Non-Fiction: Compersion and The Cool Fire of Hotwifing

[craven mohr]

Wow . . . .

I just wanted to make up my own mind. Like you, I thought the critique was thought provoking, enough so that I want to read your book.

Didn't mean to stir your pot. Sorry about that. Sincerely -- best regards, ok?

[TriangleTangle]

I did get the section numbers mixed up - you are correct.

All I will say in response is this. You wrote:

"There is something very, very deep at work in the human psyche with regard to hotwifing and cuckoldry/wittolry. I don’t know what it is, though I have some hunches."

Which is my point exactly! Jealousy is a catch-all term. It is useless to talk about it generally. It is its subcomponents and how a male transforms the experience of those subcomponents of jealousy as fundamental motivators into sexual energy - ideally consciously, but many express it not realizing that is exactly what they are doing. That is what I mean by sexual (not emotional) compersion and transforming that energy into vicarious pleasure for the male. You have me all wrong; jealousy is wonderful! It is the fuel for the very fire of hotwifing for many of not most males. Going though most of the quotes in the book I could identify that easily in so many instances and I am trying to get you to recognize that. So far the men reading my post thankfully get it. I invite you to keep an open mind about it as your study thus far on compersion hasn't covered this aspect of it and I too would dismiss the angles of compersion you seem to focus on as not applicable to hotwifing. Look deeper.

TT

PS. My praise of the book was and is sincere in it entirety. And no, I did not imply not expect compersion to be a central tenant of Hotwiffing or the book - not at all, but an important one not to be ignored or taken lightly. Than you for taking the time to consider and respond to my post.

[TriangleTangle]

@Craven, don't fret, the author and I have been having quite a compelling exchange. Although quite passionate at times, our exchanges has been civil if not always respectful at all times (I think it safe to say we've both felt slighted here and there). I truly don't mean anything personal; the author really does not know me nor I him/her - I'm actually a pretty nice guy with an extreme sense of empathy. I appreciate that s/he is more than well versed in the subject matter and respect his/her views far more than s/he might realize and haven't and don't dismiss anything s/he has written off hand; I don't get the sense s/he does on my thoughts either - though I know we've stirred each others ire at times.

My lady is reading the book now and giving me her take on it chapter by chapter - I love hearing it from the woman's view and would never attempt to project a female's view myself - thus I am hanging on every word as she shares her thoughts with me about the book. She also gives me similar feedback on things I've written here to keep me grounded :-)

TT

[TriangleTangle]

To CA, I didn't mean to imply I thought that you should have added anything whatsoever to Chapter 22 on feelings - it is very good just as it is. What I suggested was a chapter that immediately follows Chapter 22 as a discussion on jealousy, what is is, how to understand it and how to channel it.

In my attempt to clarify what I mean, let me repeat a quote I read that drives right to jealousy and sexual Compersion: "Jealousy is the best (un)known aphrodisiac among humans!" Now, maybe you don't like the word Compersion or the side of it unrelated to erotic empathy, so maybe we need a new term to better describe erotic empathy/transference and its sexual impact as a huge aphrodisiac - especially for males. This is what men mean when then talk about enjoying his mate's pleasure vicariously (vicarious pleasure). You see, for the male, when his wife is having sex with another man he gets sexually excited and aroused, no? You'll find few men on this site that would disagree! From where may I ask does that sexual excitement - both physical and mental, stem? It is not from him having sex with his wife - it is indirect - beside him, from the other. The words beside and other are key here. The powerful emotional motivators of Jealousy - especially fear, competition and a few others, can result in a negative reaction or a positive reaction. It is turning the response into positive reaction (motivational) is what I am getting at. So if you don't want to call that compersion then PLEASE come up with a better term - its the closest one out there at the moment. I've been pondering this a long time.

Again, The words beside and other are key here - and the best I've come up with so far is the prefix Meta- to capture that as we are talking about a type of abstraction of something someone is experiencing mentally while watching (or knowing) about something happening physically that he himself is not doing, but experiencing vicariously. So I don't know, maybe we have to make up an entirely new term if you disdain the term Compersion so much - how about metasexual as in 'a metasexual experience'?

A few additional thoughts about a metasexual experience: One could argue that watching porn or two strangers fuck can cause a metasexual experience and I’d agree. The physical reaction is involuntary physical sexual stimulation, especially potent, but not exclusively for males. However, the significance of it for a hotwife husband is that the reaction is magnitudes greater and incomparable than any porn or other sexual stimulus they’ve even experience. Why is that? Because it is their committed partner that is provoking/generating an incredible and unique visceral response.

TriangleTangle

[bubbajack]

I am coming a little late to this colloquy, but I am enjoying it. It might be nice if somehow our culture could come up with a way to work through important issues of theory and practice without requiring that the brave souls who undertake to explain things on a general level engage in adversarial discourse - more or less "courteously" attacking and defending and counterattacking - but so far there is no other way actually to proceed.

And I believe that is because the general subject matter - human multi-person sexual experience - is far too complex to capture completely and so we have to proceed by way of abstraction. We all do this, however we may protest how "real" we are or how uninterested we are in "theories".

We have no choice about whether to engage in "theorizing" - we all have a theory about the hotwifing urge and related activities - we all have to try to explain to one another what we want and don't want and why the former is "good" and the latter "bad". We want our explanations to "make sense" because we want them to "work" - and that's why we try to have what we think and say about things be truthful and attractive to those with whom we would communicate.

So, how coherent and adequate is the theory we entertain and expound to, say, our reluctant or skeptical (or, perhaps, too enthusiastic!) spouse, whom we desire to embrace and eventually realize something like OUR compelling ideal vision of the wife fucking other men? It seems especially daunting to think about, considering that we don't even have a very coherent or adequate theory of why spouses fucking each other has such profound effects on our individual and conjoined feelings.

To me, the biggest shortcoming in how we "explain" things to each other in our intellectual culture is that we talk about "ourselves" as if we were individuals who, in some (inexplicable but strongly felt as real) way, enter into experiences TOGETHER AND SEPARATELY. The "scientific" or, as Cody calls it, "Aristotelian" procedure presupposes substantial individuals whom we seem to observe engaging in conjoint activities which exhibit some regularity of form, which, if we collect enough examples and classify them accurately, will tell us what we need to know. There may have to be some fudging aabout why these strange activities are important, are "felt" so intensely to be "beautiful" or "threatening" to the individuals - because our observational specimen-collecting procedure does not really have us looking for these factors. And the reason for that is a very powerful one: we can't see or measure or classify "subjective" feelings in our specimens the same way as we can their "objective" behaviors.

To think we can make sense of these "subjective feelings" of beauty or fear in any other than as physical phenomena that may or may not show up on a properly-calibrated oscilloscope is to get into mystical notions - the despised "Platonic" idealisms that produce absurd notions like "love" or (horror of horrors!) God!

Except, of course, that leaves out much of what matters most importantly to us as humans - you know it, I know it, you and I together know it, you and I and the fuckbuddy know it, at least sometimes, not always, not never, Whew!

This is not easy stuff and there are huge controversies going on in science, philosophy, religion, politics and law on these very battlegrounds - no comprehensive resolution in sight. However, that kind of controversial practice has yielded many wonderful, as well as horrible harvests for us. I guess we are still at it and I hope we never stop.

[Cody Alston]

Triangle Tangle--

I definitely owe you an apology as to one thing: throughout my posting, I referred to you as "Tangled Triangle." That wasn't intentional, and apparently was a Freudian slip. When I printed out your posting, to make notes on it, I wrote "Tangled Triangle" at the top, by mistake. No slight was intended---and it was gracious of you not to complain of the error.


BubbaJack--

You're about about the inevitability of theorizing. After all, we humans are desperate to have SOME sort of understanding of EVERYTHING. That's why, probably in our earliest days as a species, we "explained" that thunder was an expression of a god's wrath---as was an earthquake, a volcanic eruption, a flood, etc.. Even if the explanation is cockamamie, we hunger for an end to the mystery and so accept almost anything in place of continued resignation in the face of our ignorance.


Triangle and Bubba---

In the mid-19th century, French philosopher Auguste Comte founded a "Religion of Humanity." Its central tenets were "positivism" and "altruism." The "Kerista" commune I spoke of largely re-invented it, but now with a heavy emphasis on sexuality and "compersion"in place of positivism and altruism. Both were cults. And thus both open themselves up to ridicule.

People who revel in the life of the mind (such as Plato) want to impose intellectual order on a chaotic world. So they create categories, and then insist that reality fits---and HAS to fit---their theories. This is true of religious thinkers, political thinkers, even many scientists...and certainly those who think about sex.

Obviously, theory is vital. But what happens is that a certain type of mind (again, Plato being the best example) get carried away with it, take it much too far. It reminds me of the "Academic of Projectors" in Swift's satire, Gulliver's Travels.

The theory should be useful as a guide to ascertaining truth: the theory can be used as a starting point for thinking and gathering facts. But when the theory becomes dogma, selective perception and confirmation bias set in, and facts are subordinated to the dogma.

I've no doubt that Triangle and the advocates of "compersion" are on to something. We humans tend to be quite possessive and vain. And jealousy is obviously part of that. And "compersion" is meant to deal with that.

What I object to is what seems to me to be a subordination of the reality to the theory. The theory of "compersion" is no more than a theory, even though for some people it holds great explanatory power.

Because the psychology professionals (with rare exceptions) dismiss hotwifing altogether, they won't do research on this. It might be that, someday, we'll find that "compersion" is key to hotwifing. But to insist on that from the very beginning, in the absence of anything to back it up, is to be dogmatic.

More important, as I said, I don't see that it really adds anything to the discussion at all. And, as with the example of Comte's "Religion of Humanity," it invites ridicule. It sets hotwifing up as a cult, some sort of avant garde New Age practice---that, ironically, appeals to the vanity and one-upmanship of its practitioners.

I just don't think that's the way to go to get hotwifing taken seriously by the mental health professionals, the media, and the mainstream public. In fact, I think it's highly counter-productive.

There are obviously some very deep reasons for the interest men, in particular, have in hotwifing and cuckoldry/wittolry. I just don't think that "compersion" explains that, especially given that there's virtually nothing to back that theory up other than the anecdotal claims of its practitioners.

I would use this analogy: the emphasis on "compersion" strikes me as exhibitionistic masturbation, whereas a less overreaching advocacy of hotwifing is more like procreation----in the sense of increasing the population of those who at least are willing to accord it some respect and take it seriously as a good option within marriage.

Actually, even more, it reminds me of the medieval theological dispute between Anselm and Abelard, if I remember it correctly. Anselm's position (which was that of the Church) was "I must believe in order to understand." Abelard's response was "I must UNDERSTAND in order to BELIEVE."

This whole "compersion" thing reminds me of Anselm, really. Once you accept the basic assumption, all else does indeed logically follow. But accepting the basic assumption is an act of FAITH. That's why I emphasized the inductive, Aristotelian approach. And I just don't see merit in accepting sweeping assertions of the validity of "compersion" in lieu of in-depth research.

This is why I stay clear of any grand theory of hotwifing. Developing a grand theory of hotwifing strikes me much like a grand theory of proper sexual practices even with a monogamous couple. Don't laugh at that: the "missionary position" is called that because Christian missionaries INSISTED that the ONLY position for coitus was that. And of course they insisted that oral and anal were sinful.

I wanted to provide, above all else, a PRACTICAL guide to those who were trying to think this through--in the words of the subtitle, whether to even try hotwifing, ways to go about it, and how to handle it. If someone else wants to develop a grand theory of hotwifing based on "compersion," that's fine...though, as I said, I think that would prove counter-productive as it turns hotwifing into a cult, which will go the way of Comte's "Religion of Humanity" and the Kerista commune's "new" counter-culture religion.

If, someday, it turns out that "compersion" IS the key to hotwifing, fine. But right now, what people need most, I believe, is help in deciding "whether to try it, ways to go about it, how to handle it." Hence my own task is a modest one, and I leave the rest to those who are far more intellectually ambitious.

[bubbajack]

I think the idea of "compersion" does add something to the discussion, albeit in a way that, like other useful concepts, raises many more questions that go beyond it.

I think there remains a great deal which is yet to be learned about how people gain depth of personal satisfaction from the satisfaction experienced by and with others. The theory of sex as being primarily an expression of the "pleasure principle" and thus purely self-regarding, haunts a good deal of the territory which professional psychology tramples over and dominates. And the pleasure principle is indeed useful, but much of its usefulness is derived from its over-simplification of the complexity of human motivation. Of course there is degraded individual sexual behavior which involves disregard for the feeling and enjoyment of the other(s) who may be involved in one way or another. But there is more to it than that. Nobody who has a decently developed sex life really thinks that the best way to account for its importance is the private personal gratification it provides.

Instead, and more realistically, there seems to be a kind of zone that springs up somewhere between and among people who share sexual delight - a zone that is neither wholly inside nor wholly outside of the individual experience of the participants. It is beautiful, thrilling and miraculous-seeming when it happens and, furthermore, it mocks the very shallowness of the pleasure principle as an explanation for why people desire to experience it.

The idea of compersion suggests, at least, an alternative, potentially more adequate analytical approach to the complexity of the actually felt situation and for that reason alone I think it has value.

I think it may be a bit premature to charge the theory of compersion with being a dogma that risks stifling fresh investigation and thought. However, even if it does eventually become the founding dogma of a discreditable cult, it will have had value - all intellectual advance involves discrediting what has been asserted before as being the whole truth. See, e.g., Platonisms of many stripes and Comte's rise and fall in the esteem of thinking people.

In any event, I think we should always be humbly aware of the provisional nature of our discoveries, whether of previously unconsidered facts or of newly grasped relations, inductively arrived at, among previously known facts.

This is not to say that there should not be vigorous debate - the current state of compersion theory suggests that it could certainly use some more time in the crucible of debate and controversy before we can be confident of its rational and empirical strength. But that is not a reason to abandon or ignore it.

[Cody Alston]

BubbaJack,

I'm hoping my copy of Opening Up will arrive tomorrow (Monday, October 8). I want to read the two chapters Triangle Tangle recommended before saying much more about compersion.

It's interesting that Darwin acknowledged that there is altruism and self-sacrifice even among the "lower animals"---and that it contradicts what we'd call the "rugged individualism" of his "survival of the fittest" theory of evolution. I think it's the ethologists (if I have the name right) who study animal behavior---and they've struggled with animal altruism for decades...usually just ignoring it because they can't account for it to their satisfaction.

So, yes, by all means, more attention needs to be paid to altruism, especially today when concern for the well-being of others is dismissed as being "bleeding heart liberalism." (I know that will provoke some responses. :-) )

I just don't see that coming up with a new word, "compersion," and pretending that it's something new under the sun just because it's focused on sex really shows any potential to contribute to the discussion. I could be wrong, and might change my tune upon reading those two chapters in Opening Up.

I completely agree that, at times, something can happen during a sexual encounter that's synergistic. And at the risk of sounding quite religious, I think Jesus's comment about "the two become one" can point to that. In fact, lately, there's been quite a revival in the discussion of "spiritual sexuality" involving erotic interactions. I believe such synergy is uncommon, and don't see anything wrong with that---just as I rarely expect to be transported by beautiful music, and treasure that when it does happen on rare occasion.

And it's obvious that a hotwife/cukold (wittold) can also experience this even when the wife is having (or after she's had sex) with another man. And THAT is in large part why I'm trying to keep the discussion of hotwifing down-to-earth: so that the mental health profession (and also the media) will perhaps begin to take it seriously as contributing to mental health and to better marriages, for at least some.

So, I'm not rejecting what compersion is about. I'm skeptically questioning whether creating a theory of "compersion" and a hierarchy of "compersive purity" is going to be a positive development. It looks superfluous, at best, to me, so far, and I fear it will prove highly COUNTER-productive.

But as I said, I'll read those two chapters as soon as I get my hands on the book.

[TriangleTangle]

In my last post on the subject, I made an attempt to distance the effects of what I have been trying to describe from the term compersion. I don't care if we don't call it compersion at all, but the physical erotic effect it elicits is REAL, whatever you want to call it. I ask folks re-read my most recent post before this one a lot closer. . Also, I am not talking about some altruistic emotional joy here. That is certainly a nice thing and I do feel that for my partner to some degree, but again, that is tangential and I agree, taken too far that become new age cult-ish stuff which I also disdain. I am talking about a physical cause-effect of physical sexual transference in the context of hotwifing - not a romantic one. There was a time I even thought that maybe that erotic excitement I was getting might indicate had some underlying bi-sexual tendencies, but I discovered that not to be the case -I had kept an open mind to that as well. When I began asking why my erections and excitement were magnitudes greater and far more instant and involuntary when seeing my woman flirt, make out, and especially seeing another man's cock plunging deep into her (compared to any thing else like porn, swinging etc) I took note of my feelings - those various sub components of jealousy. When I discovered that those feelings were the actual catalyst of the eros - that's when the light bulb went off and I went looking for something that could explain it. Just saying, it makes us more horny and pushes our buttons without exploring what those 'buttons' are is where everyone seems to want to stop at explaining it.

Cody, yes, I think your observation is correct. I think the effect, call it whatever you want, applies to cuckolding too and also is present to some degree in any facet of the lifestyle where those sub components of jealousy are present and turned on their head to stoke the erotic physical response. I have come to believe that (pick your term) is far more key in Hotwifiing and cuckolding than any other lifestyle genre - especially when compared to polyamory where the emotional (romantic love empathy) side of compersion is mostly discussed. I contend in Hotwifing it is used more for selfish gratification (not solely, but mostly), whereas in polyamory iits emphasis is reversed. I can say that because I belonged to a ployamorous family for a few years and found that less satisfying that hotwifing and recognized its effect from both perspectives. I know there is a polyamory forum on this site. It would be interesting to hear from some of the people who have crossed over both to get their perspective. I feel strongly they'd validate the romantic love empathy side of compersion and bristle at someone considering it a cult-ish thing and bet they'd vigorously defend that aspect of exists (do you consider polyamorous groups cults?), however I am arguing there are two very different sides of this coin.

Regards,
TriangleTangle

[bubbajack]

Thanks, Cody, for replying. I have a couple of points in rejoinder:

First, I wasn't referring so much to "altruism" or other exceptional-seeming phenomena whose puzzling character has somehow come to the otherwise-directed attention of the mostly physicalist thinkers who are the most influential interpreters of our experience in this era. I was instead trying to invoke the kind of day-to-day semiotics which, I am arguing, are the essence of even the most ordinary and necessary inter-subjective exchanges, even though they are very little understood, except by thinkers who are today, sadly, pretty much out on the fringes of the dominant discourse.

There is as yet no place in the dominant psychologies of our time for "inter-subjectivity" in the sense that I feel is necessary for a sensible account of language, sex, commerce, law-abiding, jokes, or any other transaction that takes place within a context whose implicit structures and meanings are somehow directly and immediately apprehended in a shared way by individuals interacting with purpose in that context. Music is probably the most astonishing example - and I don't mean that it has to be transporting in its beauty in order to exert emotional power (as the muzak people knew very well!) One example that Bateson used from the animal world is arresting: as far as we can tell, dogs go through the exact same physical demonstrations when they are fighting and when they are playing - baring teeth, snarling, glaring - but they do not seem to need to explain things to one another beforehand in order to judge accurately what is actually going on.

The feature of the "compersion" concept that I find interesting and potentially fruitful is that it at least hints at the largely unappreciated existence and power of context and setting as entering into, constituting and shaping complex shared subjective feeling among individuals. And a reason for calling attention to the operation of this power in the (somewhat ) exceptional context of wives fucking other men with their husband's cooperation/participation is that most people are convinced that their understanding of ordinary interactions is adequate, not just for their purposes, but for any conceivable purposes. We have to get their attention, as the "humane" mule trainer said after he hit the mule over the head with a 2X4.

My second point is that I share very deeply your concern that hotwifing attain a status within the cultural understanding of marriage that is not at the current level of offensiveness to majority opinion. I believe, however, that your hope to interest mainstream psychologists in doing the kind of research that could bring about this happy result is too optimistic. Mainstream thought and experiment takes place within a highly ritualized social context which virtually prohibits exiting the groove of pre-cleared subject matter and pre-approved methods. I am not against this, generally, because there is likely to be a lot of rubbish produced outside the groove (have a look at some of the self-published essays on the internet "disproving" special relativity or species evolution - but don't actually read them ).

So I think there is a good prospect that improvements will eventually come about, but not until the present potentialities have become sclerotic dogma and fall of their own dead weight. Disappointing for you and me and the contributors to this Forum, I know.

[Cody Alston]

Triangle,

I forgot that today is a postal holiday, so I'm now hopeful of receiving Opening Up tomorrow.

I respect your theory of jealousy as the underlying motivation. My objection is solely that it's a theory, and I'm chary of founding the explanation for hotwifing on something that's just a theory. Besides, as I discussed in the book, there are other motivators. So posit jealousy as a one-size-fits all explanation, across the board, still strikes me as dogmatic, even if it is indeed the root explanation in many cases, perhaps the majority.

I personally have no objection even if "compersion" is only a cult phenomenon. My objection was "political," if you will: given that there's already so much hostility to compersion, why compound that opposition by talking about a concept that's been inherently cult-related from the very start? Those who want to speak of compersion, and to form groups based on it, are certainly free to do so. Those who prefer a theoretical approach rather than a pragmatic one are free to go that route. I'm just objecting to any attempt to impose a grand theory on hotwifing itself, when the proof is only anecdotal at best.

[Cody Alston]

BubbaJack,

If I'm reading you right, what you're saying is that the dominant paradigm is individualistic, one would even say atomistic, and that that's part of our intellectual heritage ("baggage"?), when, in fact, the context you spoke of is the real key.

IF so, I agree. (Surprised?) Or, to backpedal just a bit, at the very least, the context is at least as important as the individual, sometimes more important, and that there's an inherent relationship and interplay between the two. Our individualism dogma has largely blinded us to other things, things you spoke of.

As to whether hotwifing/ cuckoldry-wittolry will always be only a fringe phenomenon, regarded as deviant, you might well be right. That's been the case with swinging, and certainly with polyamory and open marriage.

I do agree with Triangle that there is something fundamentally different, psychologically, between hotwifing/cuckoldry, on the one hand, and these other forms of extramarital sex, on the other: simply because the extramarital sex is only on the woman's part. (I don't think I was able to convince the co-authors of Our Sexuality of that, though won't know for sure until I see their 13th edition next spring.)

Hotwifing CONFOUNDS so much of the conventional "wisdom" about sex----which is no doubt a huge part of why it's ignored or disparaged by the keepers of the conventional "wisdom" (which includes a lot of scientists and psychotherapists, and all their dogma, unfortunately).

Here, try this to understand where I'm coming from (as it were): if "compersion" is set up as the key factor, that presents a clearly defined target for hotwifing's critics. And because it's just a theoretical construct, compersion makes for an easy target. So, I say, don't go out on a limb, or paint oneself into a corner, or whatever other metaphor is appropriate.

Instead, present the evidence that it can work and can IMPROVE the quality of a marital relationship that is quite healthy to start with. Save the theorizing for later. Then, if somehow the evidence fails to back up "compersion" as the key concept, no real harm done. We just renew the effort, moving in a different direction. So, in that sense, my approach could be called "political."

And try this analogy: there's stuff in Paul's letters talking about making oneself a eunuch for the kingdom of God. Well, a lot of zealots took that at face value, and castrated themselves. It did not enhance Christianity's appeal to potential converts, to put it mildly. The Church wisely noted that Paul never castrated HIMself, and thus the expression was meant only figuratively. They wanted to minimize the impediments to conversion, and succeeded.

Okay, granted, embracing "compersion" is a far cry from self-castration. But I think you get the idea.

The only people who embrace something radically new tend to be those who were radical to start with, and are constantly looking to embrace the latest new radical thing---which sometimes (as with "compersion," I think) seems to be just an old radical thing rediscovered or reinvented. Most people are reluctant to even consider something radically new. So the way to make it palatable to them is to fit it in to the context of that which is already familiar to them and that they're comfortable with.

I don't know if that's possible with hotwifing. But it ought to be tried before moving on to ideological exotica.

By the way: it was common practice for English gentlemen and members of the British aristocracy to submit to dominatrices for insults and whipping, from sometime (perhaps) in the late 1800s until well into the 20th century. They all saw that as part of being normal. Well, obviously, that's no longer the case. But it's interesting that it was the case for so long...and especially that it was de rigueur, apparently.

So, there is no inherent impediment to hotwifing/wittolry becoming one of the standard options within a romantic relationship. I'm just saying it would seem to be the better practice to take the path of least potential resistance----in part because the "least" resistance, relatively speaking, is actually quite lot in absolute terms.

[TriangleTangle]

I understand what you are saying and I'll say it again; I am not and was not proposing Compersion as a grand theory of Hotwifing - that would be ludicrous and it that is how you interpreted my views we need to reset that. It is one of the core motivators for many, but not the sole one. Also, in lifestyle circles I am completely unaware that "there's already so much hostility to compersion" Can you cite those discussions or sources as I'd like to read them. I've been searching on Compersion for quite some time now and surprised I've not come across a body of material from which I'd remotely draw that conclusion - but maybe I missed it.

Again, I am not wed to the term but to the powerful effect of jealousy and channeling it into erotic impact, especially for the male. That is in fact, the 'buttons' that so many men say are being pushed. You seem to want to deal with Jealousy in its abstract generalization. When you get Opening Up you'll read a full discussion of Envy. Envy is a subcomponent of jealousy and is very different from insecurity, another subcomponent of jealousy. Other subcomponents of jealousy include possessiveness, feeling excluded, fear of abandonment, resentment, competition, and a number of other fears. They are all different parts of jealousy and each motivators. Humans love fear - people jump out of planes for the rush and use that fear, going up to speak in front of a large group often induces fear. Fear increases adrenaline, increases heart rate and so much more - these emotions that can be negative and disabling also have the power to become positive and enabling - resulting in a real physical effect. I think it would be a disservice to simply lump it all into a generalization of jealousy.

Regards,
TT

[Cody Alston]

TT,

I hope I did NOT say that, even among those who practice alternatives to normal sexual arrangments, there is hostility to compersion. If I did, I apologize. Can I trouble you to point me to where I said that?

I disagree that envy is a subcomponent of jealousy. No need for us to get into a long digression, so I'll just quickly spell it out and you can do with it what you will: my understanding of jealousy is that it's largely based on insecurity as to what one has, fear of losing it. Envy is desire to have what someone else has, and resentment that the other, rather than oneself, has it. I don't think the poor are "jealous" of the rich, but many are certainly envious.

So, if compersion is not a central concept after all, then it seems we've been making a mountain out of a molehill with this long discussion.

And as I said (in reply to BubbaJack), I think you are definitely onto something as to the role of jealousy. The book discussed it, though usually without referring to the feeling by name as "jealousy."

Your thinking and mine have much more in common than it at first appeared. :-)

[TriangleTangle]

I keyed off of this line in your prior post: "My objection was "political," if you will: given that there's already so much hostility to compersion, why compound that opposition".

I am beginning to see where we are having a disconnect - it is over my and your definition of jealousy. What you will read in Opening Up on jealousy is "jealousy is an umbrella term for a constellation of feelings.." Taormino goes on to list the ones I mentioned above and goes on to correctly assert that the term jealousy and is far too vague and means different things to different people. I went through this in my original post. If we are disconnecting on than I can see why we disconnected on much that followed.

I just ordered the book on Jealousy by Nancy Friday. I am wondering how she breaks it down and even more curious if she has any discussion or connection to the subject at hand.

TT

[SmilingHusband]

Triangle, great stuff! you write well and have a clear, crisp mind. I'm not going to bother to address the rest of the stuff in this thread, the objective mind knows who's playing catch-up.

[bubbajack]

What seems important to me - and where I think the issues between TT and CA may be most fruitfully joined - is that hotwifing refers primarily, but not exclusively, to a complex developmental process occurring in some marriages, in which spouses feel their way to a more or less (but in what would be surprising to many conventionally-minded people, decidedly more) satisfying accommodation between being married and having desirable, safe, fun, sexual adventure as part of it.

Accordingly, it may be possible for a married couple to arrive at a happy accommodation of the hotwifing type without having very much explicit communication about it - but our experience here is mostly otherwise. My own attempts over many years and two marriages mutely to "feel" my/our way in the direction of hotwifing were for a long time rewarded/punished by everything from total ineffectiveness to utter disaster. My conclusion, after having for a while now had some success: "Communication" is key.

My own conclusion is corroborated by many, many others' posts on this Forum. We have, on this Forum alone, an impressive array of testimony as to the benefits of what we call "communication" between the parties to a marriage seeking what I am calling "adventure" by way of sexual variety for the wife. Evidently, wordless "pushing" of one's spouse in the direction of sexual adventure by direct behavior is quite risky and sometimes fatal to the purpose (or the marriage). Thus, "communication" remains the abiding type of wisdom shared here, even though the wife's simply "cheating" the couple's way into developing a hotwifing arrangement is not unheard of nor always unsuccessful. Scary, though, right?

But even if there is a desire to talk it through, explicit communication in ordinary language about novel ideas and suggestions is tricky and, as we also see abundantly illustrated here, likely to raise a crop of misunderstandings between the spouses. For example, there seems to be a group of standard, stock negative responses by wives to the introduction of the idea of fucking other men - responses which demonstrate complete misunderstanding of what is being proposed.

The objections "you don't love me" or "you want a license to fuck other women" or "you are a fucked up pervert" or "but I'm a good _____ (here insert religious tradition presumed to have defined hotwifing as "sin" or equivalent)" arise predictably and with surprising uniformity of expression when the idea is approached in ordinary speech. This pattern of reactions suggests that the communication of the promise and benefits of hotwifing might be made more effective and clear if there were some well-known, well-accepted language available that could dispel these stubborn errors in understanding of what is being proposed.

So the other fundamental type of reference that the word "hotwifing" needs to make, in addition to a process of accommodating wordless urges, is a conceptual reference which illuminates the path to the desired end and, by its accepted meaning, closes down or narrows the suggestion of a plunge into a chaotic tangle of sexual pathologies.

CA quite reasonably, if a bit conventionally (it seems to me), argues that new or unusual words or concepts are rarely persuasive to mainstream opinion and, too often, the thinkers who want to employ and develop wider understanding by emphasizing and arguing for the adoption of such "neologisms" are relegated to the status of cultists, crackpots and cranks. The mainstream is quite comfy with its current collection of (mis)understandings, tends to ignore and carry on more or less contentedly in the face of the problems which the current standards create or do nothing to relieve. As Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, "... accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

But Jefferson goes on in the Declaration, and TT, I think, is arguing in the same vein, that sometimes some things are so fucked up that revolution is called for, including revolution of language in the direction of novel understandings. In fact such revolutionary shock may be effective even when widespread non-acceptance or continuing - even unending - controversy is inevitable (how about, e.g. " ... self-evident ...that .. " "... all men are created equal ..." - an idea that has never had the slightest practical importance in this country, notwithstanding its high position in one of our founding organic documents!)

I am on the fence about whether "compersion" is a strong candidate for the key concept on which to found the needed revolution in sexual understanding, but I am leaning more towards preferring that our little community risk derision as a "cult" over some new conceptual expressions, if that would have some prospect of eventually counteracting the derision we already experience as wimps who "let" other guys fuck our wives.

[TriangleTangle]

@SmilingHusband, I don't think its a matter of playing catch-up so much as it is more crossed wires due to semantics and getting some common agreement on those key semantics - else the assumptions divert us :-)

@ bubbajeck, funny you should stress the communication angle. Just this past Sunday my lady and I were on a very long drive and she was reading a number of quotes from the back chapters. We turned to each other and said it would be terrific if there were a chapter dedicated to communication. It is covered but people in HW/CK could really benefit on a deeper focused discussion on the subject. Maybe we can get CA to consider for 2nd Ed?

Regards,
TriangleTangle

[Luv It]

I did get the section numbers mixed up - you are correct.

All I will say in response is this. You wrote:

"There is something very, very deep at work in the human psyche with regard to hotwifing and cuckoldry/wittolry. I don’t know what it is, though I have some hunches."

Which is my point exactly! Jealousy is a catch-all term. It is useless to talk about it generally. It is its subcomponents and how a male transforms the experience of those subcomponents of jealousy as fundamental motivators into sexual energy - ideally consciously, but many express it not realizing that is exactly what they are doing. That is what I mean by sexual (not emotional) compersion and transforming that energy into vicarious pleasure for the male. You have me all wrong; jealousy is wonderful! It is the fuel for the very fire of hotwifing for many of not most males. Going though most of the quotes in the book I could identify that easily in so many instances and I am trying to get you to recognize that. So far the men reading my post thankfully get it. I invite you to keep an open mind about it as your study thus far on compersion hasn't covered this aspect of it and I too would dismiss the angles of compersion you seem to focus on as not applicable to hotwifing. Look deeper..........................

Wow! That describes excactly how I feel and my views on jelousy but you said much better than I ever could.

My hot wife is the result of a longtime live in girlfried who I loved very much cheated . I was originally very jealous, hurt and angry but, somewhere along the line, my jealousy was converted into a vicarious pleasure that I felt when my girfriend (who is now my wife) was with another man.
I was always conscious however that it stiil had its roots in jealousy and any form of jeousy (or whtever one wants to call it) is nessary for most HW/Cuckold husbands to enjoy it......... and........ this is why you must really love someone for it to be a real turn on. How can one feel jelousy for a stranger as it relates to her being with another man?

As I always say, jealousy dose not included anger and a feelilng of betrayal if you give your wife permission to "cheat" but you will still feel the jealousy that has been "converted" into a pleasurable vicarious felling of erotic pleasure.
This also explains why I not only want my wife to receive sexual pleasure from her boyfriend(s) but, I also want her boyfriend(s) to receive maximum sexual pleasure from my wife. In other words, I want them to give each other as much pleasure as possible.... for them to be completely lost in mutual extreme sexual bliss.

I never bought idea that any given husband simply wants their wife to recieve sexual pleasure, etc from another man simply because he is good hearted and he wants her to experience it. He actually wants to experience his jealousy conveted to a pleasureable experience. It is manly for his pleasure and her pleasure is improtant mainly in the contex that her pleasure serves to increase his ( jealousy eroticly transformed ) pleasure.

[dark hotwife]

Triangle,

Your original post is by far the most well written and spot-on piece on this subject I have ever read. I did read all the books mentioned in your and related posts. I will translate that post to Swedish and present it to my hw-in-progress. If that can't explain to her why I want this, nothing can.

I disagree with any negative critique following your post.

PS My guess is CA is male, wannabe hw-husband/author with a lower than average self-esteem and too much time on his hands. (A little like myself)

Love

[TriangleTangle]

Now, Now, CA is well very researched and I deeply respect his/her views and is an excellent writer. Buy CA's book! It is great from from the first page to the last. I think CA and I actually agree on so many levels and had some crossed-wires on language meaning/semantics early on. A lot of misunderstanding comes when people narrowly define jealousy as opposed to the much broader components of jealousy that I and some others feel are valid subcomponents. Even if one takes the narrower view of jealousy and the erotic power of all of the individual components mentioned individually, you still end up with the same result - that feeling, that indescribable erotic excitement and conflicting emotions that are so torturesly delicious and drive us nuts in love and lust for our women.

Compersion is not the be all and end all nor sole or central reason for all men, but it is that 'feeling' that so many men have can't quite describe or express.

Like you, I find it resonates powerfully with most men that have read it with little dissent - that in itself says a lot that it can't be too far off base :-)

Regards,
TriangleTangle

[54321]

Compersion, comsmerschion oi, oi, oi, stop it already!

Although I enjoyed this lengthy discussion, I felt you really hit the spot with your comments on provocation. You and your wonderful wife seem to have got that down to a fine art.

Yes, I would love to see a thread dedicated to it.

Every good wish,


54321

[luxxluthor]

very interesting. thanks for taking the time to write this all out.

"o Why the hell not?"

[HOT4MYWIFE]

Based on your terrific posting, we bought the book "Opening Up" and got it in the mail.yesterday. we are looking forward to reading it together.

Thanks,
J

[TriangleTangle]

I like that book a lot; it leans more towards open relationships and some poly, but I read past those to the best parts - especially the chapters on jealousy and compersion. Cody Alston's book on Hotwifing is the best book I've read dedicated specifically to Hotwifing itself - the rest are very weak other than the Ethical Slut which again, is great generally towards open relationships but doesn't really cover HWing specifically and is getting pretty dated. It would be really cool if there were a book like Alston's dedicated to cuckolding as I still believe there is quite a lot of practical depth left unexplored in most books on the subject and also has certain overlapping aspects with HWing.

Let us know what you think!

TT