Is it okay to cuck a cuck?

[Penis Drager]

Is it based or cringe to fuck a dude's wife if he wants to watch?

 

[Cup Noodle]

Based.

 

[Vingle]

Don't care, got to cum in something else than a pocket pussy

 

[Chris Chad]

How many cucks could a cuck cucker cuck if a cuck cucker could cuck cucks?

 

[Dr. Ricearoni]

The reason being cucked is bad is because the bull gets all the good and you don't. If being the bull was bad then there'd be no shame in being cucked.

 

[Your Bud]

A cuck gets off when another man fucks their wife. The bull is by proxy getting off the cuck. A man getting another man off is gay. Being gay is cringe. Therefore it is cringe.

 

[Solid Snek]

A cuck gets off when another man fucks their wife. The bull is by proxy getting off the cuck. A man getting another man off is gay. Being gay is cringe. Therefore it is cringe.

Your argument is invalid and unsound.

The bull is getting off the cuck.
The bull is not getting off on the cuck.
Therefore, the cuck, and not the bull, is gay.

Being gay is cringe, so being a cuck is cringe. Obviously, we know cucks are cringe a priori.

But the bull isn't gay, so being gay is cringe is irrelevant.

It's possible that the bull is getting off on the thought of the cuck getting off on him - in which case yes, the bull is gay, and therefore cringe. But the mere act of fucking another man's wife, even if the husband is watching, is not, in and of itself, gay.


I think a stronger argument - one that I and several others have proposed in the past - is as follows:

1. Being a bull is degenerate.
2. Being degenerate is cringe.
3. Therefore, being a bull is cringe.

There's still room for debate; for example, one might dispute the truth of (1), making the conclusion (3) unsound. However, this argument is, at the very least, perfectly valid.

 

[Your Bud]

Your argument is invalid and unsound.

The bull is getting off the cuck.
The bull is not getting off on the cuck.
Therefore, the cuck, and not the bull, is gay.

Being gay is cringe, so being a cuck is cringe. Obviously, we know cucks are cringe a priori.

But the bull isn't gay, so being gay is cringe is irrelevant.

It's possible that the bull is getting off on the thought of the cuck getting off on him - in which case yes, the bull is gay, and therefore cringe. But the mere act of fucking another man's wife, even if the husband is watching, is not, in and of itself, gay.


I think a stronger argument - one that I and several others have proposed in the past - is as follows:

1. Being a bull is degenerate.
2. Being degenerate is cringe.
3. Therefore, being a bull is cringe.

There's still room for debate; for example, one might dispute the truth of (1), making the conclusion (3) unsound. However, this argument is, at the very least, perfectly valid.

While I do agree with your argument, I was trying to be a bit more specific of the degeneracy.

However, I am not convinced that a man getting off another man through consensual acts cannot be gay. For example, when a man is 'gay for pay' they are gay for sucking dick even though they themselves are not getting off.

 

[Cum Laudely]

I thought this question was a layered question as in, one cuck gets the opportunity to cuck a different cuck. If that were the case that would be based and a cuck redemption. But since this question is simpler and it's referencing being the bull it's a mixture of both. You're the dominant one in the triangle, but its also cringe for participating and enabling that behavior.

 

[Solid Snek]

While I do agree with your argument, I was trying to be a bit more specific of the degeneracy.

However, I am not convinced that a man getting off another man through consensual acts cannot be gay. For example, when a man is 'gay for pay' they are gay for sucking dick even though they themselves are not getting off.

I'm not asserting that the bull cannot be gay, merely that the bull is not necessarily gay. Bulling itself is neutral in that regard; while there can be extenuating circumstances in which a given act of bulling becomes gay, it is not, in and of itself, inherently gay.

"Gay for Pay" is gay because it involves penetrative sex acts with another man. In that case, it is not so much the "getting off a man" that makes it gay; rather, it is the specific acts of homosexual sex being performed that are gay.

For example: consider going to the gym.

Every time you go to the gym, it is likely that at least one, and probably more than one, homosexual man is also in attendance. If this man sees you, and fancies you, stares at your sweaty pectorals or whatever, then you've "gotten off a man". But surely, you going to the gym, and happening to be sexy enough to get a gay dude horny, that cannot be in and of itself gay, right? Otherwise, going to the gym would be cringe, and we all agree that is not the case. The only way that going to a gym - indeed, the only way that going to ANY public space, or doing ANY act as a man, that might be seen by a gay (who are notoriously easy to arouse) - could ever be said to be "not cringe", is if we agree that the arousal of another man is not, in and of itself, sufficient to render any given action "gay".

Gayness, I submit, is a product either of personal intention ("I am fucking this wife because I get aroused by the thought of the cuck's pleasure as I do it") or else of a specific, narrow range of explicitly homoerotic sex acts ("the cuck paid me extra to cum in his mouth instead of his wife's"). Merely being observed by a gay while in the act of fucking his wife is no more inherently gay than is being observed by a gay while in the act of exercising at a gym.

 

[Cup Noodle]

How many cucks could a cuck cucker cuck if a cuck cucker could cuck cucks?

A cuck cucker would cuck as many cucks as a cuck cucker could cuck if a cuck cucker could cuck cucks.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

I welcome this debate. Ever since it was determined that traps were in fact gay, there has been a dearth of thought provoking discussion.

 

[Cup Noodle]

I welcome this debate. Ever since it was determined that traps were in fact gay, there has been a dearth of thought provoking discussion.

Hol up. WTF. No.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I wouldn't want some guy watching me do anything, personally.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

I wouldn't want some guy watching me do anything, personally.

Would you be ok with a guy watching you do someone though?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Would you be ok with a guy watching you do someone though?

I figure the guy in this scenario must be kinda gay, and the last thing I want is gay eyes on me.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

It's only based if you NTR him first. Otherwise, it's gay and cringe.

 

[Fucky Chucky]

I'm not asserting that the bull cannot be gay, merely that the bull is not necessarily gay. Bulling itself is neutral in that regard; while there can be extenuating circumstances in which a given act of bulling becomes gay, it is not, in and of itself, inherently gay.

"Gay for Pay" is gay because it involves penetrative sex acts with another man. In that case, it is not so much the "getting off a man" that makes it gay; rather, it is the specific acts of homosexual sex being performed that are gay.

For example: consider going to the gym.

Every time you go to the gym, it is likely that at least one, and probably more than one, homosexual man is also in attendance. If this man sees you, and fancies you, stares at your sweaty pectorals or whatever, then you've "gotten off a man". But surely, you going to the gym, and happening to be sexy enough to get a gay dude horny, that cannot be in and of itself gay, right? Otherwise, going to the gym would be cringe, and we all agree that is not the case. The only way that going to a gym - indeed, the only way that going to ANY public space, or doing ANY act as a man, that might be seen by a gay (who are notoriously easy to arouse) - could ever be said to be "not cringe", is if we agree that the arousal of another man is not, in and of itself, sufficient to render any given action "gay".

Gayness, I submit, is a product either of personal intention ("I am fucking this wife because I get aroused by the thought of the cuck's pleasure as I do it") or else of a specific, narrow range of explicitly homoerotic sex acts ("the cuck paid me extra to cum in his mouth instead of his wife's"). Merely being observed by a gay while in the act of fucking his wife is no more inherently gay than is being observed by a gay while in the act of exercising at a gym.

But could we still agree that knowingly fucking in front of a couple of perverts who's perversions led you to the act would be pretty fucked up and anyone who was willing to do it was degenerate scum?
Could we also agree that what a man and a woman and a donkey and a midget do in front of a camera is their business?

 

[Chocolate Wombat]

Hol up. WTF. No.

The video is wrong.

If a trap is a "girl" who is actually a male that is very feminine seeking to have relations with a straight man then they are gay. In this case they are called a trap because they appear to be woman but aren't, thus trapping a straight man. If traps themselves are effeminate men trying to trick straight men into fucking them they are, by definition, gay.

The response from the trapped guy determines his own level of gayness:

If a guy's out looking for traps then the trap isn't really a trap and he's just gay for effeminate men.
If a guy finds what he believes is a cute uwu girl and discovers "she" has a penis, and then declines further intimate contact he is not gay.
If a guy finds what he believes is a cute uwu girl and discovers "she" has a penis, and continues the intimate encounter he is gay.

 

[Cup Noodle]

The video is wrong.

If a trap is a "girl" who is actually a male that is very feminine seeking to have relations with a straight man then they are gay. In this case they are called a trap because they appear to be woman but aren't, thus trapping a straight man. If traps themselves are effeminate men trying to trick straight men into fucking them they are, by definition, gay.

The response from the trapped guy determines his own level of gayness:

If a guy's out looking for traps then the trap isn't really a trap and he's just gay for effeminate men.
If a guy finds what he believes is a cute uwu girl and discovers "she" has a penis, and then declines further intimate contact he is not gay.
If a guy finds what he believes is a cute uwu girl and discovers "she" has a penis, and continues the intimate encounter he is gay.

I've said this somewhere on the farms before, but IRL if a tranny was convincing enough that I got to the point of discovering the penis I'd still plow her uwu ass and just never give her a call back. I highly doubt that ever happens though.