BBC News - Malaysia canes three women over extramarital sex
One wonders if Saraha might suggest they got caned for the additional sexual effects!
One wonders if Saraha might suggest they got caned for the additional sexual effects!
Help keep this site alive with your VIP membership and unlock exciting site features available only to our supporting members!
UPGRADE to get lifetime access to dig420's video section, the Meet Up! forums, AD FREE surfing and much, much more!
Cuckoldresses caned!
- Thread starter4julie
- Start date
Saraha's post
In another thread Saraha posted these comments in regard to young females having their knickers pulled down to be chastised!
"The underlying reason that "strapping and whipping" was stopped in schools, was because some girls and a few boys got a sexual high from the extra blood that surged to the pelvis area during the punishment. Some girls were deliberately naughty to get their knickers pulled down and their btm whacked. It stung like crazy (not nice), but the sexual afterglow was fantastic. Teachers noticed that some pupils were "coming back again and again" to "get the afterglow reward", which enabled them to masturbate and have an orgasm that shook their body like an earthquake 6.5 on the Reicher scale."
Felt that this was a very similar idea to this topic!
Don't you Custer?
Custer Laststand said:
In another thread Saraha posted these comments in regard to young females having their knickers pulled down to be chastised!
"The underlying reason that "strapping and whipping" was stopped in schools, was because some girls and a few boys got a sexual high from the extra blood that surged to the pelvis area during the punishment. Some girls were deliberately naughty to get their knickers pulled down and their btm whacked. It stung like crazy (not nice), but the sexual afterglow was fantastic. Teachers noticed that some pupils were "coming back again and again" to "get the afterglow reward", which enabled them to masturbate and have an orgasm that shook their body like an earthquake 6.5 on the Reicher scale."
Felt that this was a very similar idea to this topic!
Don't you Custer?
Different perspectives
Ah Custer I think you are fixated on the idea it was Saraha giving the caning whereas I read into her original post that she and some of her friends were the ones who were 'naughty' to get caned and shortly afterwards had those wonderful orgasms.
Hence my remarks about those cuckoldresses in the news and how Saraha might construe their behavior could have been for their own sexual pleasures!
Custer Laststand said:
Ah Custer I think you are fixated on the idea it was Saraha giving the caning whereas I read into her original post that she and some of her friends were the ones who were 'naughty' to get caned and shortly afterwards had those wonderful orgasms.
Hence my remarks about those cuckoldresses in the news and how Saraha might construe their behavior could have been for their own sexual pleasures!
4julie said:
An interesting thought... perhaps so.
4julie said:
My guess would be that "official canings" do not result in sexual pleasure... just extreme pain and suffering inflicted on women by men who are much stronger. Thus, the most appropriate interpretation would be that caning of women — be they Islamic or otherwise — is cowardly and represents extreme hypocrisy on the part of the men who decree such punishment, as well as those who carry it out.
As for Saraha: maybe she will enlighten us some day as to what she meant.
Somewhat
True, but I thought it might lend some humor to a serious breach of human rights. They say the canings are now more symbolic than punitive but as you said the men can commit adultery without such humiliations.
I have already asked Saraha for elucidation and am eagerly awaiting her return from vacation.
Custer Laststand said:
True, but I thought it might lend some humor to a serious breach of human rights. They say the canings are now more symbolic than punitive but as you said the men can commit adultery without such humiliations.
I have already asked Saraha for elucidation and am eagerly awaiting her return from vacation.
It is horrible that young girls are punished for doing what comes natural
Saharha would be saddened and feel hurt that these women were chastised for doing what is natural. Saharha is a student to human nature, an often said things to provoke us into honesty. 4Julie is also a close friend and confident, unusually well edecated, and tends to see things as they are, not as we would like.
The fact that some clerics could do this to young girls so sadden me. Women are the soul an savior of this earth.
Saharha would be saddened and feel hurt that these women were chastised for doing what is natural. Saharha is a student to human nature, an often said things to provoke us into honesty. 4Julie is also a close friend and confident, unusually well edecated, and tends to see things as they are, not as we would like.
The fact that some clerics could do this to young girls so sadden me. Women are the soul an savior of this earth.
Attachments
Our lovely Saraha
Indeed she may, but I also see her as pragmatic enough, once her expression of revulsion was over the real reason for the corporale punishment, she would see a lighter element in which to instill her enlightened philosphy and challenge us mere males to up our game.
I have visited many countries where men and women do not share the same human rights and have female friends who have suffered under such double standards. Countries where 'Western' women are seen as fair game for men who wish to ignore basic laws they demand for their own women and defend their lascivious ways, suggesting their attentions were invited by women who dress and act as Western woman do. Often their 'justice' is as harsh as it is swift, always in favor of a male dominated society.
I just hoped by linkiing such a sad abuse of female rights to sexy teasing remarks by the precocious little Saraha, we could take some of the cruel harshness out of this story and add some of the sweet nectar that is her wit.
mimi27406 said:
Indeed she may, but I also see her as pragmatic enough, once her expression of revulsion was over the real reason for the corporale punishment, she would see a lighter element in which to instill her enlightened philosphy and challenge us mere males to up our game.
I have visited many countries where men and women do not share the same human rights and have female friends who have suffered under such double standards. Countries where 'Western' women are seen as fair game for men who wish to ignore basic laws they demand for their own women and defend their lascivious ways, suggesting their attentions were invited by women who dress and act as Western woman do. Often their 'justice' is as harsh as it is swift, always in favor of a male dominated society.
I just hoped by linkiing such a sad abuse of female rights to sexy teasing remarks by the precocious little Saraha, we could take some of the cruel harshness out of this story and add some of the sweet nectar that is her wit.
Adultery is not natural
However one thing I would take exception to you for is the title in your last post. Adultery is ALWAYS wrong. As a true Cuckold I have suffered the pain and ignominy of being cuckolded by an adulterious wife, it was very hurtful and very wrong. Later I was ****** to accept she cheated on me because of MY short-comings, so while she still fucks whoever she pleases it is no longer adultery because I admit she needs other men to be sexually satisfied. She was still wrong to act unilaterally in seeking sexual satisfaction. A married woman who parts her legs for a man other than her husband is not acting naturally but against all the vows she took as a bride.
mimi27406 said:
However one thing I would take exception to you for is the title in your last post. Adultery is ALWAYS wrong. As a true Cuckold I have suffered the pain and ignominy of being cuckolded by an adulterious wife, it was very hurtful and very wrong. Later I was ****** to accept she cheated on me because of MY short-comings, so while she still fucks whoever she pleases it is no longer adultery because I admit she needs other men to be sexually satisfied. She was still wrong to act unilaterally in seeking sexual satisfaction. A married woman who parts her legs for a man other than her husband is not acting naturally but against all the vows she took as a bride.
Untrue. Adultery IS natural, so viewing it as "wrong" is unproductive.
4Julie,
Your comments:
reflect a widespread misconception. Your early cuckolding by your wife, before the two of you reached an understanding that dating and fucking other men is her right and privilege, may have been painful — as most cuckolds have found historically, evidently — but it was not "wrong" because cuckolding is the way of the world. This is so not just among humans but also among pair-bond species throughout the biosphere. In attempting to repeal this natural behavior by "taking marriage vows" and "passing laws" we humans might just as well, with equal effectiveness, have passed legislation to repeal the law of gravity.
See my post in the thread initiated a while back by AngleBaby, here:
http://www.cuckolds.com/forums/general-cuckoldry/14439-myths-about-cheating-2.html
Since it's in a rather obscure forum location, I'll repeat it. It addresses the attempt by AngleBaby to establish that "cuckolding is not natural and is destructive to relationships" by citing an article in "Psychology Today," here:
As I pointed out, this article is deeply flawed. The author's statement:
"Most species of birds and animals in which the male serves some useful function other than sperm donation are inherently monogamous. Humans, like other nest builders, are monogamous by nature, but imperfectly so."
Research based on DNA analysis has shown the opposite is true. In all pair-bond species the authors studied the females were found to be inherently non-monogamous — i.e., not faithful to their long-term mates. This finding included pair-bond species usually thought of as monogamous such as swans and wolves. The authors found that on average (as I recall), 40% to 70% of the offspring of any given pair-bond couple were sired by a male other than the resident male (in effect, the husband).
Editorial comment: among human couples in western nations, a much smaller percentage of offspring are sired, on average, by men other than the woman's long-term partner (i.e., husband), in part (I speculate) because of birth control and also because human females often copulate when they aren't fertile, whereas the females of other species generally copulate only when they are fertile. (It may be worth noting that dolphins have sex for fun, according to a recent NPR interview with a marine biologist who studies them. She didn't comment, unfortunately, on the cuckolding behavior of dolphins nor on whether male dolphins who suspect they've been cuckolded become enraged.)
See:
"The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People,"
by David P. Barash, Ph.D., and Judith Eve Lipton.
This book is available at modest cost via (e.g.) Amazon.com. A rather detailed review, in the form of a downloadable doc file, can be found here:
http://www.unm.edu/~hebs/pubs/Miller...gamyReview.doc
See also:
"Insatiable Wives: Women Who Stray and the Men Who Love Them" by David J. Ley (2009, 291 pp. [hardcover]).
Sorry to throw cold water on the "humans and other pair-bond species are inherently monomagous" myth and, by implication, the "cuckolding is wrong" myth, but there you have it. DNA would not be capable of lying even if it feared social disapproval. I suggest we pair-bonded human males would do better — probably much better — by adapting ourselves to being cuckolds than by clogging the courts with charges that "our wives broke their marriage vows and are unfaithful, therefore we demand divorce!"
By "doing better," I mean adopting a philosophy throughout society that love, marriage, and long-term commitment are and should be independent of the need for sex, particularly female sex, with a variety of lovers. As have, for instance, you and your wife and many others on this forum.
—Custer
4Julie,
Your comments:
4julie said:
reflect a widespread misconception. Your early cuckolding by your wife, before the two of you reached an understanding that dating and fucking other men is her right and privilege, may have been painful — as most cuckolds have found historically, evidently — but it was not "wrong" because cuckolding is the way of the world. This is so not just among humans but also among pair-bond species throughout the biosphere. In attempting to repeal this natural behavior by "taking marriage vows" and "passing laws" we humans might just as well, with equal effectiveness, have passed legislation to repeal the law of gravity.
See my post in the thread initiated a while back by AngleBaby, here:
http://www.cuckolds.com/forums/general-cuckoldry/14439-myths-about-cheating-2.html
Since it's in a rather obscure forum location, I'll repeat it. It addresses the attempt by AngleBaby to establish that "cuckolding is not natural and is destructive to relationships" by citing an article in "Psychology Today," here:
AngleBaby said:
As I pointed out, this article is deeply flawed. The author's statement:
"Most species of birds and animals in which the male serves some useful function other than sperm donation are inherently monogamous. Humans, like other nest builders, are monogamous by nature, but imperfectly so."
Research based on DNA analysis has shown the opposite is true. In all pair-bond species the authors studied the females were found to be inherently non-monogamous — i.e., not faithful to their long-term mates. This finding included pair-bond species usually thought of as monogamous such as swans and wolves. The authors found that on average (as I recall), 40% to 70% of the offspring of any given pair-bond couple were sired by a male other than the resident male (in effect, the husband).
Editorial comment: among human couples in western nations, a much smaller percentage of offspring are sired, on average, by men other than the woman's long-term partner (i.e., husband), in part (I speculate) because of birth control and also because human females often copulate when they aren't fertile, whereas the females of other species generally copulate only when they are fertile. (It may be worth noting that dolphins have sex for fun, according to a recent NPR interview with a marine biologist who studies them. She didn't comment, unfortunately, on the cuckolding behavior of dolphins nor on whether male dolphins who suspect they've been cuckolded become enraged.)
See:
"The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People,"
by David P. Barash, Ph.D., and Judith Eve Lipton.
This book is available at modest cost via (e.g.) Amazon.com. A rather detailed review, in the form of a downloadable doc file, can be found here:
http://www.unm.edu/~hebs/pubs/Miller...gamyReview.doc
See also:
"Insatiable Wives: Women Who Stray and the Men Who Love Them" by David J. Ley (2009, 291 pp. [hardcover]).
Sorry to throw cold water on the "humans and other pair-bond species are inherently monomagous" myth and, by implication, the "cuckolding is wrong" myth, but there you have it. DNA would not be capable of lying even if it feared social disapproval. I suggest we pair-bonded human males would do better — probably much better — by adapting ourselves to being cuckolds than by clogging the courts with charges that "our wives broke their marriage vows and are unfaithful, therefore we demand divorce!"
By "doing better," I mean adopting a philosophy throughout society that love, marriage, and long-term commitment are and should be independent of the need for sex, particularly female sex, with a variety of lovers. As have, for instance, you and your wife and many others on this forum.
—Custer
Commonality doesn't make it natural
Ah Custer just because lots of people do it doesn't make it NATURAL. You could argue all you have said about crime. Does the fact we have lots of criminals mean that we should accept criminal activity as natural behavior? In some areas burglary runs at 40% in others <10% is it more natural in the higher crime areas, are people there more genetically predisposed to be criminals?
I feel that because more people do something doesn't make it more natural or right, it just makes it more common and therefore more acceptable, the more acceptable it becomes the less moral and legal objections to it. In some areas if a crime has been committed against you and you are unhurt, the police's attiude is, you were lucky! Does that make it natural or right?
On a personal level I consider my wife knew and was 'cuckolding' me from before we married. If she knew back then I would never be able to sexually satisfy her, which she later told me, why didn't she declare it then and from the outset be honest and open about it so we BOTH could have made decisions based on the facts.
I became a cuckold by her force, yes I came to accept my role, but it is one I would never have have sought out and one that I only accepted through others mediation and rationalization.
Custer Laststand said:
Ah Custer just because lots of people do it doesn't make it NATURAL. You could argue all you have said about crime. Does the fact we have lots of criminals mean that we should accept criminal activity as natural behavior? In some areas burglary runs at 40% in others <10% is it more natural in the higher crime areas, are people there more genetically predisposed to be criminals?
I feel that because more people do something doesn't make it more natural or right, it just makes it more common and therefore more acceptable, the more acceptable it becomes the less moral and legal objections to it. In some areas if a crime has been committed against you and you are unhurt, the police's attiude is, you were lucky! Does that make it natural or right?
On a personal level I consider my wife knew and was 'cuckolding' me from before we married. If she knew back then I would never be able to sexually satisfy her, which she later told me, why didn't she declare it then and from the outset be honest and open about it so we BOTH could have made decisions based on the facts.
I became a cuckold by her force, yes I came to accept my role, but it is one I would never have have sought out and one that I only accepted through others mediation and rationalization.
Cuckolding is indeed a form of natural behavior.
4Julie,
The fact (it can now be considered a fact) that humans and other pair-bond species throughout the biosphere "cheat" on their mates does indeed make it a form of natural behavior.
Not so. Unlike cuckolding, the prevalence of crime among other (non-human) pair-bond species has not been established rigorously. This is, in part, because "crime" is difficult to define for non-human species since they do not have governments that enact laws. It does seem to be true, admittedly, that some species — some chimpanzee species, for instance — tend to "deal with" individuals whose anti-social behaviors cause problems, but the concept of crime, unlike cuckolding, is difficult to establish unambiguously in other species.
Unfortunately, yes. Making reasonable efforts to minimize crime is, obviously, a practical necessity. It would be unrealistic to imagine crime rates can be reduced to zero, though, because engaging in criminal behavior is indeed, in essence, "natural behavior" for some percentage of the population.
If many people "do something" that suggests it (whatever "it" may be) is probably a form of natural behavior, but "it" can be defined as "not right" if a government passes a law declaring it illegal. Consider, for instance, the *many* laws that have been enacted historically making homosexual behavior illegal and subject to more-or-less severe punishment. But, homosexuality in a subset of the population (about 3 to 5%, evidently) is clearly natural behavior. See, for instance, Baker (1996), below.
If I were the victim of a crime and I were not hurt physically, financially or in other ways, and if the police said that to me, I would probably agree. Subsequently I probably would not worry about whether the (attempted) crime was "natural or right."
The answer to your question can be found by reading "Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex," by Robin Baker, Ph.D. (1996, BasicBooks, 319 pp. [hardcover]).
Baker is an evolutionary biologist; he does not concern himself with whether observed forms of human behavior are "right" and/or "moral." Rather, he concerns himself with what humans and some non-human species he has studied actually do. The above is a science-for-the-layperson book based on an earlier scientific book; it is well written, easy to read and basically fascinating. If you take the trouble to read it with an open mind, I suggest it may change your view of woman/man relationships forever.
Men have certainly ****** women to do countless things they didn't want to do and found objectionable throughout history (and pre-history), so maybe turnabout is fair play. In any case, I'd say you're on the right track. Your posts suggest your marriage is much more interesting and erotic than it would be had you married a woman for whom sex was so unimportant that, not getting it from you, she would not have sought it with other men.
—Custer
4Julie,
4julie said:
The fact (it can now be considered a fact) that humans and other pair-bond species throughout the biosphere "cheat" on their mates does indeed make it a form of natural behavior.
4julie said:
Not so. Unlike cuckolding, the prevalence of crime among other (non-human) pair-bond species has not been established rigorously. This is, in part, because "crime" is difficult to define for non-human species since they do not have governments that enact laws. It does seem to be true, admittedly, that some species — some chimpanzee species, for instance — tend to "deal with" individuals whose anti-social behaviors cause problems, but the concept of crime, unlike cuckolding, is difficult to establish unambiguously in other species.
4julie said:
Unfortunately, yes. Making reasonable efforts to minimize crime is, obviously, a practical necessity. It would be unrealistic to imagine crime rates can be reduced to zero, though, because engaging in criminal behavior is indeed, in essence, "natural behavior" for some percentage of the population.
4julie said:
If many people "do something" that suggests it (whatever "it" may be) is probably a form of natural behavior, but "it" can be defined as "not right" if a government passes a law declaring it illegal. Consider, for instance, the *many* laws that have been enacted historically making homosexual behavior illegal and subject to more-or-less severe punishment. But, homosexuality in a subset of the population (about 3 to 5%, evidently) is clearly natural behavior. See, for instance, Baker (1996), below.
4julie said:
If I were the victim of a crime and I were not hurt physically, financially or in other ways, and if the police said that to me, I would probably agree. Subsequently I probably would not worry about whether the (attempted) crime was "natural or right."
4julie said:
The answer to your question can be found by reading "Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex," by Robin Baker, Ph.D. (1996, BasicBooks, 319 pp. [hardcover]).
Baker is an evolutionary biologist; he does not concern himself with whether observed forms of human behavior are "right" and/or "moral." Rather, he concerns himself with what humans and some non-human species he has studied actually do. The above is a science-for-the-layperson book based on an earlier scientific book; it is well written, easy to read and basically fascinating. If you take the trouble to read it with an open mind, I suggest it may change your view of woman/man relationships forever.
4julie said:
Men have certainly ****** women to do countless things they didn't want to do and found objectionable throughout history (and pre-history), so maybe turnabout is fair play. In any case, I'd say you're on the right track. Your posts suggest your marriage is much more interesting and erotic than it would be had you married a woman for whom sex was so unimportant that, not getting it from you, she would not have sought it with other men.
—Custer
Cuck4Life,
Regarding your question:
I'll be happy to answer your question (or try to), but it will be helpful if you can let me know which sentences you're referring to. This can be done by hitting the "quote" button at lower right in the post you're referring to, then deleting everything except the sentences you're asking about.
Alternatively, are you referring to "sentences" as in punishment — as described in 4Julie's original post? If so, 4Julie should respond.... although what he knows about this may be only what he read in the news article he provided a link to.
If you don't respond within "reasonable time," I'll take a guess re. what you're asking about and reply to that. It will be better, though, if you'd be willing to clarify your question.
Thanks—
Custer
Regarding your question:
cuck4life said:
I'll be happy to answer your question (or try to), but it will be helpful if you can let me know which sentences you're referring to. This can be done by hitting the "quote" button at lower right in the post you're referring to, then deleting everything except the sentences you're asking about.
Alternatively, are you referring to "sentences" as in punishment — as described in 4Julie's original post? If so, 4Julie should respond.... although what he knows about this may be only what he read in the news article he provided a link to.
If you don't respond within "reasonable time," I'll take a guess re. what you're asking about and reply to that. It will be better, though, if you'd be willing to clarify your question.
Thanks—
Custer
Sentence
I think the sentence he's referring to is the canings of the original post.
Hope this helps with that.
Caning in Malaysia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Custer Laststand said:
I think the sentence he's referring to is the canings of the original post.
Hope this helps with that.
Caning in Malaysia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
