Philosophy of BDSM

[Etoile]

Also, the gays!

 

[YourCaptor]

Also, the gays!

Yes you can come too.

Which brings up something I find cool. There is something huge about evolution which we are still not seeing. That is how would the genes for being gay get passed on, even in lower animals which probably can't plan out as how to come about a genetic child.

Only explanation we have now is that the gene gets passed on through relatives, making it survival of the most prosperous family.

neat

 

[Netzach]

Yes you can come too.

Which brings up something I find cool. There is something huge about evolution which we are still not seeing. That is how would the genes for being gay get passed on, even in lower animals which probably can't plan out as how to come about a genetic child.

Only explanation we have now is that the gene gets passed on through relatives, making it survival of the most prosperous family.

neat

There's some biological theory that it's advantageous to have some low-reproducers or non-reproducers in a population so that parenting gaps can be filled in.

Assuming the population is smart, like penguins, and not moronic, like people.

 

[Etoile]

I was actually referring to the eugenics thing, and how gays don't fit into what was proposed. (I guess filter theory is the term for eugenics now? Or eugenics as applied to partnerships?)

 

[Sayyid]

WHY do people engage in these sort of activities? Why does Bdsm turn some people on and others off? What is the reason behind it all?

We enjoy it. Specifically, the psychology of dominance and submission, and the enjoyment of negative emotions such as humiliation and pain.

Psychologically speaking alot of the activities we engage in are considered wrong and horrible by the majority of society, yet our percentage of people LOVE it.

It doesn't matter if people think that about our activities. They're not the ones doing them.

 

[KinkE]

Highly interesting thread

I would totally love to jump in and discuss this further with you all, hopefully aftyer you've had a chance to peruse the following link:


htttp://ecstagony.com/eng/info/artgen/krafft.htm

which pretty much consist of all you've been discussing so far, plus a little more...

just a suggestion

thanks

 

[Etoile]

I would totally love to jump in and discuss this further with you all, hopefully aftyer you've had a chance to peruse the following link:


http://ecstagony.com/eng/info/artgen/krafft.htm

which pretty much consist of all you've been discussing so far, plus a little more...

just a suggestion

thanks

I didn't see a whole lot there, just some stuff about how some people are born kinky, and others are influenced to be so by childhood experiences.

 

[MisterSir]

I have a BSc in Economics. I believe the BDSM lifestyle was cooked up in 1982 by the farming industry as a way of getting people to buy more leather goods. If you think I'm letting a good opportunity to flaunt my degree go by, you're nuts.

...right, I'll be leaving now.

 

[Sayyid]

I didn't see a whole lot there, just some stuff about how some people are born kinky, and others are influenced to be so by childhood experiences.

I really can't see how people can be "born kinky." Surely their specific kink has to do with life experiences which have shaped them. For example, a young boy may be attracted to his mother's pantyhose and feel guilty about it, thus internalizing the experience.

(Not implying this actually happened to me or someone I know. I hate pantyhose personally.)

 

[CutieMouse]

I really can't see how people can be "born kinky." Surely their specific kink has to do with life experiences which have shaped them. For example, a young boy may be attracted to his mother's pantyhose and feel guilty about it, thus internalizing the experience.

(Not implying this actually happened to me or someone I know. I hate pantyhose personally.)

Or their specific kinks happen to just be things that work for them - no history, no childhood influence, no nothin'.

 

[Sayyid]

Or their specific kinks happen to just be things that work for them - no history, no childhood influence, no nothin'.

My point was that sexual preferences arises from one's psychology. I just gave a very specific example, that's all.

How much psychology is determined before birth is up for debate but I never leaned towards the "nature" side of the argument.

 

[MisterSir]

I really can't see how people can be "born gay".

See how stupid that sounds?

The truth is, attraction to the same or the opposite sex has to be included when we're discussing the nature/nurture argument in relation to fetishes because at the most basic level, what's a fetish? A sexual attraction to something. All that makes attraction to one sex over another not a fetish is the fact it's so widespread - if a billion people woke up tomorrow and realised they all were sexually attracted to pigeons of either sex, that would eventually pass from the realms of fetish into the mainstream, and we'd be talking about pigeonsexuals in the same breath as homosexuals (although in that world, Keroin would still be odd. If Happy Feet has the potential to make you wet, you've got a kink).

 

[Sayyid]

I don't believe people are born gay.

I'm not sure what your point is, I'm afraid.

 

[MisterSir]

I don't believe people are born gay.

I'm not sure what your point is, I'm afraid.

Posting for the cheap seats it is.

1) Being gay or being straight is just a sexual attraction to one sex over the other.
2) A fetish is a sexual attraction to something not normally considered sexual.
3) All these things are sexual attractions. The only difference between them is that sexual orientation is mainstream - nobody bats an eye if you're gay, but mention you like being whipped and that gets a reaction.

I'd ask if this is making sense, but if you don't even believe people can be born gay or straight, there's no point.

 

[00Syd]

My mommy used to hold me against the shoulder of her leather jacket when I was an infant. Obviously that's why I'm kinky. Its also totally obvious that when I was a small child I decided to be straight as a rebellion against my gay father. I was always such a little non-conformist.

 

[MisterSir]

Wait, I've had a change of heart. It makes perfect sense that me, with my completely normal childhood with a smattering of embarrassing moments, should grow up to be a deviant and thoroughly perverse bastard. I've seen the light and, should I ever have children, I will be sure to flaunt my kinks by having their mother cook dinner while wearing an armbinder and covered with clothespins. If that doesn't make them completely vanilla, nothing will!

 

[Primalex]

If we were hard-wired for eugenics, geeks would be awfully lonely.

*scratches his chin*

They are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hFQmdpujxU&feature=fvst

 

[Netzach]

I don't believe people are born gay.

I'm not sure what your point is, I'm afraid.

I don't believe people are born straight.

I think one of these products has a much better campaign and street team behind it than the other, you?


Or is that just arrogant dumbfuckery on my part?

 

[Homburg]

I have a BSc in Economics. I believe the BDSM lifestyle was cooked up in 1982 by the farming industry as a way of getting people to buy more leather goods. If you think I'm letting a good opportunity to flaunt my degree go by, you're nuts.

...right, I'll be leaving now.

1952. That bargain Economics degree didn't include too awful much Deviant History, I see.

--

I really can't see how people can be "born gay".

See how stupid that sounds?

The truth is, attraction to the same or the opposite sex has to be included when we're discussing the nature/nurture argument in relation to fetishes because at the most basic level, what's a fetish? A sexual attraction to something. All that makes attraction to one sex over another not a fetish is the fact it's so widespread - if a billion people woke up tomorrow and realised they all were sexually attracted to pigeons of either sex, that would eventually pass from the realms of fetish into the mainstream, and we'd be talking about pigeonsexuals in the same breath as homosexuals (although in that world, Keroin would still be odd. If Happy Feet has the potential to make you wet, you've got a kink).

Exactly. I can point to the incident that generated my enjoyment of thigh-high stockings and opera-length gloves. I cannot point to an incident that left me associating sex with power.

 

[Netzach]

1952. That bargain Economics degree didn't include too awful much Deviant History, I see.

--



Exactly. I can point to the incident that generated my enjoyment of thigh-high stockings and opera-length gloves. I cannot point to an incident that left me associating sex with power.

Perfectly articulated.

I can explain the family dynamics that make me as I am to the letter if you want to know why I like middle aged men giving me horsey rides.

But they still don't explain why I'm 8 years old and discovering new things to do with my jump rope which feel grand. Being tied up was interesting, tying myself UP was the part that was getting me off.

Honestly, if this was just nurture, wouldn't some therapy and yoga just burn it out of my system? How can people try every possible way to not be as they are, sexuality wise, and still come up empty?

 

[JMohegan]

My point was that sexual preferences arises from one's psychology. I just gave a very specific example, that's all.

How much psychology is determined before birth is up for debate but I never leaned towards the "nature" side of the argument.

I believe all people with healthy, normally functioning bodies are born bisexual switches.

I agree that psychology determines each person's eventual orientation. To me, a blend of nature/nurture makes sense. Something about an individual's brain makes him/her process life experiences in a certain way.

 

[Sayyid]

Posting for the cheap seats it is.

1) Being gay or being straight is just a sexual attraction to one sex over the other.
2) A fetish is a sexual attraction to something not normally considered sexual.
3) All these things are sexual attractions. The only difference between them is that sexual orientation is mainstream - nobody bats an eye if you're gay, but mention you like being whipped and that gets a reaction.

I'd ask if this is making sense, but if you don't even believe people can be born gay or straight, there's no point.

I don't have to believe that in order for this to make sense.

You're not saying anything revolutionary, you know.

I don't believe people are born straight.

I think one of these products has a much better campaign and street team behind it than the other, you?


Or is that just arrogant dumbfuckery on my part?

I don't believe they are either. So what?

I believe all people with healthy, normally functioning bodies are born bisexual switches.

I agree that psychology determines each person's eventual orientation. To me, a blend of nature/nurture makes sense. Something about an individual's brain makes him/her process life experiences in a certain way.

Finally, someone who's making sense.

Biology might predispose someone to be gay or straight, vanilla or kinky - I don't know, I'm not an expert in the field. But I really don't see the point of negating conditioning, imprinting and other experiences that shape our personalities. How much of my individual self was determined in the months before I left the womb, and how much in the decades after?

 

[YourCaptor]

"Nature vs nurture" is science from the 30's.

These days it's recognized that nature and nurture, or more correctly, genetics and environment, influence each other and therefor cannot be considered mutually exclusive.

 

[Etoile]

"Nature vs nurture" is science from the 30's.

These days it's recognized that nature and nurture, or more correctly, genetics and environment, influence each other and therefor cannot be considered mutually exclusive.

And here we circle back around to eugenics. In very simple terms, eugenics is the idea that there is no nurture. If people become addicts, degenerates, prostitutes, etc - it's all genetic. Has nothing to do with their upbringing. Hence the compulsory sterilization movements...if you take away the ability to reproduce from all alcoholics, there won't be any more alcoholics. Riiiiight. Eugenics was especially prominent in the 1920s, just prior to the development of nature vs nurture theories.

 

[Sayyid]

Luckily we know a lot more about psychology and concepts such as conditioning, and especially about the nature of addiction, so that pseudoscience is long dead.

I don't deny the influence of genetics and especially evolution on human behaviour but I refuse to see it as the end-all be-all of our nature. The mind is a constantly evolving thing, and we are not rigidly set in our predetermined ways.

Which means, more on topic, that we can develop predilections for all sorts of things, including sexual acts like BDSM, that we didn't have before.

I guess I've said my piece. I know my opinion doesn't count much, as a noob.