How to be a Cuckold

Despite whatever you may think of it, GQ sets the standard for what’s acceptable for discussion in male culture. Yes, this is true regardless of whether or not you read it. Recently, it’s apparently now acceptable to explain to your friends why it’s a good thing to be a cuck, at least Jennifer Wright’s version of it in her article. I have no idea why GQ, formerly gentleman’s quarterly would willing put out an article on how to justify being a cuck. “Well, you gotta pander to your base every once in awhile.” I’m inclined to agree.

What’s interesting about this from the get go is that the article is ostensibly a woman explaining why you (read:male) should want to be a cuck. My first instinct was to ask what kind of woman wants a cuck for man? Oh yeah, a cuckcoldress. There was a time when the insult ‘cuck’ had a hell of a lot of bite to it. Now, just like faggot and bitch, it’s just a go to reference when you’re arguing on the internet and feeling lazy. Normally, I’d leave this alone because of that. However, the fact that GQ puts this out means there’s something fishy going on, and I intend to find out exactly what that is.

Important distinction to make here is that we are not using the traditional sense of the word cuckold, but modern fetish definition, wherein a man is complicit in the act of another guy giving the ol’ in-out to his wife. I didn’t say he was cool with it, only that he allows it to happen. As the author describes it, “…needlessly relinquished manliness, for selling out and caving in. The original metaphor of watching your partner getting slammed by another dude now simply means abandoned principles and a lack of backbone.” She then back this up with a disbelieving ‘uh huh’ as she prepares to eviscerate (see what I did there) all the ‘macho men’ that exist inside her head, possibly also her workplace. What’s her sweeping refutation?

“First of all, listening to others, accepting criticism, and evolving in your views—“caving in”—is a good thing.”

Wright conflates a lack of backbone with ‘evolving your views’. Wow, what a brilliant sentiment. Let me ask you males and females alike a question. What would your response be to the following exchange if you had it with your partner.

“I don’t know if I can agree with [insert opposing political views].”

“Look, you’re not caving in or anything by agreeing with me. You’re evolving your views.”

If your response is anything but throwing your drink in your partner’s face for a) not taking your thoughts seriously in any way and b) possibly the most condescending statement to ever exist then all hope is lost for you and you should stop reading this now.

This can only happen because the author, like most people, doesn’t understand the nature of being a cuck.  The only way to find out though is to watch cuckold porn and analyze it from a story perspective. This is something I never recommend doing (analyzing porn), as the answers you will gleam are terrifying. I did it though, lemme tell you what I found.

All porn is drenched (see what I did there) in symbolism, cuckold porn is no different. What’s interesting to note is the wife gets descriptors (hot, busty, whatever) While men get labels. The labels here are ‘cuck’ and ‘bull’. The bull is usually a black guy which is the author implies is racist. Her misstep is in the fact that the bull being black is less important than what being black represents.

The black guys are not ‘only’ black, but also buff, good looking, and apparently great at sex (read:huge penis). The bull in cuckold porn is a representation of archetypal hyper-masculinity, which is seen as something distinct and removed from the ‘cuck’. If the bull is the ‘other’ than the only way to express this visually is by making him look different in every way, including his skin color.

“If you wonder why the prospect of your wife having sex with another man would be more humiliating if that man were black, well, congratulations; you’re not a racist.” Sorry Jen, you have your racism backwards. The prospect of a black guy having sex with your wife when you’re white isn’t humiliating, he’s an archetype IE he doesn’t actually exist to the cuck. The real humiliation would be another white guy having sex with your wife.

If a black bull is the other, than a white bull is the uncanny valley. He’s like you, but not. He’s a better version of you (physically speaking). What’s worse is that it is exactly that which would make it even more humiliating; the cuck has the power to enhance his physical appearance and increase his confidence. If the black bull is the representation of the masculine archetype seen as unachievable by the protagonist (read:cuck) then a white bull would be an acceptance of chosen deficiency within the protagonist.

In some variations, the wife will taunt the cuckold with lines like, “You could never do this for me.” This is demonstrative of a simple fact about cuckold fantasies: They’re male fantasies. The verbal taunts are confirmation of the cuckold’s fear that no matter the trappings of power he acquires, sex is where the true power lies. His wife wants it and he doesn’t have it. This can then be seen as disavowal by eroticization. The wife explaining the cuckold’s lack of true power to the cuck confirms that he is important enough to be told in the first place; that a real man knows what he has and doesn’t have. This then allows the cuck to actually believe he is in fact more masculine as a result. 

cuckI wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t explain the other variation though; that in which the cuckold sexually participates in the act itself. Usually this is sucking the bull off, or eating his jism, sometimes out of the cuck’s wife’s vagina. Usually from the wife. Here is where the neurosis of the cuckold is fully revealed and put on display. The belief that “true” masculinity can only be achieved by association. The other belief is that this association is in fact his wife.

In this context, the wife is the archetypal female which bestows masculinity (Here, swallows this cum out of me) to the protagonist, which he eagerly accepts. Notice the word ‘achetypal’ because it’s not an accident. The wife only matters in so far as she provides her husband’s masculinity IE she’s not real to the cuck either.

What we get from this ultimately is that a cuck is a man who believes that masculinity comes from women’s approval and is so desperate to feel like a man that he will devalue himself for it to other women. Cuckold porn can be seen as a ritual of worship toward masculine archetypes over which a goddess presides.

It is this definition of a cuck that is in my opinion the actual expression of the insult, not merely “someone who has abandoned principles” but “someone who has abandoned the principles of masculinity in order to worship them using women as a proxy idol.”

That’s pretty damning. What’s more damning though is that the author herself feeds into this. She takes note that anti-cucks may get attractive (Read:what she thinks is the only thing that matters to men) girlfriends or wives, but that those women are brainwashed/stupid (“society trains some women to tolerate a lot of buffoonish behavior in exchange for financial security.”)  What’s interesting to me is that she believes other women are stupid for tolerating idiocy in exchange for financial security. I gotta ask, what’s wrong with that?  is it wrong if a woman chose to do that of her own volition, or does it have to be society controlling her? She points out that the anti-cucks are people like Donald trump, Tucker Carlson, and Scott Adams. Funny how they’re all old ugly white guys. Then she points out that people like George Clooney (old but good looking), Jason Kander (who?) and Justin Trudeau are called cucks. The one thing these people have in common with the author is that they agree with her political views.

However, pointing out these exemplars of manliness isn’t enough to sell the readers on why they should be cucks, so Wright decides to sweeten the deal: “…The action of a cuck who also seems like he might be someone we’d have mutually satisfying sex with.” Of course, she can’t promise sex, only a shot at sex, which is weird because apparently you can also get a shot at sex without being a cuck too. I guess you only get dumb chicks though, and that’s the downside? The author is a bit unclear. However, what we can see is the feeding into the definition I was talking about. “Men who agree with me politically are desirable,” she says. Whether conscious or not, she’s still using sex and the female archetype to bestow masculinity. She uses the promise of a chance at sex as part of her actual reasoning on why you should be cool with being called a cuck. The only way you would agree with her is because you think this is true, or in other words, that a woman can decide if your masculine or not. This tweet is no surprise as an opener to the article:

Why is being called a cuck desirable? Because it now means you’re sexually viable, which is the long con of GQ. The point now is that the abandoning of masculine archetypes is now the new masculinity. There used to be the new age guys from the early 2000’s who told themselves and everyone they don’t have to subscribe to male archetypes. Now we have male feminists telling us our own sense of masculinity is toxic. I’m not going to comment on this, it’s not worth the time and anyway everyone else has slammed this. What I will say though is that you can’t expect almost two decades of “What even is being a man anyway?” without that becoming the default. Why is this the long con of GQ though? Here’s a thought: If men no longer subscribe to traditional archetypes of masculinity, it then means that new ones have to take their place. If someone could do that in a way that makes money off them, wouldn’t that be sweet?

Yeah, that’d be pretty sweet.

 

Capitalism and why we suck at it

wage

(I.) This meme found it’s way to my facebook page, which isn’t surprising, because bullshit is everywhere on the internet. These kinds of posts specifically are almost formulaic in how they operate. It’s always someone in a respectable position, as long as that position isn’t a successful capitalist but something we would consider ‘heroic but underpaid’ like a soldier, teacher, or in this case, a paramedic. These posts then go on to shame anyone that disagrees with them (read: aspiring capitalists), extols the virtues of low wage work, and then slings shit at ‘the man’.  When I read this, I reflexively agreed with it, which told me it’s wrong. I sat down for a bit to think about it. I should’ve just taken a shot and moved on. Can’t change the past though, so let’s find out why I’m alone.

 

(II.) First off, It’s important to note what the poster ultimately wants to be true, namely that you should take him seriously, his job after all requires a ‘broad set of skills.’ If you took out the ‘medical’ and ‘health’ parts, he’s describing what goes on in your average understaffed, overworked retail environment (read: every retail environment). Understand that I am not in any way attempting to denigrate his chosen profession nor am I trivializing the necessity of his work. What I am saying is that the poster is in fact trivializing you. I know this because you’d most likely defend him by saying something like “but his skills are different/he does important work, etc, etc even though you have no idea who this person is.

Why is this opening statement even necessary? Everything he says has nothing to do with his job. He proves this by pointing out that electricians are pissed too. No, unfortunately, he’s trying to signal to you that he’s an unsung hero in a system that doesn’t give a shit about him, but he pushes on regardless. He wants you to believe him. Believe in him. Wanna know who else wants you to believe in them? People in unearned positions of authority, people with insecurity issues, and salesmen. What’s even more unfortunate is that he believes in upholding the status quo.

 

(III.) The critical error the poster makes is in equating ‘life’ with ‘time.’ No, my job does not take up my life, it takes up time in my life. “Yeah but (insert semantic/quote/metaphor about life and time here)” Yeah, lovely semantics/quote/metaphor/whatever, tell me more about why you can’t be that thing you want to be. This kind of thinking is endemic to people who have a taste of money, but no access to capital. He goes on to shame those who are upset that the time and energy they have put into themselves to make their lives better have been effectively overwritten by people whining that burger flippers should make more money. He’s right to shame them, but the reasons why are wrong.

 

Those who are pissed about the wage hike for burger flippers and those who want the wage hike are missing out on the long game. They can’t see it, which means they’re being duped in a long con.  What’s the long game? To be a capitalist. End of story, that’s how you win the game of America. What’s the long con? Duping yourself. End of story, that’s how you win the game of America.

The burger flipper is fucked, because she sure as shit ain’t gonna do anything to improve her life now (i.e. become a capitalist). “Fuck you, she can finally have a savings account, afford healthcare, she can finally save up money  for XYZ, which will help her better her life.” Sorry, but your idealism is trumped by reality. If she couldn’t do that before, she ain’t just gonna magically have those skills because you pay her more. Her problem isn’t with not enough money, her problem is with not enough sacrifice. You don’t have to agree with me, just keep paying your rent and driving that honda.

 

The electrician is wrong because he assumed that the amount of money he makes signals his importance and worth as a person. He doesn’t see that his trajectory positions him to be far more successful than a burger flipper as long as he makes the right moves, and it’s the amount of sacrifices he’s willing to make that does in fact signal his importance and worth as a person. Once again, the problem isn’t with not enough money, but not enough sacrifice.

 

(IV.) Now that the author has convinced you of his importance and that those around him can’t see the truth, he opens fire on his true target ‘the man.’ Apparently in the warped reality in his head, CEO’s want us lowly sheeple fighting each other so we don’t see reality and revolt against those who hold the means of production in a glorious proletariat revolution. The problem with Marxism is that it inherently appeals to the narcissist in us. I’ll risk the Blow back by saying this: Unfortunately, your CEO doesn’t give two shits about you. They don’t care as in, they don’t care enough to have the energy to orchestrate shit like this. People that high up believe in one thing only :Making more money. We can sit here and debate the ethics of such a driving force, but good luck explaining that to the shareholders. They (Capitalists) don’t want us fighting over crumbs while they make off with almost the whole damn cake, we want to fight each other so we can ignore the missing cake.

 

“What the fuck are you taking about?” What I’m talking about is this. Have you ever googled “duties of a CEO?” No? Do it. Once you read into it, you’ll know the price to be paid for having almost the whole damn cake. It means dancing on a knife edge all day, every day for the rest of your workable life. Thing is, you already knew this. You’ve always been aware that the more power one attains, the more stress one comes under. More power= more responsibilities= more consequences = no thanks. However, most people can’t be content to call themselves failures of their own accord, and we can’t fight the capitalists, not because they’re more powerful than us, but because they simply don’t give a shit. The people running the world have no interest in fighting with us, not because they’re better than us, but because they have better things to do. So what do we do instead? Fight and blame each other for our individual failures.

 

(V.) The end of this sordid story has the author claiming the burger flippers won and ‘made’ the capitalists pay them more. In the same way that a child believes that they ‘made’ their parents give them that thing, yeah, I totally agree. Just because you score a victory, it doesn’t mean you’ve won. Kid gets what he wants, and the parents get some peace and quiet for a bit with the added bonus that that’s the last ice cream bar in the freezer.

Let’s play a game called “sum the vectors.” It’s a fun game. Since it’s always disappointing, you can’t ever be wrong, so everyone wins. The burger flippers don’t want to work at their job, which is why they are asking for more money, which works out well since capitalists don’t want them working there either. The intersection of desire occurs when burger flippers get more money  which allows the board to convince the shareholders that automation will be a better investment. See, they don’t want to work there, the capitalists don’t either, and both will get what they want.

As the old saying goes “Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.”