Talk:Cuckold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Forum[edit]

âFrom a forum I frequent:
Here in Iberia we have a name for people that get cheated on by their "better halves" - cornudo, or horned person. We even have a hand sign to symbolize it; in the US it's normally taken as the devil's sign
I thought it was interesting that the association of horns with being the victim of infidelity would appear in two very diffent cultures.

  • Same in Italy (cornuto) and Greece (keratas).


I've heard something about cutting off a cock's ankle spurs and attaching them to its head... and this having something to do with it..

No that whole part is silly. Italy and Greece will use the same term because it refers to the Minotaur. Look up the myth and see how the King did not know that his wife has sex with Zeus in the form of a bull until the birth. --BenWoodruff 13:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal Derivations[edit]

The man need not necessarily be unaware of his wife's adultery. Under the common law of England, and in many states of the United States until fairly recently, there was a conclusive presumption, "the strongest known to the law," that the child of a married woman is the child of her husband. Thus, if a man was married to an adultress, it is possible that she would be able to pass off spurious issue and, in effect, require him to support children who are not his.

In England, it was once the law, and technically may still, be that if a person has sexual intercoure with the King's wife or with the wife of the heir to the throne, he is guilty of treason and liable to be put to death, as he might pass spurious issue off on the King and the country. Charles and Diana, fortunately for them, were permitted to get divorce.

John Paul Parks (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

fetish entry[edit]

This needs to be rewritten into about a sentence and placed in a "see also" section. The biological/sociological meaning of cuckold (which is not in this article) should also be added, as it is actually widespread and relevant.

"interracial-cuckold."[edit]

It should also be noted that by far the most commmon form of cuckolding is the "interracial-cuckold." This almost always involves a white couple and a black male. The premise of this cuckold is that black males are sexually superior to their white counterparts. They are stronger, have more stamina and larger genetalia than the white husband. Because of this the white wife might deny her husband in the bedroom, forcing him to watch her copulate with the dominant "black bull", often relegated to simple masturbation. In part, the cuckold is seen as "reparation" for the treatment of the black man by the white historically. The "reparation" is that the white man's greatest "prize", the white woman, now prefers the more sexually potent black man.

This entire entry seems to some degree spurious & POV. Reparation itself is an organized social phenomenon, whereby government which has abetted ill treatment officially relents with what is seen as fair counter action. Private matters don't fall under 'reparation' of any kind. Many POV statements, as in "the premise of this....is that...are sexually superior", "now prefers", "greatest prize", and the "most common form." It doesn't conform to the standards of an encyclopedia. 67.5.213.148 13:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


The word the author was looking for would be rettribution. Why? Because here in the Americas non white men, and in a literaly sense for black men, were forced to watch their women be taken willingly and unwillingly in front of thier eyes. They had to watch as some women gothe idea inthier heads to look for the whitest lightest man they could get in hopes of having lighter andlighter children who could pass for white. In the U.S. from 1620 to 1960 white was right. Now everything is backward. White women seem to like black men and some black women who would have scorned black men in the past now jealously guard access to black men by white women.

So I will change the word to Retribution or Revenge. Because that's the feeling black men get from being wiht white women. --Hfarmer 21:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


Is there any research based evidence for this? If not, this whole portion of the article should be removed since there is no verifiable supporting evidence. Check out the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. [1]

--BBUCommander 19:43, 25 February 2006 (EST)


I dont think there is a lot of research on this, but if one wanted to investigate themself they'd see thata forum called cuckold-forum.net verifies that the initial poster is right on

I seriously doubt that a majority of cuckhold situations have the cuckold actively thinking about the historical situation, or 'white guilt.' The idea of stronger, bigger, better might be going through there head, but nothing of a historic nature. And Hfarmer as for your comment, if black men get a feeling of reparations, or payback or whatever from having relations with white women that is a very twisted thing. I hope, and believe, it is not true.

I'm not certain if the issue is racial or social. Social because women are attracted to masculinity -- one of the most base forms of masculinity is sweat; rather work that tests a man's strength -- I think that is the sexual potency women crave. E.G. the field worker gathered pounds of agricultural produce, and hoisted it seemingly effortlessly to his shoulders. Though the white husband can provide comfort (finance) he is physically weak and his wife is well aware of it. Her femininity demands she is 'conquered' by the stongest male. The reason I say this is social more so than racial is because the females desire is not for a particular race -- it is for a particular type --and that isn't the office guy. Within the next 10 years, I think white couples will shift in interest from seeking "BBC" to seeking hispanic couples. Although hispanics are typically smaller than african americans (physically, not speaking of genitals) they now embody the archetype of the "hard worker". For simial reasons women are excited by construction workers, plumbers, atheletes -- its the physical exertion. Some white men have given up these "lower" forms of labor, and in so doing have given up their sexual potency and use their wealth to attract beauty. Conversly southern white men, farmers and hunters, still retain their sexual potency in the eyes of (most) southern white women -- it is the work. But It is my opinion that miscigenation was probably much higher during the antebellum period than we assume. Were it not rife, there would not have been a need to create laws forbidding it. It is my belief that half the african-americans and anglo-americans with "Indian in their family" are truely descendants of interracial people who were "passing". Makheru

That "interracial is the most common" thing is ridiculous, whoever wrote it was misleaded by PORN movies. Besides, the reparation theory would only fit in the USA. I live in an european country and swingers (in all their forms) just do it with whites, blacks, asians, regardless of our history.

Oh, and why does the cuckoldry thing only applies to a dominant woman? I'd say it's far more common for a man to have a wife/girlfriend who somehow allows him to be with another female. At least in here. No name for that?


The term cuckold has become attached to the the idea of a dominant woman because it represents humiliation of the(sub)male. Most cuckold sites appear to be very much about male fantasy and look more like 70's style wife swapping. I think it would be better if there WERE a name (wife swapping, perhaps!) for this fairly distinct activity since it clearly has little to do with the original meaning of the term cuckold. I'm sure that the use of the term cuckold in this respect comes from a lack of understanding of even the basic meaning of the word. -Spamrot-

Ridiculous![edit]

The interracial-cuckold excerpt from this article is nothing more than stereotypical non-sense appealing only to ignorant individuals over generalizing the gender of a specific ethnic group of people. --User:Voice of Reason April 2005 (CST)

I modified the racial portion to be more explicit without being offensive. A key element of Cuckholding is evidenced as men who have sexual fantasies of being humiliated by having someone with "larger equipment" have sex with their wife, and their wife making fun of their "smaller equipment". I think there is no doubt that when some small portion of that sub-culture finds arousal based on the racial-stereotype that black men have larger endowements that it is racist. But -- we don't strive to ignore racism, or erase any evidence of racism, we should strive to underline it and point it out until the culture changes. A neutral POV should accurately point out what happens in culture, not strive to ignore and avoid comment on aspects of culture that are undesirable. -- Atomaton April 2005

I see this entire point has been removed? I think this was best as my theory is that the black men being more endowed theory is a white man's racist urban myth spread to instil the fear of rape in deep south American women, possibly from earlier part of 20th century. Think about it - a larger penis would hurt more and cause greater damage. But still, this joke is socially acceptable within many groups yet we never question our beliefs, where they come from and more importantly - what their implications are! leopheard 08:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Why remove the entire section on interracial-cuckold? I did a google search for the term and got 727,000 hits. Clearly this a significant kink/interest. One could possibly have a section/paragraph on about this kink being grounded in racism if one could find a reliable third party source. Otherwise, it seems best to just report about the phenomynon without editorializing about it's motives or whether it is a good or bad kink.

Hoping To Help (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Should this be removed?[edit]

"In addition, and ironically, according to unconfirmed anecdotes from employees at adult video stores, "interracial" (black male/white female) pornography is most often bought by white men, and relatively seldom by black men or white women."

But then, isn't most of ALL video pornography purchased at adult video stores purchased by white men, and seldom by black men or white women? Isn't Lesbian genre, Homosexual Genre, Large-Breasted Women Genre, Bukkake Genre, Bondage Genre and for that matter all Genre's of Pornography largely purchased by white men? If so, doesn't the original comment lose value, and in fact suggest racism of some kind when that isn't the case? -- Atomaton, April 2006

Good point, Atomaton. I have worked at an adult video store for the last three years and in my experience the first quote is misleading. Black male/white female movies are popular with black males and white females as well.

Unecessary Revert - 12:21, 7 April 2006 Gwernol (Revert to revision 47154900 using popups)[edit]

In the process of editing, I see a revert to a much older version that removes all of my changes.

Rather than reverting it myself, I'm first going to ask why User Gwernol removed my attempt to repair the page and remove the POV issues that were previously an issue. If she has a disagreement with the changes in some way, why don't we discuss that on the talk page and find common ground rather than reverting what I consider to be an hours worth of meaningful editing and changes? -- Atomaton, April 2006.

Hi, I've removed my revert. This was an attempt to remove what appeared to be vandalism to the article - in particular the addition of the reference to creampie seem(ed) egregious. I am happy to withdraw my revert since there is clearly a good faith effort here to improve the article. Good luck, Gwernol 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove NPOV objection?[edit]

I'd like to remove the NPOV marker if possible, and clean up the article further. The edits I made to clarify the racial aspect hopefully do that, does anyone feel that it is still not NPOV? And if so, why?

One person said to me "Recent Usage section needs sources for much of what it discusses". As this area is a subculture of human sexuality, and has little to no scientific research in it, there isn't yet anything other than anecdotal and personal viewpoints on the matter. Atomaton 14:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a different take on cuckoldry. I don't see it as a fetish. I believe it is as naturally occuring and a part of human evolution.

There is diversity among humans and that diversity gives us an evolutionary advantage. The bull or alpha male is not a a distinct advantage in passing on his genes. His sperm is often removed by the cuckold through oral sex and through conventional intercourse. Being that the cuckold often has a smaller penis that the bull and the wife's vagina is stretched by the bull the cuckold's penis acts like a scoop and removes the bull's sperm.

Then we have the sperm war scenario. The cuckold produces more killer sperm and a greater volume of killer sperm. This happens as a result of being exciting by the prospect of his mate cheating. I bleive the cuckold response is hardwired in many non-alpha males.

Overall, I see the type of cuckoldry practised today consistent with what probabaly went on with our earliest ancestors.

___

^ Oh my, who wrote that above? :) Simply because someone works out and becomes strong has nothing to do with the "fitness" of his sperm. These ideas are simply a part of the fetish, they have no basis in reality. There are millions of very fit men who are simply impotent. Even when I was very out of shape I produced 2 children without any effort :) It is like comparing physical fitness with blindness or any other bodily system; muscles are not the fix for everything. I have had 20 or so girlfriends and asked perhaps half of them about the cuckold fetish (among other fetishes), and *every single one* was disgusted by it. Women want men for stability; a man will hardly stay with her if she cheats, especially if she tells him about it and rubs his nose in it. Cuckold fetish is very niche. It looks like it is 1-3% of men at best, and women share their husbands WAY more than men share their wives (about 20% of my girlfriends have offered to share me out of their own accord, none wanted me to share them, even though I probably would have if that is what they wanted). From these statistics it certainly seems to me to has little to do with anything hard-wired into humanity, and more to do with something perhaps hardwired into that 1 to 3% at best. Plus, many studies launched simply to find "killer sperm" found absolutely none, despite every test looking for it, in any creature, let alone humans. Killer sperm is an outdated myth; all sperm simply want to get into an egg and that's that; they don't fight each other (Birkhead 1998, Simmons et al. 1999 and others). Hope that doesn't ruin your fetish, but please stop screwing up this article with nonsense for the rest of humanity, learn what your fetish is *actually* about, don't spread lies and ruin it for everyone else. User:Onexdata 2:48 12 April 2012 (GMT-6) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC).

Multiple edits by anon user[edit]

Thought I would point out the large number of anonymous edits (diff), with no summary, by 64.46.13.21 (talk). I can't determine if these edits are constructive or not, but in one case, a working internal link was broken. --KeithB 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The links at the bottom are vandalism[edit]

In answer to KeithB above, I would say those edits were not constructive, they appear to have placed sly advertisements for porn sites as "further reading", but even more wrong, the index page is a misleading rant of garbage.

The wikipedia article also appears to me to be peppered by someone who is quite into the "cuckold" fantasy, and therefore the neutrality and objectivity of the article (appears to me) to be skewed.

First, the links at the bottom of the article for suggested "further reading" are all advocate sites of the "cuckold" fantasy, and as such, they offer only incredibly skewed rants as to how all females are hard-wired to be "sluts".

Also, listing the author of the site as "sex therapist and relationship counsellor Susan Gower" is extremely misleading, as the site is nothing more than a collection of clicks-for-cash, with no more insiteful material than what is on the first page, and this information is also false.

For example, here is a quote from the index page of the referenced "http://www.hotwifenetwork.com/"

"The second is a desire to obtain a variety of the best genetic material to produce the best children. This second desire begins to grow once a woman has found her life mate and grows stronger as time with him progresses. Eventually, this later and more powerful drive overpowers her sexual desire for her life mate. This is why a woman's sexual desire for her husband diminishes over time. At the same time her sexual desire for other men is increasing. Often this desire for other men becomes so strong she cannot deny it. This does not make her immoral or mean that she no longer loves her husband. It is simply part of her genetic code."

Problems? How does "obtaining a variety of the best genetic material" produce the best children? Only a single sperm from a single donor will in any likelihood be involved in making a child, not "a variety" by any means, certainly not a driving force in evolution itself promoting "cuckoldry". This is silly fantasy talk. The rest of the paragraph is based on this initial false statement. Furthermore, suggesting as fact that all women (or men for that mater) are "genetically coded" to cheat has been scientifically proven to be false in a number of scientific studies. Also, suggesting that "cheating" does not make someone immoral is an opinion, as "cheating" is, by definition, immoral. To illustrate; immoral generally means "wrong" (http://www.answers.com/morality&r=67), and "wrong" by definition, causes suffering, then cheating on someone is only not "immoral" if the person who was cheated on did not suffer).

And that was only the second paragraph, the first explaining that the "cuckold" fantasy is "unarguably [...] most compatible with basic human evolutionary make up". Wow. Now considering that according to the Wikipedia article on Divorce, "Extra-marital affairs" is the leading cause of divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Statistics), and divorce being quite a problem as far as raising healthy children goes, "cuckolding" is only compatible with evolution when both parties wish to participate in the fantasy, and with divorce statistics being what they are (27% occur because of "cheating", more than any other reason, and males are more prone to it than females), and any quick search on any message board or reputable newsgroup will quickly reveal that 3 out of 4 "cuckolding" fantasies that are actually played out will directly lead to the end of the relationship, my first guess is that "cuckolding" is not quite as popular as the author believes; certainly not "genetic".

Now if someone was just cheated on, and looked up this wikipedia article in hopes of coping with it, and then reads the bullox on hotwifenetwork from "sex therapist and relationship counsellor Susan Gower", they may be inclined to believe this world is a horrible place in which all females are genetically forced to inevitably "gather a variety of sperm", even though all the evidence in the world says otherwise.

So I removed those links, I hope people will agree that they are not based in reality and were placed by a vandal.

You would not list "jugs.com" for further reading on breast fetishes. So listing "www.hotwifenetwork.com" for further reading on cuckolding is absurd at best.

-Onexdata 16 November 2006

"Cucks" vs. cuckoldry in general[edit]

There seems to be a disproportionate amount of interest in cuckoldry as a sexual fetish. It might make sense to have a separate article for this ("cuckoldry fetishism," with a "cuck" redirect?), given that most of the writing is on this phenomenon--which is distinct from the use of the term "cuckoldry" to refer to clandestine extrapair copulation, which is more common and arguably more scientifically and socially significant (e.g., sexual selection pressures on men and male animals, and the cultural significance of sexual infidelity and men's strategies for isolating partners, constraining female sexual choice, etc.), even if this isn't yet well represented in the article. Delmonte 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Much more frequently"?[edit]

Although historically it was a term in general use, nowadays it is much more frequently associated with female domination, power exchange, sexual humiliation, erotic sexual denial or sexual fantasy based on those themes.

...I don't think so. (I've removed this sentence.) Twin Bird 16:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is the only place I've come across fetishistic definition, and, honestly, I haven't lived that sheltered a life. AFAIK, the main current definition is the historic one, and the second most common -- used in sociology and genetics -- is a man whose wife has children by another man. The article really should mention this, as there's a fair scientific literature on it (versus no reliable sources for the fetish).CJGB (Chris) 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

External link[edit]

I read on the BDSM edit page that external links should be discussed. The website name may be a bit misleading, but I think http://www.cuckold-chastity-belt-stories.com should be listed as a external link because of the site's relevance to the article, the profuse information relating to cuckoldry, as well as it's tastefulness and being well structured. It does have questionable content, though. Faustus Tacitus 01:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cuckolding as a Dominant Voyeuristic Act[edit]

"The most extreme form of cuckolding is when the woman knowingly gets pregnant by her lover with the full knowledge and support of her husband." This is clearly a statement of opinion, not fact. Is it an example of a prevalent tendency within wikipedia to publish personal fetishistic ideas as established fact? Is there a relationship? I think we should be told. Also, since the section regarding sexual activity, as usual, include a high level of spurious opinion I support the proposal to move it to a separate page.

Articles on sexual fetishes are primarily written by people who share such fetishes, as least as fantasies. Thus, you get a lot of statements like the one you cite. Cuckold fetishism is not so uncommon, but is overwhelmingly relegated to the realm of fantasy and pornography. A relatively small number of people are actually going to engage in it (MMF threesomes, etc.). More than in the past, but nowhere near as many as the ubiquitousness of online porn would suugest. As far as the "knowingly getting pregnant..." claim, that would be so rare as to be almost nonexistent. Fetish websites may be filled with posts about such things, but it's just fantasy. However, fetish-fantasy is often translated in wikipedia articles as actual behavior or practice.

"hot wife"[edit]

ROFL, I changed this to just wife, I don't think "hot wife" is really needed and it really made it hard for me to take it seriously when I saw it. I think just wife will suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.16.130 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional Reference[edit]

Supporting literature regarding Aurora Romelin's divorce from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch with respect to her lack of interest in having him become a cuckold husband. In 1990 her memoir of their most unusual marriage was translated from the 1907 French publication into English by Marian Phillips, Caroline Hebert, and V.Vale, and published by ReSearch Publications in San Francisco. The translation is entitled, The Confessions of Wanda von Sacher Masoch. It is considered to be a "feminist classic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith23 (talkcontribs) 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Roman empire[edit]

I separated out the claim that this 'horned' term dates from the Roman Empire, from the descriptions of relatively modern usage. The consul Papirius gave golden collars and "cornicula" as a reward to his horsemen, however the word means helmet crests, not horns. There is no indication that this particular decoration - as opposed to laurel wreaths, etc - was particularly associated with cuckoldry. Neither Catullus, Martial, Petronius nor Apuleius used the word 'cornutus' to describe the several cuckolds that they mocked. I have therefore flagged this claim as requiring verification. --Nantonos (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

.... without a feminine counterpart[edit]

The opening information states that it is one of the few English words "without a feminine counterpart," but at the end of the article it states that there is (Cuckquean). Which is it? 66.191.19.217 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've commented out the "Cuckqueen" section because it's obvious that Dan Savage was just making up the word; as the opening para states, there's no recognised feminine equivalent. — Hugh 10:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Dude, that's how words begin! People make them up. As a case of fact, Dan Savage is largely responsible for the term “pegging,” which has now spread like wildfire and become commonly recognized. EIN (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how Savage got involved in discussion, but obviously "Cuckquean" (not cuckqueen) is a relatively new (not Old English) term for a female equivelant.JVB (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Check the OED or any good dictionary. Cuckquean is 16th century and was more widely used in the Early modern and Georgian eras then in is today. Nothing new about it at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.61.157 (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Layout suggestion[edit]

Just a minor layout suggestion. The 'History' section should probably follow the 'Cultural usage' section or be included in the 'History of the term' section. Thoughts? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Insatiable Wives[edit]

There is a fairly recently published book entitled Insatiable Wives: Women Who Stray and the Men Who Love Them By David J. Ley. I am wondering if this could be a good reliable source for expanding the appropriate section. Anyone read said text that would care to comment? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Time to archive?[edit]

I think it may be time to archive the talk page as we have discussions going back to 2006. Better yet would be adding an appropriate archiving bot. Any thoughts before proceeding with a manual archive or adding the bot? Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references[edit]

The cultural references section here is weak, because it tries to demonstrate a spurious universality to the image of the horns of the cuckold, while drawing almost all its examples from European cultures that have extensive mutual contact and therefore are very likely to draw imagery from each other. The few non-European examples cited aren't much help since they offer nothing to exclude the possibility that those usages might actually be borrowings from European languages, which have been known in Asia for centuries--at least since the time of Marco Polo, and certainly for the last 150-250 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poihths (talkcontribs) 19:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Overrepresentation of fetishistic sex on Wikipedia[edit]

I'm constantly amused by the large number of Wikipedia articles with bloated sections on the use of "xyz" as a fetishistic practice. Wiki attracts "experts" the world over, especially those who want to normalize practices which they feel unfairly stigmatised, but which the rest of us consider rightfully stigmatised. I'm not being a thin-lipped prude, it's just funny that apparently among the people drawn to edit Wiki are a huge number of dirty old men shuffling around in overcoats. And you think you deserve donations because LargePenis223 wrote 1,756 articles on subjects relating to semen? 124.168.116.193 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm right there with ya. They believe they deserve donations for hosting this perverse POV stuff. Not quite incidentally, most sane people stay away from these kinds of cesspit articles, whence their general sorry state. --87.79.43.249 (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think those that want to edit, delete, or limit internet content should be switched to a very limited form of the internet, maybe a .pg so their sensitivies wont be brused, but every other free thinking person in the world can continue to exchange ideas openly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.100.200 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Value of long list of non-English entries of "horn" metaphor associated with older use of term cuckold[edit]

Not sure I understand the value of several dozens of entries of non-English equivalents of the older term of cuckold (non fetish) in this encyclopedic entry. There is some degree of value in understanding that the metaphor seems to transcend several languages and cultures, but I'm not sure I agree that we have to have a listing of every pan-Eurasian translation of the old English term cuckold. The term is already dated and almost out of use outside of fetish, why do we have an entire section devoted to translations of the older meaning? Is this done in other encyclopedic entries? Do we have 23 translations of the word in other languages for 19th Century term "gay" which used to mean happy or glad? Do we have a dozen other translations and cultural uses for the word "keister" which used to mean suitcase or satchel in English? Recommend replacing the whole section with a line that says something about the common use of a horns as a metaphor across many cultures for a man whose wife cheats on him, and then point them to some reference for those that are interested in cross-cultural metaphors for an old English term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannVanbeek (talkcontribs) 13:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

== “a requirement for the fetish is that the cuckold is somehow humiliated” ==. This is not a requirement. In my personal experience (as a woman and wife) and from discussions with many others, the husband or partner is often overtly masculine, strong and above average or well endowed himself. He is sexually confident himself. In fact he is often the "type" "wimpish" males seek to service their wives in male humiliation scenarios. He does not feel in any way inferior to the well endowed male who is sexually "servicing" his wife/partner.

The psychology of this behaviour, is far too complicated to accurately analyse. But I suspect there may be some early childhood experience where the mans mother has been perceived by him to have been "whorish" Maybe she gave birth to him out of wedlock and his natural father is not around or even unknown. He subconciously perceives all woman, even the most outwardly respectable wives, to be whores at heart, and this scares him, yet hugely turns him on. Perhaps a girlfriend cheated on him when he was a teenager? Perhaps it is the inexorable "animal" deep within the psyche of all makes, perhaps it is latent homosexuality, and the husband receives sexual gratification via his wife. These men often have oral and penal sexual acts with their wife/partner after the other male has "finished" and deposited his "seed" (I am trying to avoid using the full sexual terms on a serious page)

This practice seems more prevalent among highly intelligent, confident, well endowed men. I have had personal experience of this, plus long talks with men who fall into this category and their wives. The wives are initially often horrified by the suggestion they have sex with another (usually black) man, but if they do "cross the line" they actually enjoy, and feel empowered by this practice, and report their husbands being very loving and grateful. They now have a "complete" woman. The "mother" who nurtures them, the "best friend", the housewife and cook who cares for their needs, and finally they have the male fantasy "whore/slut" who is used and "humiliated" Their sex lives remain exciting and intense also. It ensures boredom does not set in with either, and when they have sex alone themselves it remains fresh and exciting.

I need to add here, that these "Cuckolding" couples have usually been together and have established a very close bond and connection before the husband/partner gets around to suggesting this. And also because of this, it appears to strengthen the bond between them! Hard for "normal" couples to get their heads around. But we have to remember, that sex is only one facet of a marriage/relationship. Outside of this extreme sexual practice, they lead "normal" lives and have sex and make love as "normal" in a close loving unit.

The turn on here, appears to be the transforming of the wife into a whore or slut as she is "taken" by another male. And in these circumstances it is usually a well built, well endowed black male. Often too, the husband wishes his "most precious possession" to be "taken" by two or more black males. He is also turned on by the humiliation of the "whore"/wife Yet, they themselves will also touch and hold her tenderly. And when it is over, treat her with love and gratitude. Big contradictions in behaviour going on which is why it is so difficult to analyse.

I doubt any psychologist could pinpoint the reason for this behaviour. It is bound up in the animalistic sexual behaviour of makes competing for females, and the sperm of the most potent impregnating the female coupled with the mans early sexual awakenings.

It is important to separate the different facets of "Cuckolding" and not just presume it is a wimpish white male with a small penis being humiliated by a dominant wife. There is this other practice I describe above, where the husband is dominant, and she is submissive. She is "taken" to, and by a "big, black, c**k" (Excuse the crude terms, but have to use these to explain properly) and then her inner "whore" is unleashed, and she loves and is insatiable for it.

I am not adding presumptions to this discussion, but actual facts, learned from experience, and the experiences of others in the above situation. Nor have I any figures of how many marriages break up because of this. But it appears not to be a problem, if the experiences related on the Internet are to be the benchmark. But I am sure there are a percentage of break ups. I have been told (but no official statistics to back it up) that the divorce rate among these "Cuckold" couples is much lower than in the "normal" couple.


I don't want to jump into conclusions, but it seems to me that the sentence quoted in the headline is contradicted by “The fetish specifics can range wildly, from loving treatment toward the cuckold to complete humiliation and debasement.” EIN (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. I think the paragraph suffers from multiple authors. The confusion seems to arise out of popular practice that cuckolding requires some humiliation vice those who who enjoy the fetish without the psychological component of submissiveness/humiliation. It should be rewritten to reflect both approaches to the fetish.JVB (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
'Kay, I'll try to do something about it, and about the matter I mentioned below. EIN (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
JohannVanbeek: The second approach doesn't need a special word for it - it's already got one, actually a few: wife swapping/infidelity/swinging.

I've never been in one of these discussions, so I hope I am handling this correctly. As a woman, I feel like something massive is being ignored here. Having been with my husband for 20 good years, security, safety and love are givens. The desire to see my partner in the throws of passion, for me has nothing to do with masochistic humiliation, but rather the desire to see him in the throws of passion, because his passion stimulates me. When I am up close and intimate, I am involved as well, and I can't see him clearly. Nothing about it is humiliating. If it was, I don't think I would be able to participate, let alone fantasize about him being with other partners. We both, separately have these erotic fantasies, involving watching the other with someone else. We've engaged in them in actual fact and for each of us they are huge turn ons. I know that the one thing that is important to both of us, has been that there be no threat to our relation ship or humiliation. i'm not saying that humiliation is bad, it's just not a part of this fetish for me or him. It couldn't be or we wouldn't be comfortable enough to enjoy it. I don't have any sources but my own personal experience. 108.23.32.86 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)M.

Why is it only men?[edit]

“[T]he sexual fetish of the same name in which a male gains sexual gratification from his partner's having sex with other males.” Guess no women ‘gaining sexual gratification’ from it, huh? EIN (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have amended the old definition. I'll remove “boyfriend” and “long-term sex partner” because traditionally at least the term is applied to married couples only. EIN (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletions Made and Expansions Needed[edit]

I have deleted three paragraphs from the history of the term section and altered the opening paragraph slightly to remove inaccurate assertions about contemporary non-fetish usage of the word and pre/extra fetish cultural attitudes.

It is false to suggest that the word "cuckold" is now used in the English language only as it relates to the sexual fetish subculture. It is still used in its traditional sense quite commonly in the media, in law, in religious and public discourse. Likewise, it is inaccurate that medieval literature or culture reserved opprobrium for the deceived husband and excused the adulterous wife - indeed the assertion is almost laughable on its face to anyone with a passing familiarity with the harsh punishments such women often received in the patriarchal middle ages.

The purpose of wikipedia is to describe things as they are, not to shape them into what you would like them to be. I do not object to including information about the sexual fetish of cuckolding in the article, but do not attempt to re-imagine the non-fetish life of word and idea of "cuckold" into oblivion and make it your exclusive cultural property.

To that point, this article is very weak for wikipedia because it is so heavily weighted towards information about the contemporary fetish. A user who has come to find out about this well-served, but what about the user who has come to learn about the concept and term in Shakespeare or Chaucer or Medieval cannon law? What about some one who wants to look at how concepts of adultery and marriage evolved in Western culture, or how it contrasts with ideas in other cultures? What about a user who wants to understand the legal definitions in the U.S., the U.K. and other English speaking countries? Or about the use of the concept and its symbolism in art?

I see this article has now been added to some sort of wiki portal on sexuality. That's fine. But it needs to be more than that if it is to be a useful entry.TheCormac (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

German phrase also![edit]

In Germany, there exists the phrase "Jemandem die Hörner aufsetzen", means "to put horns onto somebody", also commonly reffering to cuckolds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.16.185.201 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Another German word for it is "Hahnrei". (Compare to Swedish etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.230.69 (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sections 6 through 9 ....[edit]

The current sections 6 (Different forms of cuckolding) through 9 (Pros and cons of cuckolding) look like a pretty big example of WP:OR and WP:NOTMANUAL. The question is can some of it be salvaged and properly sourced or just a removal?--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 00:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Aight, over a month has gone by and no response. I've engaged in a little boldness and removed the aforementioned sections. That's not to say that the material doesn't have some value, but we really need some good, solid sourcing on them.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 01:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Split?[edit]

An IP (99.249.15.40) put a split tag on top of the page, but not a talk page entry. Thoughts on the proposed split? --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 01:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No response from anyone, including the AnonIP, that tagged the article. Removing for now.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Myths[edit]

No. That mis-information is wrong. The blacks are NOT bigger that either the whites OR the hispanics. This myth comes from at least 2 sources. AND the comment you can check to see for yourself about the facts, by going to cuckold-forum is also wrong BECAUSE it is cuckolds & mostly black bulls (the other man having sex with the wife is called a "bull"). The VAST MAJORITY of the cuckolds are mostly white men who have worked months, to years, to TALK THEIR WIVES INTO having sex with other men. They actually fantasize their wives being sluts to other men. They also fantasize that the other man's cock is bigger than their own. THEY WANT TO BE SEXUALLY INFERIOR!! A lot fantasize that the other man is black with a much bigger cock. The BBC forum of ourhotwives.com has hotwives & cuckolds talking about wanting, or not wanting, the wife to be with a black man. Either way, they all say that the cock size difference among races IS A MYTH. Those who DO like for the wife to be with blacks talk about it being because they like the difference in skin color of the wife's genital & the man's genital. And they like that the black man is more concerned to impress with good sex performance. The myth is because WHITE MEN started it in the late 1800's as part of the lie that black men are bad, sex crazed, horse-sized cock, deviates threatening to rape white women. And a lot of blacks have bigger NON erect cocks than whites. BUT once erect, the cocks of both races are the same size. The theory for this is that it is because of where our ancesters come from. The blacks came from Africa, which is much warmer. So they needed more surface space to dissipate heat away from their genital area, to help prevent heat related injuries. The whites were from Europe with much colder temperatures. So they needed their genitals to be smaller while soft, to prevent frost bit. But all three races (including hispanics) need to be the same size for sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studybettersex (talkcontribs)

Sage Vivant[edit]

Hi there I have just created an account on wikipedia and made some edits under cuckold and hotwife , a few days ago. They were originally taken down because I did not include the correct referencing format. I read up on how to include the proper citation and then made the edits again and included the book reference using what I believe is the correct citation system following the one already in exsistence on the entry. My edits were then removed, I believe in one instance somebody was under the impression that the sourse was a writer of erotic fiction. I do not want to get into one of these edit wars. If I am doing something incorrectly I would rather know why .The book reference I had included is not by an eroric author, it is not fiction, it is a work about the psychology of erotic personality types.It is not an ebook, it is an actual published book. It may be only the considered opinion of one author, but it is being considered in the context of many other erotic personanily tpes which the author maintains can overlap with each other.

What I wanted to include was the following paragraph below. I realize it may not be evereybodys cup of tea, but it is a verifiable source of information and I believe that is the correct way of placing things on wikipedia.if somebody else has verifiable material they would prefer to see here, why not put it up to contest what i have have edited instead of just removing mine. I included the IBSN book number at the end of the piece on my last posting that was removed.

According to the Author Sage Vivant, in her book (Your Erotic Personality - Identifying and understanding your sexual self p 51), the cuckolding personality type takes two forms in the modern world, stag cuckolds and sissy cuckolds with the majority of cuckolds belonging to the stag cuckold category. She defines a ‘stag cuckold’ “as a man that simply takes erotic pleasure in hearing or seeing his girlfriend or wife engaging in sexual relations with another man or sexually sharing her with another man or men. This occurs with his full consent and encouragement and such female partners are known as ‘hotwives’. This pleasure can also include knowing such relations are or have taken place without actually hearing or seeing them directly himself, or having details of such relations told to him by his significant other. He simply takes huge pleasure is seeing his female partner being fully sexually fulfilled and exploring her sexual boundaries. There is no humiliation, degradation or homosexual aspect to these encounters like those found in strictly ‘sissy cuckold’ encounters in which a ‘hotwife’ is really a cruel and disdainful ‘cuckoldress’ or at least plays that role. The’ hotwife’ partners of stags do however often engage in playful teasing that can vary in range and intensity between such 'stags' and their 'hotwife' partners in order to heighten her own or her stag's erotic feelings. Such stag- hotwife relationships are solid and genuinely caring ones between two individuals. The other extra solely sexual partners of such’ hotwives’ are known as bulls and these men only serve the sexual needs of such ‘hotwives’ and have no function in the relationship other than this. This ‘stag-hotwife’ relationship is a subset of swinging in which only the female partners takes on extra sexual partners, either by bringing a third male party to assist the stag in pleasuring the hotwife, and/or bringing in elements of exhibitionism, voyeurism and sexual tease into the relationship in which the stag either listens, watches or hears about such sexual encounters. A ‘sissy cuckold’ is a man that derives sexual pleasure from being humiliated, degraded and denied by his ‘cuckoldress’ as she engages in, or relates details of, sexual encounters with other men . This type is a form of submissive masochism and can sometimes involve ritualised homosexual acts performed by the sissy cuckold at the behest of the cuckoldress and/ or bull.” [1]


Thanks Earlymanbc Earlymanbc (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

this is the personal opinion of an erotic novelist, not a reliable medical/sociological/scientific paper [2] IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
This had been added in the middle of a discussion, high up on the page. As it was unlikely that many other people would see it there, I've moved it down and added a heading. And I agree completely with IdreamofJeanie. The book might not be a novel, but there are no signs of it being a reliable source - quite the opposite, in fact. --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article take a stance on the use of "cuckservative" as an insult?[edit]

The last paragraph of the "history" section appears to be passing judgement on the use of "cuckold" or "cuckservative" as an insult (see WP:NPOV), and talks about how these cuckservatives don't realise that "alpha cucks" exist. This strikes me as a very strange thing to talk about. Also, the sentence In fact, it's gotten to a point where it's relatively normal to bash someone for being a "cuck". doesn't cite a source, passes judgement on the use of "cuck" as an insult (WP:NPOV again) and is stylistically questionable. Seriously, what the heck? --Dinosaurs explosion (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please delete the last paragraph of the "history" section ("The word cuck has been increasing in popularity (...) there are many alpha cucks out there.") for the reasons given above. While there may be some merit to pointing out that the word indeed is seeing use as an insult on the Internet, that should probably be discussed in its own section if anywhere. --Dinosaurs explosion (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Fetish section expansion ...[edit]

At the present, there is only a single sentence on the topic. Now that there is scholarly literature on the topic, I am thinking of expanding upon it with well-sourced material.

Question: should that be here or a separate article? This one is more on the historical usage of the term, rather than contemporary sexual practices. However, they are, obviously, related. Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st Talk|Contribs 18:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ . ISBN 0425214346.  Missing or empty |title= (help)