"if you will debate with me, you must first define your terms.". I really am trying to figure this need out .. keeps reminding me of the opiate addict (excuse the phrase) saying to the counselor "well at least I don't do ......!" Or the person who drinks a case of beer nightly saying "at least I'm not a wine-o!"
A husband, whose wife has sex with other men, is a cuckold. By definition.... If doesn't matter if you like it, don't like it, agree, disagree, had to beg her to, or found out she cheated, you are married, she fucks other guys, she has bestowed the gift of the title cuckold on you.
Cum eating, is cum eating. Nothing to do with being a cuckold. When I was in the military an older NCO talked about eating his cum out of his girlfriend... Grossed me out... But he wasn't a cuck. Lots of guys out there who dress up like girls... many not married! You want to hide your sissy side behind your wife, or blame her for it .. fine, but it likely would have came out eventually...and it has nothing to do with being a cuckold... Want to suck a guy off... Or just suck a dick? Nope nothing to do with being a cuckold... I know of lots of guys who did time and had sex with other guys,.. "I'm not gay because I was the pitcher not the catcher"..
Same with humiliation, lots of guys out their who would kick their wife to the curve if she cheated ... Love humiliation...
Ok...
Stag v. cuck? A distinction without a difference. If you think that somehow you are not a cuck because you "let her" of you "share her" ... You are not speaking English... If you think you are better then cucks who also have kinks, that's a pretty good way to save your ego ... But one has to ask the question why do you need to draw a distinction..
All above said in kindness and in the spirit of an honest exchange of ideas.
Since I doubt that your goal is the restoration of the original meaning of words or that your motivation is a fanatical devotion to lexicographical purity, I am sure something else moved you to write this missive. What could it be?
You seem troubled by those who seek to establish distinctions in the absence of differences—differences you refuse to either see or acknowledge. I am reminded of the feminist arguments of the 1980's feminists that all sexual intercourse was ......, no matter how much whitewash you slop on it in the form of romance or the sanctity of marriage or mutual consent—the physical act is intrinsically violent and oppressive. What also comes to mind is Karl Marx's delight in bursting the smug Christian factory owner's view that he morally earned his riches, unlike the Jew's money lending, as the labor theory of value proved that those riches were all stolen goods, appropriated from the workers. More recently, the CRT activist informs us that if we are white, we are,
ipso facto, racists; if you claim not to be a racist, you prove that you are. Claiming not to be a racist is racist!
As you see it, a husband who claims to be a stag deceives himself, as he is no more than a cuckold. The dictionary says so, so there. What if the latest edition of the OED or Webster's were to include an entry for "stag" that explicated the distinction by listing the differences? Would that settle the matter? I doubt it. Why? You seek to level, to bring down, to flatten mountains into valleys. How dare some men believe that they are not a lowly cuckold, a husband only worthy of contempt or, indeed, of a
charivari, a public demonstration shame aimed at a cuckold? How dare a stag, in your own words,
"think you are better then [sic] cucks who also have kinks, that's a pretty good way to save your ego ... But one has to ask the question why do you need to draw a distinction?"
Because differences abound. The soldier, the hangman, the murderer, the homeowner who shoots an intruder—all ....... Distinctions arise due to the differences. The differences between a stag and cuck can be physical. The stag might be tall, strong, hung, and totally alpha. The French pornographic actor, Manuel Ferrara, extrudes burly manliness, and he is married to a female porn-star, Kayden Kross. Since she is regularly fucked by other men, this makes Manuel a cuckold, but not wimpy cuck. He is easily twice the man than his competitors, as he is dreamily handsome and jacked and an accomplished martial artist. He is a skyscraper to their second-story houses. He is the apotheosis of a stag. He confidentially lets his wife be fucked by other men; he does not seek a replacements to atone for his inadequacies.
The most important differences are not physical, but nonphysical. The psychological, ethical, societal, and aesthetic overlay, i.e. the Background is radically different. The virgin newlyweds on their wedding night do not partake in a ......, as the Background is the eager consummation of their marriage. The mountain remains a mountain and cannot be leveled. The secret sauce in many stag relationships is that the wife is the sexually lackluster spouse, not the husband. This is an inversion of the typical cuck relationship, wherein the husband is the pathetic one. The secure and robust stag husband hopes to see his wife's sexual standing increase by the extramarital sex.
Somethings are semantically more potent than others, weightier, more significant. We desire the best symbols, a Ferrari, a Steinway piano, a vacation on the Riviera, dinner with someone famous, so that some of his symbolic luster can rub off on us. Poor us, we, too, are symbols. Being a doctor or cop or soldier or husband or wife or hero or criminal—all are well-defined symbols. Everyone we know has precisely evaluated our place in the symbolic hierarchy. Worse than being at the bottom is being nowhere, not being well-defined as a symbol, as this the stuff of suicide and despair. Better to be a known mass murderer or a wimpy cuck than be a nothing, a nobody, a non-symbol.
Being black or trans solidifies you into an acknowledged symbol category, as does being diabetic or jacked (extremely muscled). Symbols, however, deflate and inflate. In the 1950s the lament was that being a Muslim was on the fast track to extinction, as women in Iran and Turkey wore bikinis and the faith was observed faintly; thus, being a Muslim was symbolically weak. Today, it has inflated or, rather re-inflated. Being gay was once spectacularly symbolic-rich. No longer. Today, being gay cannot even muster a yawn.
I once dated a young, supremely sexy women, whose lament was that her ex-husband refused to give her an MMF threesome. Thus, I had the opportunity, but choose not to exploit it. So, why didn't I share my fox of a girlfriend? She came fully sexually-symbolically charged. There was no need to pull her up. Some wives need pulling up, which the stag arrangement allows.