Closet Cuckold

Why Men Who Say They Aren’t Sexually Aroused At The Idea Of Sharing Their Wives Are Liars 5/5 (6)

In one of my products, I take a pretty clear stand on the supposed prevalence of the cuckold/hotwife desire for males by asserting:

“It stands to follow that the men who have these fantasies aren’t bizarre or perverted or deviant—they’re the norm; men who say they don’t have them are liars.”

In case that’s not crystal clear, what I’m saying is that the large majority of men get turned on by the idea of their female partners having sex with others.

But instead of expecting you to take just my own personal word for it, I’d rather give you some research which supports my assertion. Below is an excerpt from a research paper from the scientific journal Review Of General Psychology. For those who want the easy to digest summary, you can skip the actual excerpt below and read the paragraphs immediately after.

"Pound (2002) hypothesized that men...should be more aroused by pornography incorporating cues of sperm competition than by comparable material in which such cues are absent. Content analyses of pornographic images on World Wide Web sites and of commercial "adult" video releases revealed that depictions of sexual activity involving a female and multiple males are more prevalent than those involving a male and multiple females, indicating that the former category maybe preferred by men.

"In addition, an online survey of self-reported preferences and an online preference study that unobtrusively assessed image selection behavior yielded corroborative results. Pound argued that the most parsimonious explanation for such results is that male arousal in response to visual cues of sperm competition risk reflects the functioning of psychological mechanisms that would have motivated adaptive patterns of copulatory behavior in ancestral males exposed to evidence of female promiscuity." (Shackelford, Pound, & Goetz. "Psychological and Physiological Adaptations to Sperm Competition In Humans". Review of General Psychology 2005, Vol. 9, No. 3, 228–248)

What Does This Mean?

Well first of all, it means that porn featuring one woman with multiple men is more prevalent than porn featuring one man with multiple women.

Alone, this doesn’t say too much. But, it’s not alone.

It’s corroborated by the fact that most men are reporting they prefer to select (and indeed have been objectively observed to select) porn featuring one woman with multiple men over porn featuring one man with multiple woman.

The researchers go on to explain this by saying it was evolutionarily advantageous for males to become sexually aroused by female promiscuity. Ipso facto, males who had this wiring inside them were more likely to pass their genes on than males who didn’t have it.

Furthermore, this wiring doesn’t care whether or not the female you see being promiscuous is your primary female partner; you’ll still respond with sexual arousal. If anything, you’d be more likely to respond with sexual arousal (or respond with more sexual arousal) at seeing your primary female partner be sexually promiscuous compared to seeing a random woman be sexually promiscuous.

This is kind of like how most males find sexually explicit photos of their own female partners more arousing than sexually explicit photos of random females with an equal level of subjective attractiveness, generally speaking.  Here’s why…

Let’s imagine you’re back in hunter-gatherer days and you stumbled upon your female partner having sex with another man. If you did not respond with sexual arousal at this sight, the odds would be in the favor of the other man impregnating your female partner, thereby significantly increasing the odds that your genes will be unapologetically weeded out of existence. This would be the case because the other man’s sperm would be the only sperm inside your female partner.

But, if you have sex with your female partner after the other man is done, you will be “tossing your hat (sperm)” in the ring and increase the chances this your genes will be passed on. Sexual arousal at the sight of your woman having sex with someone else was therefore evolutionarily advantageous. The wiring responsible for this sexual arousal was thus passed on via reproduction.

This can be summed up by saying the majority of men have a wiring inside them which causes them to respond with sexual arousal at the sight of another woman having sex, regardless of whether or not the woman he sees is his primary female partner or not.


For The Naysayers

Men who claim the above doesn’t apply to them would have to assert that they would  not (and prove that they do not) find sexually explicit photos of their female partners more sexually arousing than sexually explicit photos of random females with an equal level of subjective attractiveness.

They would also have to explain how it’s possible for them to have a pre-programmed innate biological/physiological/sexual response of arousal at the sight of a man and woman having sex yet have that response be non-existent on biological/physiological/sexual levels when the woman is their primary partner.


Future Research

If anyone out there is interested, I at some point in the future will be looking into conducting a research study/experiment on the above claims because with our current technology, it’s possible to do so. Although I haven’t yet worked out the details, a rough idea would be to use Deepfake technology to show someone a pornographic video of their primary female partner having sex with someone else. What’s Deepfake Technology?



    Reply Reply May 9, 2018

    Very interesting.
    I completely agree that wifeporn is by far more arousing than anonporn.
    Strange though if you follow your logic all women would be into cuckolding and who would be left to be the bulls.

    • Dr. 36

      Reply Reply May 9, 2018

      Hi there Chris,

      What guy out there doesn’t like pornography of his own wife/gf, right? 😉

      That said, I’m not sure I follow the conclusion you jumped to in the end thinking that all women would be into cuckolding. I’m not sure how you got that. Would you care to explain?

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field