Taking "please,won't someone think of the children" to a whole new level

August 4, 2008 1:05 PM

Cuckhold Pregnancy: the ultimate expression of a lifestyle. Being deceived into raising another man's child would be a nightmare for most men. For other's, it's the ultimate hot fantasy. Taking it to the extreme of having your wife bear another man's child is a suprising (to me) twist on the Cuckhold fantasy. Interestingly, it seems to dovetail with another sexual fetish previously discussed on Metafilter. Oh yeah, NSFW !!!!
posted by echolalia67 (83 comments total)

Timely.
posted by availablelight at 1:08 PM on August 4, 2008

Your fantasies are your fantasies, and that's cool. Fly your freak flag! Whatever two or more consenting adults get into is their business.

But involving kids? No. This is not okay.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:09 PM on August 4, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]

This is what happens when you let gays get married.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:10 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Not cuckold?
posted by hwestiii at 1:10 PM on August 4, 2008

(Also, errrrr, could a mod come and fix the spelling? Cuckold, no h.)
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:10 PM on August 4, 2008

What dnab said. Kids are not accessories. Awful.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 1:11 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Well, I guess this'll be bred out of the population pretty fast.
posted by orthogonality at 1:15 PM on August 4, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]

But involving kids? No. This is not okay.

This.
posted by Forktine at 1:15 PM on August 4, 2008

This is what happ[ens when the liberals gain power in our country. Just look at what the evil doeers are up to in San Francisco!

vote Bob Barr
posted by Postroad at 1:20 PM on August 4, 2008

"Baby, you know what would be totally hot?"
"Hmm?"
"You having sex with another man..."
"Ooooh...."
"And getting pregnant..."
"..... umm?"
"And then we can spend the next 20 years raising it like it was ours!"
"....?!"
"Awww yeah, that's totally hot, right?
posted by Dr-Baa at 1:21 PM on August 4, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

I hate playing post police, but this is kind of a crap post. A couple links to forum posts, a link to a mefi thread, a google search, a blog post, a savage love article, a wikipedia entry, an askme post, a link to literotica, and another mefi thread.

Perhaps this would make a good topic for an FPP, but you gotta actually give us something to read. As it is, it looks like you did a google search and then just threw whatever you found into the FPP.

Also, is there any proof that people are actually doing this as a lifestyle? I mean, outside of the forum posts that say "REAL TRUE STORY!!@!!"
posted by Afroblanco at 1:21 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

What sort of issues turn one into a cuckold fetishist? It's all very peculiar to me.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:21 PM on August 4, 2008

That's awesome! Maybe when he's old enough junior can sit on the sidelines and watch with dad!
posted by The Straightener at 1:22 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I only come to MeFi for the cuckoldry posts.

Well, and the cake farting, too. But who doesn't?
posted by yhbc at 1:22 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Well son, when a man and a woman love each other very much, then the man asks the woman to lie down with another man. That other man puts his hoo-ha in her tinkle spot while the first man hides in the closet. Nine months later, the woman has a baby. She and the first man love it very much for a few years. Then the first man leaves and the woman goes to a courthouse to make the second man the daddy. He contests and the case goes to trial. Both the woman and the second man sell their stories to tabloid magazines and make money that they waste on senseless indulgences while the baby winds in therapy.

And that, little man, is where babies come from.
posted by felix betachat at 1:23 PM on August 4, 2008 [11 favorites has favorites]

availablelight: It's pretty interesting when you read through the links to see how the "cucks" talk about this as "breeding" their wives to a "stud".
posted by echolalia67 at 1:24 PM on August 4, 2008

So strange that the one woman is Catholic enough to be against birth control but not so Catholic that she's against having sex with other men when she's married. I guess you want keep a cap on the number of religious rules you break.
posted by GuyZero at 1:24 PM on August 4, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]

I don't think there's a fetish that skeeves me out more than interracial cuckoldry. It's a perfect storm of misogyny, racism, and the objectification of all parties involved. And those kids they've made? How much will it cost in therapy hours to reconstruct healthy views of gender roles out of the steaming mess they've been given?
posted by bunnytricks at 1:26 PM on August 4, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

It's pretty interesting when you read through the links to see how the "cucks" talk about this as "breeding" their wives to a "stud".

Quoth Lucy, "Stop the world, I want to get off."
posted by Dr-Baa at 1:27 PM on August 4, 2008

This ain't right.
posted by empath at 1:30 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

So which parent pays for the therapy?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:32 PM on August 4, 2008

Afroblanco writes "Perhaps this would make a good topic for an FPP, but you gotta actually give us something to read. "

Oh, there's plenty -- way too much -- to read on that second link. Way too much. Good FPP, but christ what a subject. Rule fuckin' 34.
posted by orthogonality at 1:32 PM on August 4, 2008

b>Pope Guilty writes "So which parent pays for the therapy?"

The mother, presumably, because apparently some of these pregnancies result from the women having multiple and perhaps anonymous partners and no idea who the daddy is.
posted by orthogonality at 1:35 PM on August 4, 2008

I impregnate married women.
posted by ND¢ at 1:37 PM on August 4, 2008

Oh, there's plenty -- way too much -- to read on that second link.

Perhaps. But I still haven't seen any evidence that people are actually doing this for real. I kinda doubt it, actually.
posted by Afroblanco at 1:38 PM on August 4, 2008

Well, I guess this'll be bred out of the population pretty fast.

I was just gonna say I bet most of these dudes are just really committed creationists.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:42 PM on August 4, 2008

OMG LOOK FREEKS / Rule 42 doesn't really make an FPP for me.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:48 PM on August 4, 2008

Not to mod my own post too much, but I find the issues of desire, power and consent to be the most interesting part of the whole dynamic. For the most part, it seems like the couple gets involved in the lifestyle due to interest on the part of the male partner. For example, there are quite a few posts about how to persuade the female partner to participate. The male partner seems to get off on the feelings of inadequacy and humiliation. Why does the woman do it? What's in it for her? Sure, some of them are in the lifestyle because they tried it and liked it, but there's got to be more than a few that are doing it as a way to hold on to their marriages or because they feel that they can't say no to their husbands. It's a strange dynamic.
posted by echolalia67 at 1:48 PM on August 4, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Afroblanco writes "But I still haven't seen any evidence that people are actually doing this for real."

Duuuude.

It's freaky enough even if they're just fappin' to the fantasy. Not as freaky I admit, but enough.

And in three hundred million americans, six billion people in the worldd, fuck, you know some of them have to be "for reals".
posted by orthogonality at 1:48 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm sorry, any sex that involves the participation of children is bad sex. The idea that my parent could be aroused at the fact that I exist is so many different sorts of wrong. The child does not consent to being your sexual fantasy. Gross!!!
posted by Phalene at 1:53 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

OMG LOOK FREEKS / Rule 42 doesn't really make an FPP for me.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:48 AM on August 4 [+] [!]

seampuckett, it's Rule 34 and LEVEL 42
posted by Kloryne at 1:55 PM on August 4, 2008

Why does the woman do it? What's in it for her?

I don't think it's stretching credibility to imagine that some married women fantasize about having sex with other men than their husbands. I suppose I can even imagine that they would want to carry some of those mens' babies. However, I agree with dnab that involving children in your fetishes is wrong on many different levels.
posted by desjardins at 1:58 PM on August 4, 2008

WTF?
posted by notreally at 1:59 PM on August 4, 2008

People are strange.
posted by jokeefe at 2:00 PM on August 4, 2008

What sort of issues turn one into a cuckold fetishist? It's all very peculiar to me

Reading the links would be a helpful start in seeing what those issues are. By and large it seems to be feelings of inadequacy coupled with masochistic and submissive tendencies; "I can't satisfy my woman with my tiny dick, so I have to get some (black, frequently) stud in to do the manly duty, because I'm not a real man," etc etc ad infinitum. They get off on someone else being able to do what they 'should' be able to do 'better' than they can.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:05 PM on August 4, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

I think that if anyone actually did this, it would have to be more than a fetish. The husband would have to REALLY WANT his wife to carry another man's child. I mean, this is more than a lifestyle decision. It's more of a LIFE decision. If a couple actually did this, there would have to be more to it than just getting off.

Which is why I suspect that nobody actually does this.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:07 PM on August 4, 2008

I think that if anyone actually did this, it would have to be more than a fetish. The husband would have to REALLY WANT his wife to carry another man's child. I mean, this is more than a lifestyle decision. It's more of a LIFE decision. If a couple actually did this, there would have to be more to it than just getting off.

Which is why I suspect that nobody actually does this.

Depends on how strictly you define it. If a woman has two husbands with whom she lives and kids from both of them, is that a cuckold fetish, or polyandry?
posted by mkb at 2:11 PM on August 4, 2008

I impregnate married women.

Ha, I was just about to search for that link. Classic.
posted by dgaicun at 2:11 PM on August 4, 2008

SO NOW WE KNOW FINALLY HOW IS BABBY FORMED.
posted by Mister_A at 2:15 PM on August 4, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

This doesn't seem any worse than getting pregant to make your man stay with you, or two have little servants to work the farm, or so that there are more servant for Jesus, or because you're afraid that stupid people are having more babies than you and you want to make sure there are a lot of smart babies, or because you want to show your parents that you can be a better parent then them, or because you want something to love you unconditionally, or because your mother wants to be a grandmother, or because you need someone to leave your massive pile of money to so the government doesn't take it, or the myriad of other fucked up reasons babies come into the world.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:16 PM on August 4, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]

I impregnate married women.

Maybe not as fun, but wouldn't it be more efficient to donate sperm?
posted by mrgrimm at 2:21 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Christ, that metafilter thread. It disturbed me how much misandry and "white knighting" was going on in that thread.
posted by Snyder at 2:33 PM on August 4, 2008

I think that if anyone actually did this, it would have to be more than a fetish. The husband would have to REALLY WANT his wife to carry another man's child. I mean, this is more than a lifestyle decision. It's more of a LIFE decision. If a couple actually did this, there would have to be more to it than just getting off.

Actually, probably not. People make all sorts of horrifically life-altering decisions just for the sake of getting off. I suggest you look at bugchasers (gay men who deliberately want to be infected with HIV) for one, the general trend/kink/fetish for bareback sex amongst gay men for another, the (admittedly relatively rare) men who have a fetish for being castrated or 'nulled' for yet another.

The fact that there are serious long-term ramifications stemming from a single act is largely secondary to the point. Most people with fetishes as extreme as this really aren't thinking past the initial act itself; the initial act is what they're getting off on. In the case of raising another man's child, I'd argue further, these men then get to relive the experience of being that severely cuckolded every day. It's a reinforcement of their inadequacy; "I'm not even enough of a man to get my wife pregnant, I had to get a stud in to do it."
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:33 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Of course, about 10% of children are the product of adulterous unions anyway, so the cuckold fetishists aren't exactly going to push the numbers up by much. Then again, the idea of the fetish does creep me out. But I'm not sure if I can explain why. It it worse if both nominal parents know about the adultery rather than just the one? Is it worse that it's planned rather than by accident?
posted by xchmp at 2:49 PM on August 4, 2008

Paging Dr. Darwin...Dr. Darwin, please pick up the courtesy phone...
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 2:56 PM on August 4, 2008

And actually, one can even see this lack of foresight in lesser kinks--branding, piercing, and tattooing, for example. Those who have a fetish for having hunks of their skin burned off and permanently scarred are focused on the pain and other physical sensations, and less on the long-term ramifications of what that kind of damage to your body will do, how you handle it socially, etc. Yes, part of it is reliving the experience, but I have been told by some people in the bodymod community that it does fade after a while, and that regret about some more extreme forms of bodymod is far more widespread than most in the community are willing to acknowledge.

Without even delving into body modification, you can see this in extreme submissives, those who want to live in a 24/7 slave relationship. Those end, eventually, and these people find themselves in the same position that many women would have in the not-terribly-distant past: no job, no money, possibly no education. The thrill of indulging their sexual fantasies overwhelmed the need for foresight.

Even more to the point, you can see this outside the sexual sphere: smoking, drinking to excess, eating too much crap or fattening food. Humans are hardwired to seek pleasure and avoid pain, and we rarely look at the long-term effects of doing so.

Once you couple that desire with the sexual impulse, which is probably the single strongest impulse we have, immediate pleasure-seeking becomes that much stronger, with an attendant decrease in foresight. This is, of course, what most major religions are attempting to ameliorate with the various and sundry rules against various sexual behaviour that many espoise.

Of course, about 10% of children are the product of adulterous unions anyway, so the cuckold fetishists aren't exactly going to push the numbers up by much. Then again, the idea of the fetish does creep me out. But I'm not sure if I can explain why. It it worse if both nominal parents know about the adultery rather than just the one? Is it worse that it's planned rather than by accident?

I think it's worse inasmuch as the sole reason for the putative child existing is the fulfillment of a fetish. In most adultery, the people in question are still going after selfish desires, but it's not (always) just about getting off; it's often a symptom of other issues, and need for an emotional connection.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:57 PM on August 4, 2008 [8 favorites has favorites]

espoise? espouse
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:59 PM on August 4, 2008

I really don't see what the big deal is. Wives cheat and get pregnant every day, the difference in this case is just that the husbands know about it.
posted by mullingitover at 3:01 PM on August 4, 2008

Maybe not as fun, but wouldn't it be more efficient to donate sperm?

Alternately or additionally, instead of pursuing casual sex with women who are of similar or higher attractiveness, as is typical, invest your efforts into women with much lower mate value than yourself (ideally young women, who are still fertile, but otherwise severely unattractive, low socioeconomic status, psychologically troubled/impaired, etc, in whatever combination.). This will result in far shorter courtship periods, high probability of one night stand, and, importantly, less probability they will attempt to negotiate condom-use (lest you defect). All you'll leave behind is a fake name and DNA. Keep away from the meat-markets, that's for women with real mating opportunities; they're on the pill. Supermarkets, Goodwill, the bus stop, the laundromat, fast food joints; search out the dregs in their natural environs, young man.

You could also leave routine "sneaky deposits" on the underwear at the Victoria Secret. Can't those little fuckers live for days? Semper Fi, little soldiers. Semper Fi.
posted by dgaicun at 3:04 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I really don't see what the big deal is. Wives cheat and get pregnant every day, the difference in this case is just that the husbands know about it.

No, the difference in this case is that the child is being conceived solely to appease someone's fetish.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:09 PM on August 4, 2008

dirtynumbangelboy writes "No, the difference in this case is that the child is being conceived solely to appease someone's fetish."

A drop in the bucket compared to the numbers of children who are not wanted at all, for any reason, but are conceived on accident and carried to term for reasons based on sheer superstition.
posted by mullingitover at 3:14 PM on August 4, 2008

That too is wrong, mullingitover. But that doesn't make this any less wrong.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:15 PM on August 4, 2008

According to one strain of population ethics, bringing an additional life into the world, no matter how terrible that life will be, is always a better outcome (since people almost always prefer life over death). So fetish baby will enrich the universe!

"For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living." -- Derek Parfit
posted by dgaicun at 3:24 PM on August 4, 2008

I think it's worse inasmuch as the sole reason for the putative child existing is the fulfillment of a fetish.

People who decide to have kids do so because they want them for various reasons. I guess I don't see much difference between this and other reasons people seem to have. I'm sure there are many bad reasons for having children, but the ones I can think of depend on how the child is treated after it's born, not the initial motivation for seeking conception.
posted by xchmp at 3:32 PM on August 4, 2008

Would this be okay if it ended in abortion instead of actually carrying the child? What if they kept it till the third trimester so they can have some hot pregnant sexing and then aborted the fetus?

Why am I even thinking about this.
posted by empath at 3:50 PM on August 4, 2008

I guess I don't see much difference between this and other reasons people seem to have.

Because most of the time, I think, there is some sort of higher purpose: continuation of the species, continuation of your own family/family name, companion for the child you already have, whatever.

This is solely about getting off, nothing more.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:05 PM on August 4, 2008

Sorry, a correction: it's about getting off, and involving a child in your sex life.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:38 PM on August 4, 2008

I am surprised that anyone doubts that this happens. People, have you not seen how weird, grim, and inventive a species we are?
(links are to "voluntary" cannibalism, feeders and auto-erotic semi-asphyxiation: no need to click)

And no-one should believe this isn't a big deal. I read a fair amount of that forum, and one of these pathetic men said:
"we decided not to conceal his parentage from our son, and he now knows the full story. Since learning as a teen he has treated me with disdain, which I deserve."

Seriously. Hangups. This is practically criminal.
posted by imperium at 4:45 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

But involving kids? No. This is not okay.

I've gotta say that this fetish is not my cup of tea at all, but I don't get all the "won't somebody think of the children?" hating going on.

Isn't *every* kid a result of a couple's sexuality, however vanilla or rainbow it may be?

As long as the kid is well taken care of, what difference does it make whose it is? And who says that the sole reason for the child's existence is the fulfilment of a fetish? You might as well argue that the sole reason for monogamous, married couples' kids' existence is the fulfilment of a regular style of knocking-up fetish.

Well, either that or failed contraception during whatever bizarre sexual practices the couple gets up to.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:55 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I could see doing this. Up to a point.

When the first college tuition bill came, I would totally use my safe word.

I have my boundaries.
posted by PlusDistance at 5:20 PM on August 4, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

imperium writes "I am surprised that anyone doubts that this happens. People, have you not seen how weird, grim, and inventive a species we are?
"(links are to 'voluntary' cannibalism, feeders and auto-erotic semi-asphyxiation: no need to click)"

Uh, wait. The link to the guy who ate another person is just "weird", but the link to the guy who wants to feed another person (albeit to morbid life-threatening obesity) is the "grim" one????
posted by orthogonality at 5:41 PM on August 4, 2008

You might as well argue that the sole reason for monogamous, married couples' kids' existence is the fulfilment of a regular style of knocking-up fetish.

Following normal procreative sex practices is by definition not a fetish.

As long as the kid is well taken care of, what difference does it make whose it is?

Here's your answer:

"we decided not to conceal his parentage from our son, and he now knows the full story. Since learning as a teen he has treated me with disdain, which I deserve."

The father is getting off on his son treating him with disdain because he (the father) had his mother get pregnant by someone else in order to cater to his sexual desires.

Involving children in your sex life, except in the realms of pure inside-your-own-skull-only fantasy, is something that I think we can all agree is Not Okay.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:52 PM on August 4, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Following normal procreative sex practices is by definition not a fetish.

Oh, so vanilla = normative & good; rainbow = aberrant & bad? I have no idea how you can possibly put that kind of argument forward with a straight face. What do you think of monogamous couples who conceive during some extreme S&M, or perhaps nude trainspotting?

he has treated me with disdain, which I deserve

That's not an answer. I was saying that as long as the kid is treated well, there should be no problem. In my books, treating a child well would include not telling them "Oh, I'm not your biological father; I just wanted to watch somebody fuck your mother & get her pregnant", just as a regular parent shouldn't ever tell their child that they were an accident & unwanted. Good & bad parents can exist in any kind of situation.

But once again, how can a child not be "involved" in your sex life, since that's how they generally come about?
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:12 PM on August 4, 2008

UbuRoivas,
Oh, so vanilla = normative & good; rainbow = aberrant & bad?

He didn't say that. He said that a sexual fetish is by definition a non-standard sexual act...which they are. It wasn't a value judgment, he was just correcting your use of the word fetish above.

And the issue here, what I am getting from dirtynumbangelboy (and correct me if I am wrong), is that with this fetish, the child itself is an object of sexual pleasure. In the myriad "rainbow", as you put it, of fetishes and kinks, children of course might result. Any fetish where a penis enters a vagina might result in one, but in those the resulting child is not the aim of the fetish. Here, the child itself is part of the fetish; the key component for these people is the impregnation and raising another man's child. Some here feel that this is wrong, to use a child as a means to sexual pleasure for yourself. Others argue that, despite it arising out of this fetish by the adults, there is nothing wrong here, because it is the way the child is treated that matters and not the intention of the act that created it. I do think that dirtynumbangelboy is right in that though there are many bad reasons for which people have kids, this reason is still wrong. I'm not sure about the rest, but you seemed to be talking past each other about what your problems with this practice were. I guess it comes down to whether you feel that the use of a child in a sexual fetish is wrong in itself, even if the resulting child is well cared for.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:32 PM on August 4, 2008

Ah, I guess I was operating on a different understanding, ie that the fetish involved the impregnation & pregnancy of the wife, and that once the child was born, that was the end of it. If the fetish involves actually *raising* the child, that's another thing altogether.

I also kinda feel in a way that it is legitimate to speak of pregnancy fetishism. A fetish is the transference of sexual desire from a 'legitimate' object to something else, and it's arguable that a 'legitimate' object is actually your partner, and not your partner's pregnant state. Thus, any particular horniness factor that results from the concept of pregnancy itself, over & above simply desiring your partner, could be described as a fetish.

The fact that there is porn that specifically depicts only pregnant women could be cited as evidence for this.

But it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over. It's really all in the definitions, plus whatever normative judgements one makes on that basis.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:43 PM on August 4, 2008

Sangermaine understood quite precisely what I was saying, and shame on you Ubu for suggesting that I meant that non-normative sex practices are aberrant and bad. Shame.

ie that the fetish involved the impregnation & pregnancy of the wife, and that once the child was born, that was the end of it.

Raising the child is a key component.

As for children being involved in the sex life of their parents, that is true (in cases other than what we are discussing here) only in a very abstract way; true, they are the result of sex, but they themselves are not an intrinsic part of the arousal generated by the sex act itself.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:13 PM on August 4, 2008

dnab: it sounded to me at the time like you were saying "it's the result of a fetish, so it's bad" when your point was actually more like "this is a bad fetish".

sorry about the misunderstanding.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:23 PM on August 4, 2008

Apology accepted.

I mean clearly, all children are the result of sex, whether solo, duo, or n-o. But in these specific examples, what is otherwise a fetish (that is obviously the result of severe self-esteem issues) normally being conducted only between consenting adults is now involving the creation of a new life solely to satisfy the fetish, and what's more continues to involve that child for the child's entire life, without any consent whatsoever.

Yes, none of us consent to be born, granted. But I think we can argue that continuation of the species takes a little precedence over that, though obviously it doesn't take precedence over consent to conception. And I think we can also agree that we have the right to refuse consent to being included in a sexual act. Fantasies are different, of course; you can fantasize about whoever and whatever gets your rocks off. This, however, is not fantasy.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:00 PM on August 4, 2008

For those who are still saying the circumstances of conception aren't an issue, consider the case of pedophiles who create children in the traditional way in order to abuse them. The purpose of the conception is to provide a sexual outlet to which the child is incapable of consenting.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:06 PM on August 4, 2008

Or Hitler having half-Jewish babies, only in order to gas them!
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:44 PM on August 4, 2008

Absent the specific sexual fetish element and its emphasis on humiliation, the thing which is shocking many in this thread is not that different from the "normal" situation for millions of kids in America, de facto. Think about it.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:48 PM on August 4, 2008

You mean, that the person the kid calls 'daddy' may or may not be biologically related?

I don't think that's really shocking anyone, here.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:52 PM on August 4, 2008

I am a very libertarian guy when it comes to these matters but DNAB's arguments have convinced me.

The involuntary inclusion of the child into the parent's sexual fetish is a gross boundary violation.

Even if the parents never disclosed the circumstances of that child's birth, the unconscious dynamics that develop when the child is not a person in his own right but a symbol of parental humiliation are bound to be harmful to the child. Especially when the parent gets sexual pleasure from that humiliation.
posted by jason's_planet at 9:02 PM on August 4, 2008

Exactly. Parents may conceive a child while covered in jello, reciting Ayn Rand to each other, and dressed in leather versions of Star Trek uniforms. Cool. Like I said: fly your freak flag.

But for most births, the sexual involvement stops after the sexual encounter stops. These cases it doesn't, is all I'm saying.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:11 PM on August 4, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

covered in jello, reciting Ayn Rand to each other, and dressed in leather versions of Star Trek uniforms. Cool. Like I said: fly your freak flag.

HOW DID YOU GET YOUR HANDS ON MY DIARY?!?? I DEMAND ANSWERS!!!!
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:52 PM on August 4, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

this is more than a lifestyle decision. It's more of a LIFE decision. If a couple actually did this, there would have to be more to it than just getting off.

Really good point, Afroblanco.

If is a genuine phenomenon, and I think it could be, it bears a strong family resemblance to the infamous droit de seigneur of the European Middle Ages, though according to the linked Wikipedia article it is apparently fashionable among modern historians to doubt that it was actually practiced.

But the article goes on to say that

Some scholars have speculated that the jus primae noctis of the Medieval European tradition did exist, and that it might have been similar to defloration rituals in Ancient Mesopotamia or 13th century Tibet (Evans 1979:30). In Mesopotamian literature, the right of the first night, in the sense of the privilege of a powerful man to deflower another man's woman, is a very old topos, present at least as early as Epic of Gilgamesh (circa 2000 B.C.). Although the literary descriptions from ancient Mesopotamia and the legends of ius primae noctis in Medieval Europe stem from very different cultural traditions, they meet in the fact that, in both cases, persons of high social rank were involved.


And this resonates very strongly with the tones of abject submission to the other man, the better man, the man who can satisfy your wife as you never could which sound over and over through most of the anecdotal accounts of the men who want to do this. And extremely strangely, the men who submit themselves and their wives to this seem to have a strong tendency to refer to the bigger man's bigger penis as the essence and emblem of his superiority.

These are men who see themselves as irredeemably inferior, who don't feel they even have the capacity to exist except in relation to some greater figure, their dear leader, and who can only find security by submitting completely to a better man. It is preeminently the mindset of the secondary males surrounding the leader of a cult, whether Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, or Charles Manson. Of course you want to give your wife to him and raise his baby, you are just so grateful he allows you some access to the woman who is his by right, and it makes your children half-sibs to his. It is therefore a reproductive strategy as well as a way to secure a relatively high position in the hierarchy.

I want very much to think this is a mere epiphenomenon of the incredibly complex social/sexual matrix humans have constructed for themselves, and nothing innate, but the bigger penis business makes that hard for me to do.
posted by jamjam at 10:37 PM on August 4, 2008

January 13, 2006: A cuckold pregnancy may strike the average American as “A kink too far,” but for some rejection-craving spouses, merely sheltering, feeding, and nurturing another man’s baby isn’t nearly enough. Jeffery Parkson* is a web developer in his early twenties. Slight of build with sandy hair and a trace of acne, he was married to his high-school sweetheart, Elaine* for five years when they first began to experiment with planned, consensual infidelity.

JEFFREY:
“She always seemed to be engaged by what I did to her in bed,” said Jeffrey. “But all those noises, all that squirming around—I knew it had to be a lie. I mean, look at me. I’m a worm. I don’t have pectorals. I don’t have a cleft chin or a brilliant smile—I’ve got nothing to offer her. Even my dick is small. You wanna see?”

Elaine, a thirty-ish redhead who teaches art to grades K-6 at a local magnate school and runs a World of Warcraft for vegans, recalls things a little differently:

ELAINE:
“He was sweet, and he was smart. And very, very tender. I mean, sure, he’s not going to get hired to do a Calvin Klein ad any time soon, but I’m not either. When he brought up the cuckolding thing, I though it was a little odd, but heck, I’ve got tons of poly friends in the pagan community and they seem to do okay. I figured, ‘Why not?’”

JEFFREY:
“Whenever I touched her with my wormy little hands, I was sure she was doing everything in her power not to recoil. People talk about sex being a release—but for me it was never a release. I was terrified. Every time. When I started watching her fuck other guys, well, it may seem weird, but I was finally able to relax and enjoy it. By giving her other men, I could fulfill her fantasies. I could give her the stuff of dreams.”

ELAINE:
“I don’t want to say it wasn’t fun. I didn’t date much before meeting Jeffrey, so in a way, it gave me a chance to be the kind of silly, slutty party girl that I never had the courage to be in my teens. But it started getting weird really fast. He’d bring home people from work for me to go to bed with—other guys from his scrum. One of them turned out to be the guy who got the promotion Jeffrey wanted. Another was a guy who’d out-scored him on the annual performance review. It got to seeming like it was my duty to screw anyone who made Jeffrey feel the least bit anxious or threatened, and that felt really awful. I tried to talk to him about it, but he just couldn’t seem to hear me.”

JEFFREY:
“Getting pregnant by Josh was the second-best gift Elaine ever gave me.”

ELAINE:
“I was scared shitless when that stick turned pink, let me tell you. There’d been something kind of unreal about our whole lifestyle, but peeing on that stick made it totally real, totally fast. The night I told Jeffrey, I almost threw up, I was so terrified of what it would to us. But of course, he turned out to be really into it.”

JEFFREY:
“It was my idea to name the baby Joshua. And the whole time she was pregnant, I couldn’t stop thinking about Josh. It was like a little tiny version of him was inside her, all the time, developing perfect legs, perfect arms, and a noble little face with high cheekbones and a manly jaw. Though the pregnancy did bring back some of the feelings I’d had early in our marriage, about maybe not being worthy. I was in love with that child from day one, but I was terrified.”

ELAINE:
“He wouldn’t touch me. He kept saying he didn’t want to ‘contaminate’ Josh’s fetus. ‘Contaminate!’ Imagine! I started feeling like the whole thing—our whole marriage- was some sort of giant, passive-aggressive head trip. And then one day—one day, I’d just had enough.”

JEFFREY:
“Have you ever had a whole body orgasm? I mean, from the tips of your toes to the top of your head? Where every part of you feels with pleasure—almost aches with it? That’s how I felt when the process server brought me the divorce papers.”

ANITA FORTNER, paralegal, Beener & Dunnett, PLLC:
"You see some weird things in this job, but this, I’m telling you, was the weirdest. He just seemed like a recalcitrant a-hole at first. Always missing maintenance payments. Always, always in danger of being held in contempt of court. But whenever we actually brought him before the judge, there he’d be, smiling with his checkbook, ready to pay up. And he’d ask the judge to let him go on record with these long, bizarre apology speeches. Have you seen the bench notes for those? Loonytunes. But the worst part was when it was all over and we sent him the final stipulations to sign. They came back, promptly in fact, but they were, you know, kind of—sticky. If you catch my drift. And of course, by then he’d fired his lawyer and was going pro se, so there wasn’t a lot we could do except wear rubber gloves, use lots of Purel, and try to get by."

ELAINE:
"I don’t think Josh and I would have gotten so serious so fast if Jeffery hadn’t acted so damned crazy during the divorce. But he scared me sometimes. And I needed someone to lean on and Josh was right there. And I was pregnant with his kid after all. (Laughs.)
It sounds like a recipe for disaster, doesn’t it? But it wasn’t, and it isn’t. We began things in the most chaotic way possible, but that’s all in the past. Somehow, for some reason, it’s all turning out really, really good."

JEFFREY:
The divorce cost tens of thousands of dollars. We ran through everything in our savings accounts, everything in our 401(k)’s—it was magnificent. At court, during the contempt hearings, I’d look across the room at Elaine and be struck stupid by how amazing it all was. Her lawyer had this perfect tone- 85% professionalism, 10% pity, and about 5% utter contempt. Elaine must have made that woman rehearse for hours to get it so perfect. I can't believe that someone could understand me so well, and love me so much. Knowing I’ll never hold her, never kiss her, never touch her again—I can’t think of anything in the world that could be sexier. And that’s the truth.


* Not his real name. Also, not a real story.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 11:05 PM on August 4, 2008 [36 favorites has favorites]

But dreadfully close to the truth, palmcorder, it would seem.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:16 PM on August 4, 2008

palmcorder: Flagged as awesome.
posted by bunnytricks at 11:23 PM on August 4, 2008

Thanks!

(I think I should probably stop arsing around and do my homework now.)
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 11:26 PM on August 4, 2008

Uh, wait. The link to the guy who ate another person is just "weird", but the link to the guy who wants to feed another person (albeit to morbid life-threatening obesity) is the "grim" one????

Yes, that's right. Because I made a mistake. Sorry.
posted by imperium at 2:39 AM on August 5, 2008

I wonder what happens if the child conceived in this way is a girl. I wonder if it has the same psychological effect as raising another man's boy - the boy being "a little tiny version" of the bio-father, to use palmcorder_yajna's words. It seems like the type of guy who would be attracted to cuckolding is so fixated on traditional sexual archetypes that he wouldn't be satisfied with a girl baby. Which of course makes it even worse than it already is for the baby.

I've been in the BDSM community for a number of years so I have seen all manner of weird shit (including feeders, erotic asphyxiation, slavery, and branding). I have even seen cuckolding, but I have never seen anyone involve children, and I guarantee everyone I know would be united in their disgust.
posted by desjardins at 7:27 AM on August 5, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

palmcorder: 31 flavours of excellent.
posted by sixswitch at 4:30 PM on August 5, 2008