Do Coquettes and Sneaky F*ckers explain the male chastity fetish?

Evolutionary psychology explains crapsubs, post nut clarity and male chastity as behaviour modification!

Male Chastity is weird. Malesubs are also weird…

Male chastity is weird. I should know, I’ve spent more than 32 months in near continuous 24/7 chastity. There were a couple of short breaks this summer, but no orgasm. Weirder still, my wife clearly has a strong gut preference to keep me this way, but can’t quite articulate why. Maybe a clue is the often mocked claim that male chastity genuinely modifies behaviour. Can that be true, or is this all — ironically — fap?

Another thing that’s weird is the behaviour of some malesubs. I call them crapsubs, and they’re notorious for getting off and abruptly and dramatically losing interest.

It looks like a combination of male entitlement and self disgust. However, male entitlement doesn’t explain the lack of pragmatism — if you’re cynically treating a woman as a kink dispenser, surely cynicism would dictate at least faking some politeness in order to keep that pipeline open for next time. Nor does self disgust really explain crapsubs with consistent online presences full of intimate selfies. And neither of these explain malesubs who are puzzled by their own behaviour and come seeking advice online. So perhaps there’s a deeper explanation?

Enter the — and I swear this is a technical term — "sneaky fucker".

Sneaky Fucker

Sneaky Fucker is a mating strategy. Mating strategies are inherited — evolved! — sexual behaviours towards which our instincts nudge us.

We are rarely aware of what we're doing! Underlying evolutionary psychological explanations neither validate nor invalidate our actions. Male submission is probably braided from several different strategies, plus other motivations ranging from the sensation seeking, through emotional and psychological, to the spiritual.

But Sneaky Fucker seems to apply here.

Roughly, in Nature, the sneaker fucker is a low status male who fu... reproduces, not by being the super shag 'em all alpha male, but by being really very useful in a non-threatening way.

In the simplest versions, the sneaky fucker ninjas in while the alphas are banging antlers or beating chests, and takes advantage of the female's receptivity — this all sounds very incel, so keep in mind that we're talking animals here, not people.

In the more complex primate version — as far as I can gather, this includes baboons — the sneaky fuckers bond with the females, make themselves useful with grooming, hang around waiting for their chance, then get out before the alpha rips off their heads.

Human Sneaky Fuckers

I’m not a scientist, but doesn’t all this chime with some pretty shitty masculine behaviour?

The fake male best friend who fucks off after than one time you fucked?

The “nice guy” who languishes in the “friend zone”, which he probably built all on his own?

Dozens of male types that project “safe”, but are often too good to be true, ranging from saccharine variations on the hippy archetype, through to more sinister spiritual and community leaders?

More benignly, I think we’ve all seen friends-to-lovers — spouses, really — play out happen as everybody gets older and gentler more domesticated men start looking good.

Even so, ethics and creepiness aside, I don't think Sneaky Fucker is generally very effective for young men. There are just too many other factors and opportunities influencing how young women select partners.

There’s also another thing. Evolution tends to be an arms race.

Enter what I’ll call the Coquette.

Coquettes

If the Sneaky Fucker strategy exists, I think it follows that there’s an evolved female strategy to exploit it.

Remember The Rules? The old-fashioned style of dating, which is really a teasing game that defers sex to keep a suitor interested and compliant and generous. Coquette is the old term for women who weaponise this.

Once again, people don’t always consciously know they are in the grip of a mating strategy. Coquettes may be utterly oblivious to what’s going on — I have so many helpful male platonic friends! — or just think it’s a fun game — Didn’t pay for a single drink last night, lol.

Women in bad situations may have good reasons for consciously adopting this strategy — in the patriarchal past, it was just about the only one available. And, these days, self-reflecting coquettes may often consciously rein themselves in and resist temptation.

Even so, if you look around, you’ll see this behaviour play out amongst ordinary and otherwise decent people.

The Sneaky Fucker Code

So, what would the specifics of these two strategies look like in Humans?

I think the underlying code for Sneaky Fucker might be…

As long as you’re getting hard just a little – indicating progress – be submissive and service-oriented and above-all emasculated. A full erection triggers the End Game. If it indicates a sexual situation, try to score. If it’s spontaneous, that means this has gone on long enough and you should jerk off. Either way, after orgasm, switch to normal behaviour, because an angry alpha may be coming your way and anyway you don’t want to give up any more resources!

I think this explains some otherwise oddly compulsive but not femme-centred Submissive Theatre like sissification and cuckolding, and also exaggerated versions of service that aren’t remotely real service: Mistress make me wear a French maid’s outfit and serve you by licking your boots while your bull fucks you…

Crapsubs Explained

Sneaky Fucker also seems to explain why so many malesubs become crapsubs after orgasm and ghost for the hills!

Yes, they damn well should know better, but perhaps they are in the grip of a really powerful instinct?

(I should be interested to know whether there’s a correlation between being into Submission Theatre and turning out to be a crapsub?)

The Coquette Code

But, wait, women don’t get off free!

I think the code for Coquette is probably the stark…

Exploit Sneaky Fuckers by showing just enough interest to keep them mildly turned on, while minimising your own effort. On encountering an erection, putoff the End Game either by fleeing, or else by ruining the orgasm in some way.

(Once again, please remember that this is often unconscious and perhaps filtered through humour and playfulness. Also, it’s a reasonable response to a duplicitous male strategy.)

This is exactly the behaviour that some submissive married men crave from their wives. They want to be exploited, why won’t she do it?

Because she’s probably the wrong kind of dominant: brusque and pragmatic, and with no time for feminine wiles... which is what attracted him to her in the first place.

The Magic Male Chastity Cage

Now enter the Male Chastity Cage. Here’s what I think is happening:

Male chastity is the supernormal stimulation version – as in unnaturally extreme – of the emasculated posture. Sometimes, the tail wags the dog, so our monkey brain contemplates our de-activated penis that’s nevertheless getting hard from time-to-time, and concludes that we’re doing “sneaky fucker” pretty effectively, and nudges our behaviour accordingly.

What about the masturbation safety valve?

Yes, of course we can defeat the device, but that requires a positive decision and a conscious effort, which first requires us to switch out of the submissive mindset, which we can’t because, No Full Erection.

Whoops. We’re trapped — and that’s not even taking into account sunk cost and the effect of the D/s dynamic!

If we’re ordered to unlock and get off in some way, we get an odd reaction. Maybe we get grumpy and volatile and start behaving like an ass — back to normal, stop being exploited, the angry alpha is coming!

Or maybe, if we are deeply submissive, we feel vaguely distressed and disconnected. That’s my experience.

Supernormal Stimulation for Dominant Women

It seems to me that the male chastity cage can be a fire-and-forget low-effort implementation of the Coquette Strategy, basically Outsourced Coquetry.

Dominant women without the skills or inclination to be coquettes can deploy a chastity device and get the same effect for no or rapidly diminishing effort… which is why those demanding husbands tend to end up more locked than teased.

For a certain kind of dominant woman, the male chastity device is “supernormal stimulation”, in that it takes the limits off what should be a self-limiting drive. There is no end game.

I think this explains why some women — including my wife — feel really compelled to keep their men chaste.

Why Outsourced Coquetry matters

The Outsourced Coquetry matters because it explains what’s going on with some chastity couples.

Obviously, male chastity doesn’t work for all femdom couples, for lots of reasons, including her liking access to his dick! However, Outsourced Coquetry explains why male chastity can create a slope so slipper that it’s almost impossible to climb back up, and how this causes problems if one partner is less in its grip than the other.

More importantly, Outsourced Coquetry also explains why he might feel the need of a chastity cage in order to be properly submissive, and why he can’t just practice device free chastity. It deals with the objection that that’s not “proper submission,” that he’s either making his submission conditional (is that so unreasonable, anyway?), or that he’s submitting to the cage and not to her.

In fact, he’s trying to submit for real by handing over actual psychological power — it’s the difference between him changing the TV channel whenever she asks, with the implicit possibility of negotiation each time, and him just giving her the remote. For somebody who is already submissive, that sort of irrevocable power exchange is deeply attractive.

Of course, malesubs still need to be good boyfriends, partners and husbands with or without the device. However, I think the point of lifestyle submission is that our dominants get to demand something that would otherwise be unreasonable, and that the male chastity device can be an effective means to this end. Merely “decent” is too low a bar…

---