Where does one draw the line of morality for certain fetishes?

It's a therapist's job to listen to very embarrassing things and they're very used to it. Just to make that step a little easier for you

 

Imma be honest, you worry too much. If you worry about someone else being a cuck, here is the thing, they're trying to be happy.

You're worried about your penis size and being demasculinized. But you got hope or despair, pick one.

I think men obsess over dick size, muscle, and masculinity way more than women care about.

There is a dude with a little dick getting laid, passing on their genes, that's why there are still little dicks.

With masculinity, just chill. Naturally pursuing your fulfillment, happiness, purpose, self actualization, passions/interests will unlock your masculinity, BUT you have to try as hard as you can, and more importantly have the patience to give yourself TIME to grow.

For the fetish question, I had to stop watching hentai because there is too much messed up stuff in it for me, personally.

If the fetish bothers your soul THAT much, drop it. OR embrace it if you ain't hurting anyone and you can accept it.

 

There’s a lot of based insight up in here.

I've gone back and forth with what I want to emphasize. Basic morality is a good direction. Addressing the more surface lies of porn and this particular fetish is another. Even if I convinced you that your penis isn't a problem, though, and that would be incredibly difficult because that belief has been continually reinforced through a sexual circuit, your real problem is you believe you are worthless. You think your penis is inherently bad because you believe you are inherently bad. This fetish clicks with you because you already felt like you didn't deserve love, so throw a sexual component on top of that statement and FWOOM!!! Pure NOS injected straight into that engine.

I could go into the lie. I could tell you the humiliation genre is relatively new, seems to have grown up alongside Internet porn. I mean, it existed before, but as a niche subgenre for weirdos. Now it's somehow one of the biggest, and you can see how it's split into even more niche subgenres. Go look at the topics here in Problematic Sexual Behavior, most of them are dealing with some form of humiliation. I could tell you in the real world, the non-porn world if that even exists anymore, use is so high they kind of bleed together more than ever, but in the real world where real women have real sex, bigger is not better. Ask them in a non-porn, non-fetish context, the ones who have actually experienced a big one and/or a smaller than average one. They say a big one is novel at first, but gets to be a hassle and most small ones do the job just fine. I've read a minority of accounts that said they were with a guy that was too small, but even these are split. Some say that PIV part is important, they need that for satisfaction, and others? They actually appreciate a guy who knows his own limits and makes up for it by other means. I won't get graphic but PIV isn't the only way to get a woman off. UNIVERSALLY speaking, every single account I have read in a non-porn, non-fetish context, says personal connection is more important to a woman's sexual satisfaction, that is, the amount of pleasure she experiences during foreplay and intercourse, than the size of his wang. Now, I know the excuse you're thinking because I didn't believe it at first either. "They're being nice, they're lying to make us feel better about something we can't control. That's very sweet of them but I'd rather face the facts."
Really? They're all lying?
I mean, it contradicts what you've heard from those lingerie clad vixens in their heavy makeup and heels, in their breathy, moaning voices... but who do you think is more likely to be telling the truth? The women who are asked a simple question about what they prefer? Or the women who are dressed to please men, styled to please men, handed a script, and paid to perform in front of a camera? Where do you think you're going to find the truth, in a woman's magazine written and edited by women, for women, addressing a topic they want to share for the benefit of other women? Or a sketchy Internet forum dedicated to a kink, where everyone is anonymous and can write their fantasy from any perspective they choose?
I could appeal to history. Look at the Greeks, the Romans. Look to the Egyptians. Look at their literature, look at their art. These are conquering cultures, hyper-masculine. At times, intensely sexual. Unlike us they worshiped a pantheon of gods and goddesses, all hyper-idealized incarnations of the human form. How big are the penises on their statues? We've recovered and restored hundreds of them. I don't know, maybe thousands. What about Eros, the og sex god, the ultimate incarnation of male sex. How big is that dick? Not very. We make fun these days of Michelangelo's David for his proportionally small tool, that is us projecting modern, pornography informed values onto an older piece of art. I've heard a theory that it was supposed to be small, to indicate David was retracted, this is a moment of fear for him. The critic should have had a better understanding of Michelangelo's artistic and cultural context. David has a small wiener because up until the advent of modern photography, nobody, male or female, cared much about dick size. Go back to those ancient sculptures, who does have big dick? Pan, god of nature and wilderness who is half goat and a prototype for the image of a more modern Satan, and Priapus, god fertility, not sexual pleasure, who was cursed with a permanent boner. Big dick energy meant something entirely different to these ancient people. Big dick energy was bestial, comical, and a little pathetic to them. Oh how we've turned the stereotype on its head. If women got more pleasure out of a big dick, you'd expect a high value on it to be a constant across time and culture. After all, female anatomy hasn't changed. Instead, like I said, we suddenly started admiring big dick only after the camera was invented. Porn screwed you over.
And oh, how about that female anatomy? It backs everything I've said here. The nerve endings, the pleasure centers, are all fairly shallow in that genital area. All you need is a few inches to hit everything they want. So again, even if you're micro, you have the capacity to please your mate. Lesbians do it all the time, and they don't have a dick at all.
I have seen one guy here, @+TenPercent , that is quite adamant that some guys can be too small and he's one of them. My heart goes out to him, because he has a deeply traumatic personal experience reinforcing this belief, and I strongly believe it is because the woman he was with knew about his insecurity and used it against him. There are sadists out there, or Machiavellian users, I don't know which she was but I think she lied to him to get what she wanted. Maybe to justify her own selfishness. I understand how one personal, emotional experience can overturn all the clear headed reasoning in the world, how abstract theories and explanations mean nothing against the facts on the table. However, I have presented an argument from anatomy, and argument from art and history, and an argument from female testimony that says you were lied to. I don't expect you to believe it right away, and it's not even the core issue, as I said. I think I insisted on bringing this all in in detail, though, because if you can entertain the thought that porn lied to you about the female sexual experience (which it does, without question), maybe it will help you understand it could have lied to you about your own worth.

There's another component you specifically ask about; the morality of the fetish.

The responses here have been some arguing from a Western concept of morality, some more vaguely Eastern, some even more vague than that. One response says humiliation is moral, I'd disagree, but even that says the cuck fetish is not because it breaks up marriages, we're all agreeing that consent, the governing ethic cited by libertines, is inadequate. You mentioned

and

I'm similar to you. I'm picking up that "raised Christian, now in doubt" vibe from you, but maybe that's projection because that's me. So let's walk back and look at the "consent" angle. If we agree to it, it's not bad. Humiliating talk, that's okay because we consent, and you can escalate from there, all the way to live cannibalization and murder. It's happened, and it was done with consent. The thing is, I think it's common knowledge now that an abused woman will often deny she is abused and defend her abuser. She has been thrown into a psychological prison, and will now consent to things that clearly, physically harm her and even her children. Any police officer, emergency room staff, and social worker knows she is beyond help and will continue to consent until she is broken out of that psychological prison, and we instinctively know this is not okay. I don't think we need the rigorous standards of academic level Philosophy and Ethics to see that and just know it's wrong. So, if a battered woman can consent and even fiercely defend her abuser, we can see that consent is an inadequate sexual and moral ethic. It's a good one, it's great, we need it to be part of our legal and moral repertoire, and not all cultures have enjoyed it so we should be grateful. But consent is not the end, it's not enough. To further explore this, if some woman can be persuaded to consent to being raped and beaten, seemingly both according to and against her will, is it not possible that you could be persuaded to consent to a psychologically harmful fetish and accept it, seemingly according to and yet also against your will?

Circling back to this part

I'm going to support @Roady 's very Christian, so admittedly biased but I believe very based assessment

Science tries really hard to find truth and when properly applied, does a stellar job of it. And yet, science is done by humans and if we know anything about humans, it's that all of us are flawed and biased. The number of times "science," read human scientists, have been dead wrong about stuff and had to walk it all back, or more typically, sweep that mess under the rug and pretend it never happened, is... a really big number. If I gave you a solid one I'd be pulling it out of my butt, which is a thing scientists do too often, but at least I'm in the humanities and neither aspire to nor pretend to have hard data. It's an unknown number and it's massive.
However, science can tell us what happens when people have sex and from that information, we can make a guess at what it's for. I ranted about this not long ago in a thread about the trans fetish which, by the way, is frequently associated with humiliation, but the Tl;dr version relevant to this conversation is thus.
When humans have sex, sometimes we get pregnant. But every time, we get a big dose of bonding hormone that reinforces a relationship with that person on a chemical level. Humans have a lot of other quirks about them that make reproduction very dangerous and very costly, especially for the mother, and humans have a comparatively long, long maturation period where a juvenile physically and culturally develops. We have to spend a long time teaching them to secure resources for themselves, and how to interact and cooperate with others. Consequently, human sex is for reproduction, and for pair bonding, to help the parents share resources and complete that reproduction phase over a decade after birth. And even then, humans continue to have relationships between parents and children, and we can observe how children find it traumatic that their parents split even after they can sustain themselves. It speaks to fundamental truths we believe about how to act socially, our parents splitting breaks a sacred bond.
The urge to reproduce is primal and emotional and easily hijacked by other emotions. I think this is why so many psychological problems manifest with a sexual component, and why it's so hard to break them. So, in a sense I don't think any sexual practice outside of reproduction and pair bonding is strictly natural, and I think when we practice sex outside of those parameters, there are negative consequences. Trans is not a natural sexual orientation, neither is being a sub in whatever twisted incarnation of a BDSM game it is that you play. There are mutations that can mess up a person's gender identity, just like there are mutations that can mess up your heart or your brain or your GI tract, and there are some physical explanations for why some people are same-sex attracted and will consequently not be prone to using sex in a reproductive capacity. Sex is still designed to pair bond partners.

The cuck thing is something akin to the polar opposite of pair bonding. It glorifies anti-pair-bonding through promiscuity, at the expense of the relationship but the weird thing about the entire fetish is, if this is what the female really wanted and she really believed her mate was of such low value, she wouldn't be with him. She'd leave. And unless she was a sadist, which admittedly there are some, she wouldn't abuse her mate. I mean think about it, that takes so much work. And I know it seems like you've been reading stuff that says it was all her idea, but trust me, I've looked into it because my kink was investigating female pleasure; it's always his idea. He's the one asking to be humiliated, not her looking to abuse a man she fell in love with. The women involved typically don't pick their partners, and they don't enjoy being touched by strangers because remember, from up there, earlier? Personal connection is more important to women than the nuts and bolts of sex (pun absolutely intended). The kink portrays very specific, nonsensical behavior and the entire thing screams "unnatural, psychologically induced trauma fetishizing and reliving male sexual anxiety."

What is ethical? What is the moral line? Science can't tell you that. Science can only tell you haw things work, or sometimes how they break. It's inadequate to tell you what you should or shouldn't do. You are going to have to turn to philosophy and/or religion for that. If you're questioning God, you can at least know people suffer. Some more than others. Some suffering is voluntary. Sometimes we trade suffering, we suffer a little in one way to mitigate it in another, and perceive a net reduction. Sometimes we suffer for others. Sometimes we mess up and cause suffering for ourselves when it was entirely unnecessary. Murder, rape, abuse, it's all evil because it causes suffering, unnecessary suffering. Selfishness is evil because it says "I will reduce my suffering by disproportionately increasing yours." Or causing someone else to suffer without recompense, even if done out of ignorance, we name that "evil." When someone reduces suffering, we call it "good," or "moral." If this humiliation thing was reducing your suffering, I'd say it was moral. It isn't.

Even if you were a permanent screw-up, rubbing your face in it is unnecessary. If you were a permanent screw-up, the best course of action would be to isolate you in a way that made it so you wouldn't make others, and hopefully yourself, unnecessarily suffer. Going back to you, again and again, and again, yelling in your face about how worthless you supposedly are, accomplishes nothing.

The moral thing is to be the best version of yourself. Maybe that version isn't very good, in your estimation. Maybe you have high standards. Maybe "not a serial killer" is too low a bar for you to accept as a good person. Well, okay then. What is a good person? And what can you do today to get a little closer to that person? Don't compare yourself to your ideal. I think you'll always fall short, and that's okay. It's okay to have ambition. Your comparison game isn't about ambition, though, it's about reinforcing a bad belief, a belief that you are incapable of improving. That's why, I think, the myth about big dick is such a potent one; it's something permanent that you can't change about yourself, but is still supposedly part of your inherent value.Your personal value isn't permanent. It can change. You can change your values, to understand that you are acceptable the way you are, and/OR you can change yourself to become closer to someone you can accept.
Roady, @modernstore99 , so many of these guys have unraveled the lies about their self-worth, but breaking porn addiction was part of that. That doesn't work all in a day. Neither is quitting porn a magic bullet. I quit porn, for all intents, and I still have a lot that's wrong with me. But at least I quit porn, and at least you can quit porn, and you can work on that today. You are here, asking questions, working on it, today. That is better than succumbing to the lie and embracing a twisted "identity."

I think, honestly, one of the things that keeps a person trapped in the humiliation cycle is that it enables laziness. If you're truly worthless, then no one can be justified in expecting you to do anything or be anything of value. It's tough to quit porn. It's very, very difficult. It causes suffering. It's easier to wallow in it and say "I don't have to try because I'm a loser, it's who I am, I can't do any better than this." Yes, you can. That's the truth, and maybe the one you're most scared of. If you aren't an inherent loser, that must mean you chose this at some point, and you are continuing to choose this.
Wipe the slate clean. The past you made his choices, and whether or not you like them now, there were reasons for it. It's understandable why. You might not understand now, but the reasons are at least knowable. But they were poor choices and you have to deal with the consequences. Now is the time to begin making choices that will reap positive consequences for your future self. Suffer today, to reduce suffering... not tomorrow. Your suffering is going to increase tomorrow, I'm sorry to say, if you quit porn. It's going to increase, and it's going to stay high for at least a month, maybe two. But your suffering now will open you up to a potentially bright and glorious future, an adventure where you have no idea what will happen. If you don't quit, if you take the easy way and wallow in your addiction, things will only get worse, suffering will only increase, and that is no adventure. That's a guaranteed disappointment.