Although I nuked my Twatter account because that place is a craphole and I don’t enjoy working for free in a place where I’m the product, one cannot completely isolate himself from the miasma that follows those places. And what would be the fun in that anyway?

I avoid most social media now, but two days ago I saw (repeatedly, perhaps fours or five times) a screencap or a link (guys, use archive.is) to this brilliant piece of journalistic excellence (CNN) Cuckolding can be positive for some couples, study says.

These last years, my reaction to the press has been a continuous exercise in eye-rolling. My eyes roll so fast now, that you could attach a dynamo to them and power a whole city.

Now, I know that journalists bullshit more than they breathe, and I can’t remember when was the last time the text of a “controversial” article had anything to do with its headline, but this one about sundry cuckoldries… it’s really bad.

Let’s start with the obvious: the CNN piece is based on an article published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, an academic journal. The title of the article that (according to the CNN editor) claims that cuckolding may have positive consequences is named… try guessing it.

…

If you guessed  The Psychology of Gay Men’s Cuckolding Fantasies, your either cheated or are a genius. And what is the image that everybody sees when they click on the CNN article? A Shutterstock image of a woman with two men. There are two other images in the text, and both are of heterosexual couples even though the academic piece is exclusively about gay men, people for whom the reality and consequences of cuckolatry and cuckomancy may be experienced differently.

Although the article linked appears in the second paragraph, you need to read until the seventh to realize the study is about gay men — and you probably won’t anyway. All the preceding paragraphs are there to pad out the text and lead it to the conversation the headline insinuated but the study wasn’t even trying to answer.

And it gets worse. Cuck-a-doodling is a paraphilia or group of paraphilias that most people perceive with a combination of horror, anxiety, hilarity, and incomprehension. That anxiety springs from the fact that, to most people, being cucked (or just the thought of it) is a source of jealousy and humiliation. Apparently, the cucked derives (masochistic) pleasure from those humiliations (from being insulted by her partner to seeing how she enjoys the “bull” more than him.) But gays seem to work a bit differently:

On a side note, in lay usage, the term cuckold necessarily connotes an element of eroticized humiliation to some. In fact, when themes of humiliation and sexual
inadequacy are not present, some refer to this phenomenon by another name entirely.[…] Given that humiliation and BDSM themes were relatively uncommon in gaymen’s fantasies while partner pleasure was seen as important, some might argue that gay men’s partner-sharing fantasies are more akin to hotwifing than cuckolding.

Translation: what the study observed may not be cuckolding as heteros understand it, and certainly not as people who are trying to throw a few grenades in the pitched battlefield of the cuckltural wars understand it. It may be something completely different — maybe just… gay promiscuity of the open-relationship type?

But what about the conclusion as presented by the headline, that cuckolding may be positive for some couples? Worthless. The participants in these study were

We conducted an online survey of men who have sex with men who have fantasized about being cuckolded by their male partners before. The final sample consisted of 580 self-identified adult men who responded to an advertisement for a survey of ‘‘gay men’s cuckolding fantasies.’’ Approximately one-half of the participants were referred through the social media site Tumblr, one-quarter through DanSavage’s column and podcast, and the remainder through various social media channels (primarily Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook).

Again, translated: The study studied cuckolding among people who have shown interest in being cuckolded, not the general populace, and:

Most participants (86.9%) reported current involvement in a romantic relationship, of whom a majority (68.6%) indicated that it was sexually open (i.e., consensually non-monogamous) to some degree.

Do you know any group of heterosexuals where 70% of them are in any form of open relationship? Me neither. Any conclusion that you may draw from this sample cannot be generalized to anybody except the people from that specific subculture. And you can certainly not jump from gays to heterosexuals. Not with these numbers, anyway:

A sizeable majority of participants (76.7%) had shared their cuckolding fantasies with a partner before. Of them, most (80.8%) reported that their partner agreed to the idea.

[…]

Just under half of all participants (45.8%) reported having acted on their cuckolding fantasies previously,

Therefore, if the Cuck News Network piece had been honest, the headline should have been something like “Study confirms that people who are cuckolds and respond to advertisements seeking cuckolds enjoy being cuckolds.” Not very surprising, really — most people enjoy doing the things they do (for a while, at least,) from being a family-oriented conservative man to eating shit. I’m pretty sure serials killers also enjoy killing. And keep in mind that gay “cuckolding,” although certainly submissive, seems to be more about pleasure than humiliation.

And what does “positive experience” mean anyway? Oh, just that if it lived up to their expectations, as defined by the participants/cucks themselves. This is not a study about the long-term effects of such paraphilias or if it would be desirable for a heterosexual normie with a family to engage in a bit of cuckoldoodling on the side. It just asked gay people, who answered an advertisement about “gay men’s cuckolding fantasies,” half of whom came from Tumblr (lol,) if the experience lived up to their fantasies, and the answer is basically: “Yes if you don’t care about your partner being boned by another or you are into that sort of thing.” Or, in a more academic language:

Likewise, the second model revealed that, as expected, cuckolding fantasies were more likely to improve the relationships of persons who were low in both attachment anxiety, b=-.21, t(249)=-3.35, p=.001, and avoidance, b=- .23,t(249)=- 3.69, p\.001

[the correlations are pretty low, though]

Again, that would be like posting up a call for “furry fantasies” in a place frequented by furries (again, Tumblr) and then conclude that the people who answered do indeed enjoy doing furry things. Shocking, I know.

Oh, and there’s another important thing I left for the end. This is how the survey (because that’s what the study really is) defined cuckolding:

‘‘For purposes of this study, a cuckolding fantasy is a sexually arousing thought or mental image of watching your partner have sex with someone else. With this definition in mind, have you ever had a cuckolding fantasy before?’’

This is the broadest, most vague definition of the term you could possibly conceive. When heterosexuals think about the whole “cuckolding” thing, and why they use it as an insult, it’s not just about the odd fantasy, it’s a whole social construct (the original meaning of the term, before it got corrupted.) It’s infidelity, humiliation, abuse, jealousy, the fear that your children are someone else’s, etc.

In conclusion, the CNN picked an article about promiscuous gay people in open relationship who answered an advertisement calling for people with cuckolding fantasies — fantasies defined in the broadest possible way — and then passed the unoriginal and descriptive conclusion (cucks like cucking) as some sort of advice for heterosexual people. This is top-notch journalism here.

And they knew what they were doing, of course. The headline was probably the editor’s idea (someone who knows the sort of people they need to troll/bait) and they chose the images correctly too. And, obviously, the first paragraph was about “Trump’s America” and the alt-right. You gotta troll those hate-clicks somehow. I mean, what are you going to do to attract viewers? Real journalism? Pfff.