyfriend needs to be shown the submissive role your husband has taken in your new relationship.  Here are some ways you can start it off and slowly warm him up to the idea:

1)      Have your boyfriend pick you up at your house while your husband is there.  Introduce the two of them and be sure to use their ‘titles’ of husband and boyfriend (or you could call him your date if you need to go extra slow).  Give your boyfriend a passionate kiss with your husband watching and cuddle up close to him.  Your boyfriend will see your husband simply stand there and watch you two.  Before you leave, give your husband a goodbye kiss, but just a quick peck, make sure there is a big distinction between the two kisses to reinforce your husband’s role.  As you walk to the car, tell your boyfriend how hot and sexy it was to kiss him like that in front of your husband.  He may not get the message immediately, but you should show him enough to know that kissing him in front of your husband gets you hot and wet.

2)      During the dates, if the discussion ever turns to you being married or mentions your husband at all, don’t shy away from it.  Don’t be afraid to discuss your husband and his reactions to your dating.  Even share any details about how excited your husband gets the closer it comes to your date night and how he helps you get ready (picking out clothes, helping you choose sexy lingerie…).  Share the fantasies you and your husband have discussed and how you two have gotten to this point in your relationship.  Don’t use him like a therapist, but the more you can stimulate his mind with information, the more his imagination will be intrigued by it.

3)      Before your next date, have your husband make contact with your boyfriend to get his input about what he would like for you to wear.  It doesn’t need to be very specific and it could be as simple as asking what type of lingerie or panties does your boyfriend want you to wear.

4)      Have the dinner portion of the date at your house.  Your husband can be involved as much as you want and it even helps show his submissive role when you give him little tasks to do.  They don’t have to be big or humiliating tasks, they could be simple ones like greeting your boyfriend at the door, fixing the drinks for everyone, cleaning up the table.  After dinner, have some fun ‘social’ time together with you next to your boyfriend flirting, teasing, and even doing some foreplay fun with him with your husband watching.  Before you go out for the night, give your husband some task to do.  Again, it doesn’t need to be humiliating or overly dominant, but something as simple as saying “I hope that kitchen is clean when I get back home.”  It could be given with a light-hearted tone or laugh.

5)      Call your husband during your date and give him a teasing description of what is going on or what is about to happen.  Be sure your boyfriend is listening.  Before the call you could even ask your boyfriend for suggestions about what to tell your husband or deliberately create a situation to tell your husband about (i.e. your hand is rubbing your boyfriend’s dick under the table, or your boyfriend has his hand under your skirt while you are sitting at a bar).  To push the limits, you can call your husband from your boyfriend’s place, leaving the phone open for your husband to hear the sounds of sexual arousal and then hang-up just when things are getting hot and heavy.

Eventually this will all lead to some heavy petting and kissing at your home, then on to some fun in the bedroom and you may never leave the house.  Don’t get me wrong, we women love to be wined and dined, but sometimes we just want to be fucked.  During the first few of these make out sessions, your husband can watch and you can emphasize his submissive role by having him tied to a chair, watch the two of you while he is naked, or have him be your butler and undress you for your boyfriend.  When you retreat to the bedroom boldly state that your husband is to stay out of the bedroom unless you two call for him.

All of this may seem like such a challenge to most women and not worth the trouble.  But think of it as a game and once you win this game, it will become second nature to you and your boyfriend.  He will begin to take the initiative (and be very encouraging of him when he does as any negative criticism will likely make him regress) and you will be surprise just how playful he can be in your home or around your husband.  Your make out sessions on the couch will go further faster and you’ll find that your boyfriend is even embracing the relationship and coming up with things for your husband to do to help you two out in your passion play.

You’ll also find that your husband is having harder orgasms when you do let him cum.  All of this teasing and torment will cause a buildup in him like he has never felt.  And the more buildup there is, the more submissive he becomes.

Good Luck To All!!!!  Enjoy making this cuckold experience and enjoyable one for all!

Virtues of Infidelity

I seem to be on a pattern about monogamy.  I found this to be interesting and it will certainly open some more conversations with my husband and I.  I don’t see us embracing this life, we seem to be happy where we are.

 Source:  http://www.underpaidgenius.com/post/7188935176


Mark Oppenheimer explores monogamy with Dan Savage, the well-known sex-advice columnist:

Mark Oppenheimer via

Savage’s position on monogamy is frequently caricatured. He does not believe in promiscuity; indeed, his attacks on the anonymous-sex, gay-bathhouse culture were once taken as proof of a secret conservative agenda. And he does not believe that monogamy is wrong for all couples or even for most couples. Rather, he says that a more realistic sexual ethic would prize honesty, a little flexibility and, when necessary, forgiveness over absolute monogamy. And he believes nostalgically, like any good conservative, that we might look to the past for some clues.

“The mistake that straight people made,” Savage told me, “was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitarian and fairsey.” In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always endured. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.”

In their own marriage, Savage and Miller practice being what he calls “monogamish,” allowing occasional infidelities, which they are honest about. Miller was initially opposed to the idea. “You assume as a younger person that all relationships are monogamous and between two people, that love means nothing can come between you,” said Miller, who met Savage at a club in 1995, when he was 23 and Savage was 30. “Dan has taught me to be more realistic about that kind of stuff.

“It was four or five years before it came up,” Miller said. “It’s not about having three-ways with somebody or having an open relationship. It is just sort of like, Dan has always said if you have different tastes, you have to be good, giving and game, and if you are not G.G.G. for those tastes, then you have to give your partner the out. It took me a while to get down with that.” When I asked Savage how many extramarital encounters there have been, he laughed shyly. “Double digits?” I asked. He said he wasn’t sure; later he and Miller counted, and he reported back that the number was nine. “And far from it being a destabilizing force in our relationship, it’s been a stabilizing force. It may be why we’re still together.”

While his marriage opened up gradually, Savage says that “there’s not a one-size-fits-all way” to approach nonmonogamy, especially if both partners committed to monogamy at the start. “Folks on the verge of making those monogamous commitments,” Savage told me in one of our many e-mail exchanges, “need to look at the wreckage around them — all those failed monogamous relationships out there (Schwarzenegger, Clinton, Vitter, whoever’s on the cover of US magazine this week) — and have a conversation about what it’ll mean if one or the other partner should cheat. And agree, at the very least, to getting through it, to place a higher value on the relationship itself than on one component of it, sexual exclusivity.”


It was not until the 20th century that Americans evolved an understanding of marriage in which partners must meet all of each other’s needs: sexual, emotional, material. When we rely on our partners for everything, any hint of betrayal is terrifying. “That is the bind we are in,” Coontz said. “We accord so much priority to the couple relationship. It is tough under those conditions for most people to live with the insecurity of giving their partners permission to have flings.”

From an anthropological perspective, modern monogamous marriage is an artifact of the industrial revolution, and the modern nation state. The emergence of the 20th century nuclear family, deeply integrated into a mythos of romantic love-based marriage, is strangely tied to religious morality, even for those that are secular. 

A society based on home-owning, hard-working, go-to-church-on-sundays families living tight-knot village-sized communities has a nostalgic appeal, even if it wasn’t really true, even back in the day.

Post-industrial society will be based on older, and not just different norms. A return to tribal forms of authority and power, for example, and enigmatic, not dogmatic, spirituality. We will accept sexual desire and expression, instead of sex being considered legitimate only within the confines of officially-sanctioned heterosexual, monogamous love.

This moral shift will take decades to cascade into everyday life, but the acceptance of homosexuals and lesbians into Western culture, as well as growing acceptance of open sexuality will lead to a broader spectrum of stable relationships, ranging from monogamous, to monogamish, to polygamous, to polyamorous.

It starts with the eyes

 We are not a naturally monogamous species.  What is natural is for a man to be turned on by a woman and a woman to be turned on by a man.  (I don’t want to open the whole homosexual debate here, so I’ll say that I’m only talking about straight men and women). 

We’re told men are more visual and I’m all for my guy looking; yes that includes porn and occasional guys nights to a strip club or Hooters.  But we women can be turned on visually and it is okay for us to look too.  We don’t have our swimsuit magazines, clubs to gawk at hunky college studs, or restaurants that disguise bad food behind a pretty package of a waiter, but there are some gorgeous guys that draw our eye.  We can admire someone at the gym or office and dream about some actor in a movie.  We can even have our own dreams and fantasies about someone else.  None of that means we don’t love our husbands, just the same as none of what he sees or looks at means he doesn’t love you.

All it means is that you are alive.  You have eyes, imagination, and hormones and you found something that stimulates them all.  EMBRACE IT!!!!!  And let your man do it too.

It can led to some wild talk and some wild play time.  Yes, we as women can be more insecure about this topic, comparing ourselves to these women who grab his attention.  But we must learn to drown that voice with what is really going on with him.  When he checks out other women, he is not comparing me to them.  I know that it is just a natural response from his sex drive. and I want him to have a sex drive.   Part of the fun of what I do is knowing how excited he gets by it, so as strange as it sounds, his sex drive fuels my excitement and I DON’T want to shut that down. 

And as long as he only looks, I won’t shut that down.  That means I may have to handle a wandering eye or an occasional comment and I’ve found that I now enjoy this healthy expression of his sex drive.  I even give my input and point out someone I think he might find to be a little hottie.  I can turn the tables on him and point out some guys that I find attractive or I point out what features I find sexy on some guys.

It may sound like a double-standard that he only gets to look, but I get to look and touch, but that is how we decided to live our lives and it works for our relationship.  If you are interested in exploring this lifestyle, this looking and communicating about what you see is a WONDERFUL way to get started.  But just because you embrace the fun of looking doesn’t mean that you are destined for this lifestyle.  You are embracing who you are naturally and don’t ever be ashamed of that!!

You Own Him

When you snug­gle closer
and purr in your sleep,
you are his kitten

When you kneel between his legs
grace­fully accept­ing the band around your throat,
you are his girl

When you squirm across his lap,
your tush rosy red and tin­gling with inti­macy,
you are his brat

When you rub your­self all over him
leav­ing liq­uid pas­sion in your trail,
you are his slut

When you devour him deeply, pleas­ing him,
solely there for his enter­tain­ment,
you are his whore

When you growl and strain against your leash,
hump­ing his leg for release,
you are his bitch

When you sur­ren­der to his strength, his power,
when you sac­ri­fice your body on the altar of his desire,
you are his prey

When you stay still, quiv­er­ing, unspeak­ing,
your only pur­pose to be used, to be mounted,
you are his female

And still…

When you melt into his arms
and lean your head against his chest
and whis­per quietly,

“I am yours”

At that moment,
you own him.

(Source: dreamwalker.com)