Is BDSM inborn or made ?

[KoPilot]

Oops, as has been pointed out to me, my own post did a fine job of making me look like a fool, as the first two links are actually pro-evo-psych. Oh well. Anyone worth listening to doesn't take evo-psych seriously anyways. And I have better things to do this morning than root around for sources proving wrong some pseudo-science anyways... like minecraft.

 

[Sir Victor]

Let me make it clear that I have not made any claim to support "evo-psych" in any complete or in depth way. You and several others have leaped to that conclusion. The behavior that I am talking about is very simple, basic, and is seen in most animals. No complex theory is required to suggest that humans as animals would also likely exhibit this behavior.

Yes, I would agree that you are making a fool of yourself. I simply offered the links up for consideration, never tried to force my opinion on anyone, yet it is you who insists you are correct. Have you studied epistemology in any depth? Quick now, run and google it, then come back and claim you are an expert!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Two questions: what, exactly, did Etoile apologise about?

and is English your first language?

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Two questions: what, exactly, did Etoile apologise about?

and is English your first language?

It's not the comment about the apology that I laughed at, but the one where she apparently admitted she was wrong.

From my understanding, she pointed out quite clearly that she understood his POV, but did not agree with it, and thus ended the debate.

 

[welkin]

what is the evo-bio stuff that created a patriarchal society, welkin?

Well, the male is more aggressive, usually physically more powerful than the female. Which allows them to take the dominant position (not sexually) when humans begin to own properties as they transitioned from foragers to settlers and formed fixed societies. I feel like this is something we can all agree on, no? Then cr*p happened and this male dominant image is reinforced over the millenia and becomes ingrained in our cultural awareness...

That is not to say it made men inherently more dominant in the BDSM sense, but it definitely enabled more men than women to express themselves this way. For why else would there be disproportionately more male doms than there are femdoms?

 

[xperia2995]

Well,
That is not to say it made men inherently more dominant in the BDSM sense, but it definitely enabled more men than women to express themselves this way. For why else would there be disproportionately more male doms than there are femdoms?

yup. I guess there are almost equal number of male and female dominants. But the females are quite hesitant to accept it because of the society's so called 'right and wrong'

f*#k the society, women should boldly come forward.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

*twitch* *twitch* <rant> I detest how people seem to view nature and nurture as an either/or option. EVERYTHING is BOTH. You can't have something develop without the genetic predisposition for or against, and you can't realize genetic potential without the appropriate environment. You could have the genetics of a DEITY and be born with a bazillion defects due to a prenatal toxin. You could have an "ideal" environment and remain as mentally and physically stunted as a pebble if that's what you're coded for. Nature and Nuture are omnipresent factors. No phenotype is caused by one or the other. It's part of the bloody definition!!!</rant>

*ehm* this rant was not a comment on the OP or any particular poster here. Just uh, touched a nerve?

 

[WillowedCabin]

Well, the male is more aggressive, usually physically more powerful than the female. Which allows them to take the dominant position (not sexually) when humans begin to own properties as they transitioned from foragers to settlers and formed fixed societies.

I think it is questionable whether or not the women are weaker than men in context of a society (I realize you weren't attacking women, or their strength, but go with me here). Women statistically have a better sense of taste, smell, and see colors far better than men--so you tell me who makes the better hunter? Mr. big,tall,and clumsy or Ms. smaller,compacter,with better senses? I don't think men ever had a chance. And while I think you can site studies on links between testosterone and aggression, I think you'd be hard pressed to find links between testosterone and violence or need to suppress women.

So what is the cause of the rift between the sexes? Why are women supposedly weaker and suppressed sexually? Culture. A few strong minded idiots can prod the herd into whatever direction they choose. Women can absolutely be dominant and you won't find any research to tell you differently. Mammals learn from their mothers and especially by following Mommy's example. Who else would make a better Dom than a woman who is biologically geared to be followed and nurture? The whole 'there are more dominant men than dominant women' is frankly unfounded statistically and driven by cultural sexism.

Then again, this is all sort of hypocritical moot, as I don't even believe in binary gender...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Human men are indeed more aggressive, generally speaking, than human females-- but it is not always so. And many human men are larger and stronger than most human women-- but the famous aphorism is that there is more variation within the sexes than there is between them-- meaning that there will be many men who are smaller and weaker than other men, many women who are more aggressive and take charge than many women, as well as many men who are by nature less aggressive than many women.

The moment society loosens control on gender roles-- as has happened to a certain extent-- you will see men who seem weak and wimpy by the old standards. They aren't. They just aren't being goaded to be superman all the time. You'll see women who seem mannish and masculine. They aren't-- they just don't feel forced to hold themselves back by societal expectations.

 

[KoPilot]

Let me make it clear that I have not made any claim to support "evo-psych" in any complete or in depth way. You and several others have leaped to that conclusion. The behavior that I am talking about is very simple, basic, and is seen in most animals. No complex theory is required to suggest that humans as animals would also likely exhibit this behavior.

Yes, I would agree that you are making a fool of yourself. I simply offered the links up for consideration, never tried to force my opinion on anyone, yet it is you who insists you are correct. Have you studied epistemology in any depth? Quick now, run and google it, then come back and claim you are an expert!

Boohoo, I've been reprimanded for something that I already admitted fault for. What are you gonna tell me next, that water is wet? Careful, now-- my feelings are very hurt.

 

[CurvAppeal]

I was born with the tendency to serve people of an older age. I never got mad when my mother or father asked me to do something, I enjoyed it. And I aswell didn't mind getting punished either, which was a rarity. I always make my Masters happy. =)

 

[Felix_Jones]

Human men are indeed more aggressive, generally speaking, than human females-- but it is not always so. And many human men are larger and stronger than most human women-- but the famous aphorism is that there is more variation within the sexes than there is between them-- meaning that there will be many men who are smaller and weaker than other men, many women who are more aggressive and take charge than many women, as well as many men who are by nature less aggressive than many women.

The moment society loosens control on gender roles-- as has happened to a certain extent-- you will see men who seem weak and wimpy by the old standards. They aren't. They just aren't being goaded to be superman all the time. You'll see women who seem mannish and masculine. They aren't-- they just don't feel forced to hold themselves back by societal expectations.

Who do I believe? You or my lying eyes?

 

[CurvAppeal]

Human men are indeed more aggressive, generally speaking, than human females-- but it is not always so. And many human men are larger and stronger than most human women-- but the famous aphorism is that there is more variation within the sexes than there is between them-- meaning that there will be many men who are smaller and weaker than other men, many women who are more aggressive and take charge than many women, as well as many men who are by nature less aggressive than many women.

The moment society loosens control on gender roles-- as has happened to a certain extent-- you will see men who seem weak and wimpy by the old standards. They aren't. They just aren't being goaded to be superman all the time. You'll see women who seem mannish and masculine. They aren't-- they just don't feel forced to hold themselves back by societal expectations.

Perfectly written honey, absolutely!

 

[cf23430]

Perfectly written honey, absolutely!

Hi Curv....are you mad at me?

C

 

[LucyH]

I think most people have the capacity to be sadistic if they feel that what they're doing is appropriate. Public hangings used to be entertainment for the whole family. Mob violence, where people lay aside their sense of personal responsibility, can be extremely ugly and apparently people get kind of a rush out of it. Dehumanize the victim, and otherwise civilized people will do awful things. So I think it's entirely reasonable to think that a person could learn at some point in their life to set aside guilt and social conditioning enough to enjoy hurting a willing 'victim' without having been born somehow different.

On the flipside, endorphins feel nice. Seems like something that could be an acquired taste, like beer.

That said, I've been a perv since preschool, at least.

There's a story that still makes me giggle from first grade. The popular girls had a clique called the "kissing girls." They would chase boys at recess and kiss them if they could catch them. I wanted to be popular so I tried to participate in the activity. I chased down a boy who I kind of liked and poked him in the face with a sharp stick before trying to kiss him, and was totally bewildered as to why everybody including the teacher was suddenly mad at me. Needless to say, I didn't become a permanent member of the "kissing girls."

 

[CurvAppeal]

Hi Curv....are you mad at me?

C

No, why would I be?

 

[Skorpion49]

Survival of the weakest

Nature is of course part of the answer. Any dying creature should attempt to procreate, and save its species.
Sounds wierd, but I know there is a ring of truth there. Think about it...I know my sexual awakening came from someplace there.
Nurture? Well we are all influenced by our environment, so that is part of it too. The internet has surely helped many realise they are not that strange, after all. Whatever turns you on. Consenting adults, of course.

 

[Mmmmmm06]

No idea. None. I always loved control, and when I hit puberty it became overtly sexualized. Did it push me out of the womb, in a whitehot blast, or did the kinkfairy dust me in the enchanted woods? I have no clue. Is there a test I can take, or a kit I can use, like a home pregnancy test, that will show blue for inborn or white for made??

Ok...um, yum?

 

[xperia2995]

I think most people have the capacity to be sadistic if they feel that what they're doing is appropriate. Public hangings used to be entertainment for the whole family. Mob violence, where people lay aside their sense of personal responsibility, can be extremely ugly and apparently people get kind of a rush out of it. Dehumanize the victim, and otherwise civilized people will do awful things. So I think it's entirely reasonable to think that a person could learn at some point in their life to set aside guilt and social conditioning enough to enjoy hurting a willing 'victim' without having been born somehow different.

On the flipside, endorphins feel nice. Seems like something that could be an acquired taste, like beer.

I strongly believe that the dehumanizing thing may not have anything to do with the 'sexual' BDSM part. Maybe a person who enjoys public hangings(possibly because the hanged guy is from another country) could be very submissive to his wife.
But i agree that the setting aside of guilt can 'guide' you towards the dominant way.

They say we need a trigger start the sub in you. But i have heard about a few subs who have had another 'trigger' in their later life which made them realise that they loved dominating better than their older role.this turned them to a dom. So in those cases i do not think the Sub was inborn.
It is just that people are so deep into this that they donot want to explore anything that is drastically different.

 

[xperia2995]

I predict a conflict of thoughts now.. Lol

 

[LucyH]

I strongly believe that the dehumanizing thing may not have anything to do with the 'sexual' BDSM part. Maybe a person who enjoys public hangings(possibly because the hanged guy is from another country) could be very submissive to his wife.
But i agree that the setting aside of guilt can 'guide' you towards the dominant way.

I'm not saying dehumanizing has anything to do with the sexual part of BDSM. There's more than one way to let go of guilt.

There's a famous psychology study from the 60's where people who met a person in the middle of a rickety bridge that seemed dangerous (and therefore were in a state of emotional arousal) found her more attractive than those who met her on a bridge that felt very safe. Even though the adrenaline in their system was from fear, they attributed it in part to interest in another person. The point of this is that people interpret their emotions to some extent, depending on their beliefs and environmental cues.

So suppose you hit someone and hurt them. It's hard not to have an emotional response to that. If you believe it was wrong, you'll feel guilty and horrified, and the experience will be unpleasant. If you think they had it coming, you will probably feel good about it. And if the person you hit is somebody you find extremely attractive who's obviously getting off on it, if you don't feel bad about it, odds are decent you'll find it kinda hot. Also, if you identify with the person you just hurt, your brain may respond as if you are being hurt, layering some sympathetic endorphins on top of that.

Can't really comment much on the domination and submission part - not something I give a lot of thought to. Not sure if it has a lot to do with the S&M part, or if this is kinda like the GLBT grouping - people who band together because they've got some overlap in their interests and a similar set of logistical difficulties to deal with, not because being gay is part of being transgendered or anything like that.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

They say we need a trigger start the sub in you. But i have heard about a few subs who have had another 'trigger' in their later life which made them realise that they loved dominating better than their older role.this turned them to a dom. So in those cases i do not think the Sub was inborn.
It is just that people are so deep into this that they do not want to explore anything that is drastically different.

I may have been reading this wrong, so this question may not apply. How does discovering one enjoys to dominate as well translate to not being a submissive person as well? I don't see any reason why people have to be one or the other, and that being one would preclude being the other.

In other words, why do you think that discovering a greater love of domination means that they were not also naturally inclined to submitting under other circumstances? Because they like it more? That seems like a weak link to me. Likes and genetic inclination don't always go together. IMO, there's no reason why these subs that switch later in life couldn't be genetically inclined to both, but their life experiences change them so that their active preference shifts.

Not saying you're wrong either Just as easily, there's no reason that you can't be right in some instances as well. Your phrasing just made it seem like you think that's "THE" reason in all such cases, and I was wondering why you think that.

 

[Kojote]

What do you people think ? Is it inborn or made ?
PLEASE give an explaination also..

Well ...
I think it's kinda inborn into everybody. And therefore made.
I think almost every person has the potential to develop submissive or dominant traits and embrace them.
The probable exceptions are people which are actually wired in a specific way brainwise.
I've not studied medicine but I know about connections between the pleasure center and different centers of the brain. Some people feel pleasure while thinking about mathematical problems and some people have their pain center wired this way. And some people have difficulties feeling pleasure at all and therefore don't indulge much into this stuff.
But apart from this I think it's dictated by experiences and developed through the fabric of your personality. Not much one can do about it without severe efforts.
If the triggers meet a person with a developing personality on the submissive side the person will go into that direction. And the other way around.

I don't think it can be 'made happen' consciously by others and I don't think it is something to be cured, for it seems to be perfectly normal for human beings to engage in powerplays.
But I do think it is something one should think about to point the tip of the personal iceberg to a most comforting direction.

Exhaustive enough?

 

[Mmmmmm06]

Well ...
I think it's kinda inborn into everybody. And therefore made.
I think almost every person has the potential to develop submissive or dominant traits and embrace them.
The probable exceptions are people which are actually wired in a specific way brainwise.
I've not studied medicine but I know about connections between the pleasure center and different centers of the brain. Some people feel pleasure while thinking about mathematical problems and some people have their pain center wired this way. And some people have difficulties feeling pleasure at all and therefore don't indulge much into this stuff.
But apart from this I think it's dictated by experiences and developed through the fabric of your personality. Not much one can do about it without severe efforts.
If the triggers meet a person with a developing personality on the submissive side the person will go into that direction. And the other way around.

I don't think it can be 'made happen' consciously by others and I don't think it is something to be cured, for it seems to be perfectly normal for human beings to engage in powerplays.
But I do think it is something one should think about to point the tip of the personal iceberg to a most comforting direction.

Exhaustive enough?

Very nicely articulated.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think there are certainly some who come to enter this world of BDSM through introduction by another or something which has been part of their environment, but there are also those like myself who have memories of BDSM desires early in childhood whch hints at being inborn. Not sure it really matters as long as everyone is happy with where they are and what they are doing.

Catalina