Psychology of a Cuckold

[Angevin]

It can now be said, and definitely Neandertals. See the 17 Dec. 2010 issue of Science, "Reading the Neandertal Genome," p. 1605, which notes:

"This year, researchers published a draft of the Neandertal nuclear genome .... For the first time, scientists could compare in detail the genomes of Neandertals and of modern humans. Reading this sequence, the researchers concluded that modern Europeans and Asians — but not Africans — have inherited between about 1% and 4% of their genes from Neandertals. Apparently, Neandertals interbred with modern humans after they left Africa at least 80,000 years ago ...."

The clear implication is that some homo sapien women, prior to 80,000 yrs ago, cuckolded their husbands by fucking Neandertal men.

Custer, I don't think the implication is all that clear. Cromagnons were likely adopting neandertals into their kinship groups, especially towards the end when there were too few neandertals to create viable groups on their own. In short, they were simply absorbed. Not saying it didn't happen (I wasn't there) but I can't imagine that cuckolding was the primary source of the neandertal's genetic contribution to modern humans. In fact, if I had to guess, if cuckolding played a role it was the other way around...the neandertal women were breeding with the taller, more aesthetically pleasing, more resourceful, and more numerous cromagnon men.

 

[Doc in Cleveland]

..

HAHAHA

Mac .. that second picture. Whoah. That's fairly iconic.

I just got home from a party. It was so friggin' boring. I had this glass of Tennessee Sour Mash in my hand and I kept saying, "Just drink more, the people will get interesting."

Fail. Didn't happen. Stuck up, uptight white folk.

I wish I could go to a blues bar right now.

Anyways .... thanks, Mac. I laughed real loud at that second animation.

It's amazing some guy on an Internet forum could make me laugh more in 10 seconds than a room full of Ivy League educated people could in three hours.

Doc

..

 

[Pinkyrod]

Pinkyrod,

Regarding your hypothetical situation:

several answers are possible, depending on the outcome of the crash....

—Custer

I like your proposed answers, buddy

I can't imagine what would happen to the male pilot if he was the only male survivor in the plane crash (let say it was a 10 seated private jet) with all other passengers were female from a modelling agency. No one was killed or injured, and the tiny Pacific island has many coconut trees and a small pond of fresh water. I think a typical cuckolding psychology can not be applied under this condition.

 

[UKResearcher]

I have a story posted on the literary erotica site which fairly closely follows this theme. It's called 'South Seas' and describes events when a husband and wife, together with three crew members are shipwrecked on an isolated Pacific island.

 

[Susan's Slave]

Just finished reading a sci-fi book that speaks directly to your article. The title is Manifold Origin and it is part of a series by Stephen Baxter. The Flint Journal reviewed it and said, "Armed with degrees in both mathematics and aeroengineering research, Baxter has the scientific and intellectual clout to present a compelling premise of evolution."

I picture him as somewhat of a cross between Custers Laststand and Saraha!

 

[Custer Laststand]

Cro-Magnons —> "EEMHs"

One doesn’t seem to see references to the Cro-Magnons much anymore — so, who were they, and where have they gone? Wikipedia has an article on them, here:

Cro-Magnon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which includes:

“The name derives from the Abri de Cro-Magnon (French: rock shelter of Cro-Magnon, the big cave in Occitan) near the commune of Les Eyzies-de-Tayac-Sireuil in southwestern France, where the first specimen was found. …. etc ….”

“The term 'Cro-Magnon' soon came to be used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe. By the 1970s the term was used for any early modern human wherever found …. etc …. However, analyses based on more current data concerning the migrations of early humans have contributed to a refined definition of this expression. Today, the term 'Cro-Magnon' falls outside the usual naming conventions for early humans …. etc …. Current scientific literature prefers the term 'European Early Modern Humans' (or EEMH), instead of 'Cro-Magnon'. The oldest definitely dated EEMH specimen with a modern and archaic (possibly Neanderthal) mosaic of traits is the Cro-Magnon Oase 1 find, which has been dated back to around 45,000 calendar years before present.” [End of quote.]

The implication seems to be that Cro-Magnons were a minor variant of Homo Sapiens (us), which date back about 200,000 years before present (according to the Wikipedia article on Homo Sapiens). One doesn’t “hear much about them” anymore because their name has segued into “European Early Modern Humans” (EEMHs).

Note the last sentence in the paragraph before last: “The oldest definitely dated EEMH specimen with a modern and archaic (possibly Neanderthal) mosaic of traits is the Cro-Magnon Oase 1 find… etc.” suggests interbreeding between Neanderthals and “pre-Oase 1” Cro-Magnons, or perhaps between Neanderthals and “pre-Oase 1” Homo Sapiens. One might wonder, if the latter occurred, whether that may have resulted in Cro-Magnons who differed somewhat, but not greatly, from us modern Homo Sapiens... but that's speculation. Re. Homo Sapiens and how long we've been "around," see:

Archaic Homo sapiens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which includes:

“Anatomically modern humans appear [in the fossil record] from about 200,000 years ago and after 70,000 years ago (see Toba catastrophe theory) gradually marginalize the ‘archaic’ varieties.”

For an interesting article on the catastrophic volcanic super-eruption Toba in Indonesia, referred to by subd in his post of yesterday (above), which occurred 73,000 ± 4,000 years before present and is thought to have inflicted a “genetic bottleneck” for our Homo Sapien ancestors (who barely survived… it was a close call for us humans), see:

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pinkyrod]

it is not much informative as dirty information.

Aadesh
_____________
Chicago tile
Chicago remodeling

Excuse me buddy, would you mind to lick clean the Chicago tiled floor in this forum site as it was being made dirty by cum from the guy who had fucked your ass (ads / advert) yesterday?

 

[KingDavid]

Cro-magno man

>>>This might be off subject a bit, but I read an indepth article about the Cro-Magnum man one day while waiting in a doctor's office.

Hey Mac, right-off topic but so interesting I can't help adding to your comment. I've dedicated years of research on this subject so the info I am about to add is pretty legit:

Scientist are convinced now due to discovered evidence that there was a time in this planet when 2 different human species lived. One was the Neanderthals or commonly called "Cave men", and the other was the humans. Humans therefore do not come from Neanderthals, contrary to Darwin. otherwise there is no way to explain how come the 2 species coexisted. Humans just showed up on earth!

I firmly believe that our kids should not be taught at school a theory presented as the truth. The real answer is that "WE DON'T KNOW", because the truth is that we really dont know...Do you know after all the big hoopla about Darwin's theory, so far only a couple of jaws of monkeys is the only concrete proof found?

In the interest of somehow coming back to topic, I imagine that in those pre-historic times, probably bigger men just grabbed your wife and fucked her in front of you and there was nothing you could do about it.

 

[Angevin]

In the interest of somehow coming back to topic, I imagine that in those pre-historic times, probably bigger men just grabbed your wife and fucked her in front of you and there was nothing you could do about it.

I doubt it was always that simple. By the time we're talking about humans and very likely neandertals both had "societies" which is to say that they lived in groups and probably had to play by certain rules. You might be the biggest, toughest dude but if you went around "taking" the other males' women they'd bum rush your ass and brain you with a mammoth bone. I'm betting that the leaders of the groups were not always the biggest and the strongest. (although probably more so among neandertals than with humans given the fact that the environment they thrived in demanded being strong and tough more than being clever and inventive) The kind of thing you're talking about probably happened when one group came into conflict and conquered another (and I'm not sure it's really changed much even if it is more subtle and time consuming now)

That said, if you want to go back further to earlier hominids then yeah, you had the bull male that ruled the roost just like modern gorillas. You are right though in that we can only theorize. The above is my theory.

 

[Custer Laststand]

Yes Virginia, it's happening... and this is how evolution proceeds.

Scientist are convinced now due to discovered evidence that there was a time in this planet when 2 different human species lived. One was the Neanderthals or commonly called "Cave men", and the other was the humans.

Many species of pre-Homo Sapien hominids evolved over a time period now known to have been approximately 6 million years (at least). Homo Sapiens (modern humans), as well as Neanderthals, begin appearing in the fossil record relatively recently from about 200,000 years ago in the case of Homo Sapiens.

Humans therefore do not come from Neanderthals, contrary to Darwin. otherwise there is no way to explain how come the 2 species coexisted. Humans just showed up on earth!

Our human ancestors definitely did not "just show up" on earth.

Those determined to dismiss the theory of evolution seem always to view themselves as "disproving Darwin," as if no further research has been conducted and nothing further has been learned since he published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. Such folks also seem never to acknowledge that Alfred Russell Wallace (1823 - 1913) independently proposed essentially the same thing, from his own studies, at almost the same time such that he can be regarded as a co-discoverer of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is about as close to truth as scientists ever come. It is the basis of all modern biology, and can be observed occurring, for instance, among micro-organisms in real time under microscopes. (More on this below.)

Homo Sapiens did not "come from" Neanderthals, as you correctly state, nor has the theory of evolution ever claimed that modern humans "came from" apes. That's a widespread misconception. Rather, these different species... perhaps a different subspecies, in the case of Neanderthals... evolved in parallel.

I firmly believe that our kids should not be taught at school a theory presented as the truth.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a theory. If someone presents a new idea that seems to explain how a natural process works, supported by some evidence, that's a "conjecture." If sufficient evidence is found and/or measured to indicate the conjecture is probably right, it becomes an "hypothesis." Only after massive and convincing quantities of data, measurements, and theoretical analysis demonstrate an hypothesis is true, and no exceptions are found, is it accorded the status of being a "theory."

In other words, when a description of a natural process is accorded the status of being a theory, that means there is such massive and convincing evidence supporting it that it can be considered, for almost all if not all practical purposes, true. But, regardless, research continues with attempts to refine or disprove the theory. So far, the theory of evolution has withstood all attempts to disprove it and it has been refined and advanced in innumerable ways.

The real answer is that "WE DON'T KNOW", because the truth is that we really dont know...

Don't know what?

Do you know after all the big hoopla about Darwin's theory, so far only a couple of jaws of monkeys is the only concrete proof found?

That is absolutely false. Regarding the geologic past, the fossil record presents an astonishingly vast, rich and detailed picture of how life has evolved on our planet. It is consistent with and supported by the theory of evolution, since the earliest micro-organisms now known to have lived 3.5 billion years ago (discovered in an ancient rock formation in western Australia), from which we homo sapiens and everything else now living on the earth have evolved. The total age of the earth and the rest of the solar system is 4.55 billion (plus or minus 45 million) years, so conceivably there is older-still evidence of life yet to be discovered.

Regarding the present: It has not yet been possible to defeat HIV, for example, because the virus evolves so rapidly and in such unpredictably-complex ways that microbiologists have not been able to get ahead of it. All of us had better hope they succeed, though (eventually), because there are and will continue to be a lot more threats of that nature "out there." We humans are at war with the microbes and, because of natural selection and evolution, it is not obvious — not yet, certainly — that we're going to win.

As for us, we humans are evolving as we speak — or rather, type (I suppose I should say). Mutations occur everywhere on a daily basis. They're called "birth defects." The vast majority subject the infants unfortunate enough to have them to severe disadvantages; in many (if not most) cases, they would die without radical and often very-expensive medical intervention. Not infrequently, they die anyway. Every once in a great while, however, a "birth abnormality" occurs that happens to yield some perhaps-very-small advantage to the infant possessing it, thus making it slightly more likely it will be passed along to her or his offspring.

That is how evolution proceeds. In a macro sense, our own continuing evolution is driven by our present environmental conditions which differ dramatically from the environmental conditions our hunter-gatherer ancestors were adapted to.

 

[Doc in Cleveland]

..

I put that line about evolution in the response as a joke. And then Custer joked about my joke. So, keep it in context. I was criticized when I came on the board for being too dry and clinical so .. I have feeble attempts to lighten things up. In addition, my esteemed friend, Mr. Custer, is much better at the biological than me. I'm much more in tune to current "surroundings" than ancient "hereditary" philosophy.

As a scientist, I tend to think of life as a force that pushes forward. Everything in all forms pushes forward from every possible perspective. In the galaxies above, in the seaweed pushing toward light, in the trees reaching to the sun. Always forward. That's what I think Darwin observed. He just saw a tiny sliver of a great iceberg and identified it. He said, "I think this is going on." And it is. But his theories and writings are like me trying to explain to you the color blue if you were blind at birth.

It is all simply beyond us and is maddening to try to figure it out or claim you know your way is right. It's an equation not meant to be solved with just the five senses we have.

Out of all my studies, I would identify Hindu as probably the most likely and logical answer or solution. Everywhere we look, it is the cycle. Always the cycle. Evaporation, Condensation, Precipitation. Cow eats grass. Cow fertilizes grass. Grass grows. Cow eats grass. Everywhere .. the cycle. Always the cycle. So, why would we assume it's absolutely completely different when we die?

And I'm a Protestant Christian. I'm just telling you what I observe as being the most logical.

The greatest scientist, by far, that ever lived proved that there was life after death. Some type, some kind .. of Life.

We can change the shape of energy.

We cannot stop energy.

We cannot start energy.

Doc

..

 

[subd]

>>>This might be off subject a bit, but I read an indepth article about the Cro-Magnum man one day while waiting in a doctor's office.

Hey Mac, right-off topic but so interesting I can't help adding to your comment. I've dedicated years of research on this subject so the info I am about to add is pretty legit:

Scientist are convinced now due to discovered evidence that there was a time in this planet when 2 different human species lived. One was the Neanderthals or commonly called "Cave men", and the other was the humans. Humans therefore do not come from Neanderthals, contrary to Darwin. otherwise there is no way to explain how come the 2 species coexisted. Humans just showed up on earth!

I firmly believe that our kids should not be taught at school a theory presented as the truth. The real answer is that "WE DON'T KNOW", because the truth is that we really dont know...Do you know after all the big hoopla about Darwin's theory, so far only a couple of jaws of monkeys is the only concrete proof found?

In the interest of somehow coming back to topic, I imagine that in those pre-historic times, probably bigger men just grabbed your wife and fucked her in front of you and there was nothing you could do about it.

mmmm Magazine articles... not the best sources even the best of them for anything but the most watered down theories

Going back only 40,000 years there were at least a half a dozen Hominids walking around in tandem that we know about, the variety is to a degree that in all reality if you were to "walk the Earth" in that time frame it would seem a lot like Lord of The Rings

In us we have Cromag (homosapien) genetics Neanderthal genetics and Denisovan DNA and computer simulations indicate that we also have Homo erectus, and Homo habilis Dna in our system It Wasn't Just Neanderthals: Ancient Humans Had Sex with Other Hominids - Technology - The Atlantic Wire

And this is the stark reality as you put it above "they probably just walked around screwing your wife right in front of you"

Now the last migration 78,000 years ago from Africa... well Cuckolding isn't so strange at all because modern Africans are the only branch of Man to contain Zero Dna from these other Hominids Africans have no Neanderthal DNA so this is exactly what happened basically Africans ran around Europe and Asia fucking the shit out of every other monkey mans wives

It's not a "cuckold fantasy" either lol it's the real and it explains a whole lot about racism and why it exists

and just for the record it's even stranger than that

These "Africans" screwed our 4 closest relatives they could breed with but the world was even stranger than that because we had several other close Hominids walking around at the time that were too far removed to breed with that went extinct in the same time period... Homo Florensis for example labeled "hobbit man" in the media and Gigantopithicus a big 10 foot sucker and they probably hunted these almost Fantasy archtype variants to extinction and there are certainly more we don't even know about...

But not to deviate from Cuckolding, it's a gene trait, it was a survival tactic

When other Monkeys are going to screw your wife... if you like it or not, and your choice is be beat to death OR let it happen when your "Highly Intelligent" Neanderthal Brain knows she is not fertile and cleaning her off and planting your seed next...well that's just how 30000 years later a European man comes to still have 4% Neanderthal DNA in his blood and it explains it all, Why desire to lick her afterwards, well to remove his seed, Why take pleasure in things like ****** Bi? Because he wastes his seed on you first of course not your wife, why enjoy him screwing her? Because you can let it happen when she's not really fertile...

That's the reaction... the arousal, that's why typically when a Caucasian Male (part Neanderthal) knows his wife is cheating his sperm production goes up 400% It's biological it's ingrained

 

[KingDavid]

Our human ancestors definitely did not "just show up" on earth.
.

Hello Custer, man, you sound like a smart guy, but it is unfortunate that such smart guy as you are, you don't answer the points directly and instead you go off tangents. For example, if I said that so far the only proofs found to support the theory of human evolution are a couple of monkey jaws, you answer saying everything else, but eventually you are unable to refute that fact. Certainly, the Java man, the Pekin man, and the findings in Kenia, are all from monkeys. A concrete fossil of that mystical "Missing Link" has never, never been found. I will be glad to publish for you the list of all findings, but I risk boring people here to death. Now, I am a scientist, and as a scientist I require proof, and Darwinist don't have it. Why would the age of Earth, and the zillions of evidence in the geological world as supportive proof have anything to do with explaining how humans appeared on Earth?, Please if you are going to answer, answer me with the proof of where humans come from, please nothing else.

And my position is that many Darwinist claim and teach at school, sometimes ignorantly, that their theory is not a theory, but that it is a truth. Who cares what the definition of the word "Theory" is?, if at the end of the day, I was told at school, and my kids were told at school, straight in our faces that "men descent from apes", and the fossil proof was "found in the island of Java".

Now, what I am advocating here is that we revert to reality, and reality is that "WE DON'T KNOW WHERE HUMANS COME FROM". What's wrong with that? I don't have a problem saying that the entire human society is still debating about it. It will be a definite opportunity for that outdated 18th century Darwinist theory to finally evolve!

 

[Pinkyrod]

....Now, I am a scientist, and as a scientist I require proof, and Darwinist don't have it....

I thought I am the only scientist here...lol
Well done, KingDavid and Mac...

 

[Custer Laststand]

KingDavid,

Hello Custer, man, you sound like a smart guy…

Thanks. Unfortunately, saying “I’m a smart guy, and…” would be unlikely to lead to winning any sort of debate. Sensing that, I’ve never tried it.

It is unfortunate that …. you don't answer points directly. For example, if I said so far the only proofs found to support the theory of human evolution are a couple of monkey jaws…

You did say that…

…you answered saying “everything else,” but eventually you were unable to refute that.

In rebutting your assertion, I did not say — nor could I possibly have said — “everything else.” Rather, I merely stated a few obvious points. They can be compared to the support (none) you offered for your assertion.

…. A concrete fossil of that mystical "Missing Link" has never been found.

Nor need it ever “be found.” As I pointed out, the idea that according to the theory of evolution humans “descended” from apes is a misconception, albeit a widespread misconception. What are now “us humans” and the apes who live today have evolved in parallel.

Now, I am a scientist…

Yeah, yeah… and I’m Nicolas Sarkozy, amusing myself in my spare time by typing in this forum.

…and as a scientist I require proof

You have it. You dismiss it out of hand, because it doesn’t accord with your preconceived notions.

…and Darwinist’s don't have it. Why would …. the zillions of evidence in the geological world, as supportive proof, have anything to do with explaining how humans appeared on Earth?

Um… the “zillions of evidence?” I thought you said you were a scientist. In any case, if by “the geological world” you mean the solid earth, that’s most of it. Its relevance is, that’s where most of the evidence is preserved of past life and the times when evolving life forms lived. Not incidentally, more recently DNA analysis has yielded convincing evidence of the evolution of species, including our own.

Please if you are going to answer, answer me with the proof of where humans come from, please nothing else.

I did. In response to your assertions that “We don’t know [where humans came from]”, and “a couple of monkey jaws are the only concrete proof [of the theory of evolution]”, my reply: “That is absolutely false.” was followed by 3 paragraphs of supporting facts. In support of your assertions, by contrast, you offered nothing.

My position is that many Darwinists …

As a “scientist,” you must know that “positions” have nothing to do with data. And, “Darwinists?” Again, this assumption that biological science has not advanced since 1859…

Who cares what the definition of the word "theory" is?

If you’re a scientist, as you claim, you should care a lot. And, everyone should care who is ****** to listen to the endless (now centuries-long) drumbeat from religious fundamentalists that the theory of evolution “isn’t true,” rather it is “just a theory,” and that’s the extent of their argument.

Incidentally, why is it the theory of evolution is the only solidly-proven description of the natural world that’s endlessly and tediously blasted by religious fundamentalists because it’s “just a theory”?

For instance, why don’t religious fundamentalists step off cliffs at scenic viewpoints, being convinced they would float pleasantly in the air and not fall to their deaths, because they’re convinced gravitation is “just a theory”? The theory of gravitation, of course, is supported by convincing evidence, but — just as clearly to those who look — the theory of evolution is likewise supported by convincing evidence. Is this a matter of, “I have eyes but I cannot see…”?

…. At the end of the day, I was told at school, and my kids were told at school, straight to our faces, that "men descended from apes” and the fossil proof was "found on the island of Java.”

At the risk of being repetitive, if — as you say — you’re a scientist, you could have done your children’s teacher a favor by pointing out (reasonably) that humans and apes have evolved in parallel, not sequentially. You could also have pointed out that the evidence for evolution, including human evolution, is found in innumerable places worldwide (not to mention in laboratories), not just in Java — although, no doubt, it’s found there too.

Now, what I am advocating here is that we revert to reality, and reality is: "WE DON'T KNOW WHERE HUMANS COME FROM.” What's wrong with that?

Plenty. Fortunately for humanity, our knowledge of the world around us, including our knowledge of human origins, has evolved (one might say) rather substantially, and continues to move forward rapidly, since Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859.

I don't have a problem saying the entire human society is still debating about it.

If that’s what you say, you’re misinformed.

—Custer

 

[KingDavid]

Gosh Custer, you made me go through the whole pain of reading your loooong answer. But I did give you the courtesy of reading it all, which I don't think many people will do. However, you could have just made it much shorter and less painful if you had just said "NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, I AM GOING TO COME UP WITH ANY EXCUSE TO REFUTE IT. I AM ALWAYS RIGHT. I HAVE AN ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME TALKING TO ME", and that's it!.... you would have saved a lot of typing!

Now Custer, for goodness, you write all that much, but eventually, what part of "GIVE ME A CONCRETE PROOF OF WHERE HUMANS COME FROM" (specifically the part of PROOF) is not coming across?... Whatever made you believe that saying "DNA analysis has yielded convincing evidence of the evolution of species" is concrete proof?...in other words... concrete proof is: SHOW ME A FOSSIL OF A SPECIES THAT WAS HALF HUMAN AND HALF MONKEY...There isn't one right?...That fossil has never been found right? Why?...Thank you.

And I am far from a religious fundamentalist, lol, I am telling you I am a scientist, and a real one...and Custer... man... Theory of Gravity??... are you serious?...probably Newton was the last person who ever said that... most human beings born after Eintein's Annus Mirabilis have been calling it "Law of Gravity"

Nice meeting you Custer... Perhaps we could have gotten along talking about other subjects.... in the meantime...GOOD BYEEEEE...

 

[Doc in Cleveland]

A few days ago, I had a patient offer me $5000 if I would cuckold him.

 

[Cuckold64]

LmAO! Good one Mac!

 

[Doc in Cleveland]

..

HA!

Mac, I'll tell ya, bud .. this guy is .. he is not healthy right now. He's FIENDING on this fetish hardcore.

It consumes him.

He is the patient I mentioned who proposed to his girlfriend while the woman was having sex with the bull doggy style. He was quite adamant that another man's penis be inside of the woman he was proposing to.

I will admit here .. I paused for just a half a heartbeat ..

Ever since I have started coming here, I started seeking out cuckold porn. You know, simply for research purposes. And that damn stuff is corroding me!

I find it pretty doggone hot, to be truthful!

So, I paused for just a half a heartbeat.

Then I felt terrible about it later.

Doc

..

 

[subhubjon]

Becoming a cuckold...

I think the pleasure I derive from watching my wife with another man, comes from my deep seated feeling of being an inferior male. It began when I was 12 years old and discovered my best friend's cock was nearly twice the size of mine. It was even more painful because he'd just turned 11 and was actually a full 15 months younger than me. This discovery came not long after we'd started a practice of jerking off together in an old abandoned building. At first we each just found our spot leaning against one of the old tables left behind and do our business. One day after a couple of weeks, I glanced over at him and for the first time saw his huge prick. At first I thought it couldn't be, it had to just be the angle or the way he was holding it.

It was hard to focus back on one of the women or girls which I typically dreamed about as I stroked myself. Then I had a new picture to imagine. It was me pulling out a monster cock as I prepared to fuck my favorite cunt. I could see the fear and excitement as her eyes locked on my throbbing prick. It didn't take much of this for me to cum. He'd finished too and I wondered if he'd noticed my little dick. It was late afternoon in mid summer and we agreed that I'd come over to his house as usual after dinner.