/cuckquean/ - Women Sharing Their Men

>>2132

Maybe I just got the interpretation wrong, petplay on it's own I was thinking was pretending to be an animal but master/pet is like a human pet.

>>2133

>but master/pet is like a human pet.

A human pet that acts like a non-specific animal?

I'd imagine that is more or less petplay but as a dog (minus the paw-bondage shit and maybe the barking/ears/tails).

I must admit I did not think of the distinction between petplay and master/pet in those terms.

>>2135

>>2133

It's a bit silly. These things, as I understand it, were made basically to shit up 4chan/soc kink threads. Maybe not specifically to make them worse, but before they started showing up, people would write shit out. I guess someone got tired of easily readable kink threads, though, and made up one of these and they caught on because you could save them and just repost them every time a kink thread came up.

Dunno if you've ever been in those particular threads, or that board, but there's a huge leaning toward petplay and DDLG. So I guess it reared its head twice on these things because the guy that made this one up really wants to split hairs about it.

I would also say that with its proximity to Master/slave it can be considered a tamer version of Master/slave without devolving into tailplugs and cat ears.

>>2138

That probably makes a lot of sense.

It's basically a template version of fetlife (though with a much less annoying colour scheme) and fetlife is notorious for having arguments over the finer points of each fetish.

Indeed was cuckqueaning not involved in such an argument? (compersive vs humiliation)

In an unrelated note I never really got the thing for ears and certainly not for the paw-bondage nonsense. Tailplugs I can understand because who hasn't wanted to fucking a girl with a tail?

>>2139

I really dislike fetlife. I'm not sure if it verges on hate, though. I do think that it is an appropriate place for making nuanced distinctions between niche kinks, so I'm not sure that's something against it.

It is massively pretentious. As a single guy with no friends and especially no fetish contacts, I'm about as welcome there as…I can't think of a good analogy. No one wants me there. That's fine, but it took a while to get the message.

Master/pet and Petplay (and Daddy/little, which I put in the same class) are so popular because guys-who-aren't-doms get submissives that take little effort to control. For the girls, it's all about accessories. They get to brag to their friends about the new ears or collar or plug or dress or whatever daddy just bought them so they're happy.

>>2140

>It is massively pretentious. As a single guy with no friends and especially no fetish contacts, I'm about as welcome there as…I can't think of a good analogy. No one wants me there. That's fine, but it took a while to get the message.

There's nothing pretentious about that. Fetlife is pretentious in other ways, but single contactless men being spurned is downright normal both inside the scene and outside. It's normal because being a single, friendless, contactless man often correlates with having no interaction worth. Git gud and use Fetlife as a gateway to offline interaction, where you'll be able to prove yourself worthy by virtue of your charisma and competence.

>>2140

>Master/pet and Petplay (and Daddy/little, which I put in the same class) are so popular because guys-who-aren't-doms get submissives that take little effort to control. For the girls, it's all about accessories. They get to brag to their friends about the new ears or collar or plug or dress or whatever daddy just bought them so they're happy.

Makes a lot of sense really. It's easy to just pretend-play the roles (particularly dd/lg) without actually committing. Not that that's the case of all relationships of that sort but it certainly seems to be more prone to that than others.

>>2141

I'd think that if someone is willing to meet irl after talking on fetlife they aren't worth any sort of long-term relationship (I do realise that is rather hypocritical but whatever).

>>2140

Sure analysis of other peoples' fetishes hasn't been distorted by that salt in your eyes?

>>2142

>I'd think that if someone is willing to meet irl after talking on fetlife they aren't worth any sort of long-term relationship (I do realise that is rather hypocritical but whatever).

The hypocrisy isn't even the real problem, the problem is how you've neatly framed it into an excuse for doing nothing because failure's automatically built in. Which is a shame, because there's nothing more attractive than a person who constantly sabotages themselves with excuses and spurious judgements designed to maintain their status quo.

>>2143

>The hypocrisy isn't even the real problem, the problem is how you've neatly framed it into an excuse for doing nothing because failure's automatically built in. Which is a shame, because there's nothing more attractive than a person who constantly sabotages themselves with excuses and spurious judgements designed to maintain their status quo.

I've met people through the internet before but not someone I've met through a website dedicated to rather strange fetishes and would not want to date somebody who would be willing to do so.

>>2143

>Sure analysis of other peoples' fetishes hasn't been distorted by that salt in your eyes?

100%. I didn't get salty just because I had to struggle a bit to realize the website wasn't for me.

Are you that guy that thinks pet play/little-ism is some magical form of super-love that transcends traditional definitions of love? Because you sound a little hostile over my simplification of those things.

>>2144

>I've met people through the internet before but not someone I've met through a website dedicated to rather strange fetishes and would not want to date somebody who would be willing to do so.

Those two groups of "people on the internet" and "people on a fetish website" are the same two groups. The people on the fetish website are just being more open about they want, including turning you down because you aren't some super-futa from Mars that likes to piss on dogs.

>>2145

>The people on the fetish website are just being more open about they want, including turning you down because you aren't some super-futa from Mars that likes to piss on dogs.

I'm not the anon who is angry at fetlife nigger.

I've never even bothered trying to meet someone from it but browsing the average group on there will confirm what that other guy said about it having problems.

>>2145

>Are you that guy that thinks pet play/little-ism is some magical form of super-love that transcends traditional definitions of love? Because you sound a little hostile over my simplification of those things.

Nah, I also think that a lot of the public faces of petplay/ddlg dynamics firmly fit into "lame" but my working theory is that lame people and people who treat sexuality as a performance strongly overlap. Petplay/ddlg don't have a monopoly on this, it's just that they're the trendy thing right now so the performers gravitate to them.

The people with a solid handle on things don't tend to perform over social media, whether that media is Tumblr or Fetlife or Facebook, because they aren't shallow narcissists. Halfchan/d/'s BDSM general (or whatever they're calling that thread these days) is a great example of that kind of identity inflation in action, where it's more obvious thanks to the background anon environment.

Likewise, someone explaining those same dynamics in terms derived from only watching the narcissists perform right after complaining that they couldn't get anything out of Fetlife smacks of sour grapes. But now I understand how you reached the conclusions you did. Just remember that what you're really identifying is a symptom of lame people, not the fetishes themselves.

>>2149

That's quite a helpful explanation actually.

Why is it petplay/ddlg is so popular right now (if you know)?

>>2152

>femdom on /cuckquean/

I hope you mean like being forced into fucking other women.

>>2153

But of course

>>2155

… Is that just pururin's contents tags?