Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
Okay, I'm sorry for lumping together replies in a digest-format, but I've tried to trim the quotes, at least. There was just a lot of stuff I wanted to reply to, and some of it had significant overlap, so this seemed better.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tetron
I was wondering if the desire to inflict pain, in the SM sense is something that people just all evolve to. Those who have been in the lifestyle the longest all seem to desire doing it [...]
I don't think so. A person can certainly adapt to the likes, dislikes and habits of their partners, but these things are wired in. As for S&M, it could be argued that it is wired in at an instinctual level, given that the great apes engage in it, and that many tribes use it ritually. The difference in S&M is merely that it is (often) sexualized in some way, although that can also be found in the animal kingdom, suggesting it may not have the same aetiology as other paraphilias.
With regard to "evolving to", by which I take it you mean "progressing towards", I think it is even simpler:
When we explore the boundaries of our experience,
we discover the boundaries of our preferences.
In my experience, it has never been a matter of "starting to" like something, but instead always a matter of discovering that I like it; i.e.: that it is something I always had the wiring to like, but didn't find out about until I tried it.
Compare to liking a particular flavour of ice cream. Until you've tasted it, you don't know whether you will like it or not. If you've tasted similar flavours in the past, you might make an educated guess about it, but the proof is in the eating. I think you will find that most cases of any gradual "evolution" in this regard is a matter of people trying out something related to what they know they like (i.e. the similar flavours bit), and find it to their liking, so the next time around they will have a better grounds for making an educated guess about their next experience, and so on, until they have mapped out the boundaries of their preferences along the paths that seem likely to be fruitful.
Of course, in some cases, we are exposed to something where we don't have an educated guess to lean on, particularly for subs/slaves, and sometimes it turns out one likes it, other times it turns out one doesn't. And in some of the latter cases, repeat exposure makes us familiar with it to the point where it is, at least, no longer a "dislike", sometimes even becoming a "like".
These factors are succinctly summarized in the expression "Today's hard limit is tomorrow's fetish."
quote:
ORIGINAL: OsideGirl
Everybody has some amount of sadist in them. It's what makes us look at car crashes, look at the other guys stopped by the cops, watch a fight, hell, watch boxing.
Guess I'm not a sadist then, just some guy who likes inflicting pain on others ... oh, wait. 
(Light-hearted sarcasm; it's a joke, no offense intended.)
I don't have the impulse to look at car crashes, fights or boxing; most explanations I've read about that impulse seem to indicate that it is more of a masochistic trait, which might make sense (I am not a masochist). Compare it to picking at a scab or something. The scab in this case being the illusion of safety and comfort that modern society wraps us in, the cut under it being the event in question, and the picking being the looking.
Sure enough, someone keels over, gets hit by a car, or whatnot, I'll be running over. But not to watch. I'm running over to help.
Whether dealing with a teenage girl who forgot to look twice and got flung over a car, a motorcycle keeling over and getting hit by opposite-going traffic, some heroin junkie that has O.D.'d in a toilet stall, or an old man who sags to the floor on the street ... I have always ran over there, usually being the first to do so, and I have helped the victim(s) and coordinated the efforts until an ambulance arrives, or I am fully satisfied that the incident is contained and the person involved is unharmed (e.g. when someone's just fallen asleep somewhere, I watch to see if their chest rises and falls; if it does, I leave them be; if it doesn't, I try to rouse them etc.).
I have never "looked" in that sense, however, and never derived any positive sensation from it.
In fact, when the ambulance is gone, I'm usually wired and shivering for a few minutes, and worried about whether the people involved will be okay.
That still doesn't keep me from whipping a consenting partner until their back is cut and bruised, spanking them until my joints ache, making anal intercourse painful, or applying a painful joint lock to restrain them. Nor do I think I enjoy it any less than other sadists, or feel bad about doing it. And can I certainly find it arousing, if it is done in a sexualized context, although I can enjoy it by itself.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MstrssPassion
S&M is not a higher level on the evolutionary plane.. I think it is more in line with our primitive pasts
If the trials & tribulations that mold a species to evolve beyond their parameters is to evolve us to a place where we merely have to beat each other in order to become sexually arroused.... wow, what a disappointment.
"Primitive pasts"?
The human species has existed for about 200.000 years, hardly enough time to diverge much from the other great apes; the main difference is an additional layer to the neocortical columns and some environmental adaptations that are not yet complete (we aren't even less hairy than a chimpanzee; the hairs are just shorter and lighter in colour). We share more than 97% of our genome with the other hominidae, and the interinidividual variations are (if I remember my biology courses correctly) greater than some of the interspecies variations; i.e. we have more in common with certain apes than with each other, in terms of DNA.
To call it "primitive" or "past" hardly makes any sense.
And evolution does not have, or need, a direction or a purpose, nor is it a process. It is simply the observation that fit beings tend to survive, while unfit beings tend to die, all other things being equal. In human societies, we often counteract these tendencies, of course. The theory of evolution (or should I say theories; there are several), on the other hand, is an attempt to make a model that fits the observed tendencies as accurately as possible, as well as making predictions. In short, a scientific model based on the observation we call evolution.
No value judgements, goals or "parameters" (your words) are involved in any way; the common view that humans are "better", "higher" or "nobler" beings than any other species, in any way, shape or form, is incorrect from a biological point of view. Sure, we conform better to our own values than others do, just like other beings conform better to theirs than we do. Duh. 
Many species employ sadomasochistic elements in their sexuality, and most (if not all) of the variation in human sexuality that isn't innately tied to the interaction between social constructions and our cognitive functions are found in other species. Dolphins have foreplay. Apes have S&M. Many (most?) species have LGBT, D/s and non-reproductive sex.
I fail to see the disappointment.
What is so intrinsically "wrong" about S&M that it is disappointing that humans find it (sexually or otherwise) satisfying to engage in it? And by what standard do you judge such a "wrong"?
quote:
ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper
BDSM is a natural process in de-evolution.
I would rather say it is a natural (for some) part of the process of introspection, self-evolution, and individuation with attendant social deconditioning: we examine ourselves, discover our own natures and desires, free ourselves from the restraints of our social mores, and become our own being. Realized individuals in full measure.
Note that I'm not saying BDSM is more "evolved" or anything like that, so please don't read anything like that into it. I'm just saying that the process involves realizing our own selves; whether those selves include BDSM or not is beside the point.
A person in a BDSM-negative culture who uncovers BDSM-sides to themselves and integrates this formerly unrealized side into themselves, or a person in a BDSM-by-default culture who uncovers their lack of a BDSM-side to themselves and excises it from themselves, are both refining their selves to be in line with their own natures.
Fully embracing BDSM in most, if not all, western cultures will involve some rejection of existing social mores for the time being; an applicable quote:
quote:
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
--Albert Einstein
In that regard, embracing or rejecting it in a social environment whose opinions differ from one's own, that is clearly a refinement of self, and a sign of independence (yes, also for subs in modern society, obviously, or e.g. women's rights activists in pre-women's suffrage society).
quote:
From what I have read, and my own, anecdotal experience, most paraphillias are developed at an early age. We sexual things like pain, or control, or woman panties, or feet, or whatever the hell it is, somewhere before or during adolesence. I've never met an adult who just developed, in a vacuum, a paraphillia. I've known people who had an inclination that blossomed or fully developed over time, but they always had at least a seed.
Emphasis mine.
I've never met an adult who developed anything in a vacuum. It is interaction with others that allows us to become individuals. Oriental sayings may be cliché, but there is fundamental meaning to the one that goes "How can there be Self is there is no Other?", on several levels.
That said, paraphilias are generally believed to be developed at an early age. Not universally. There are some that I know were present from my earliest memories, and some that clearly were not.
What I would posit, is that the basic "wiring" is laid down by the time we are 35 (IIRC, this is the approximate age at which our brains stop maturing), that the advanced "wiring" is laid down throughout all of life, and that social mores are incrementally laid down in the first half of our lives with the majority being laid down in our most formative (childhood) years.
There are, in my experience, several distinct mechanisms underlying paraphilias.
For instance, some paraphilias are directly related to the friction against social mores, and these may even disappear entirely if the relevant social mores are rejected prior to habituating an arousal response. The purportedly higher incidence of corprophagia as a paraphilia in Japan would seem tied to this (pure/unpure takes the place in their culture that virtue/sin did in ours a while ago).
Some could be related to early arousal (at an age where stimulus-response coupling is strong and fast).
Some are based on habituation; i.e. they are learned through repeat exposure, for instance in the context of a D/s relationship, where a skilled Dom can often get a sub/slave to the point where arousal (or even climax, in some cases) can occur from (or, if done wrong, only from) certain stimuli that are paraphilic in nature.
Some are interaction-based; e.g. women who have a paraphilic attraction to giving head, which (from what I've heard) appears to be related to either (a) the pleasure of pleasing, or (b) the control inherent in using sources of pleasure, pain or injury (hands and mouth serve as both) on the male partner's most sensitive area.
In some cases, fortunately appearing to be more rare than the incidence of "healthy" paraphilia, there may be a pathological aspect to it, typically stuff like OCD or ASPD; these are not particularly relevant to the discussion, I think.
There are many ways in which a paraphilia, or a "paraphilic" practice without an attendant paraphilia, may establish themselves, and to ascribe them all to childhood experiences is oversimplifying the issue.
I, for one, have at least had some that were present before adolescence, but disappeared later, and some that were absent before adolesence, but appeared later; I am not talking about discovering them, as the expsure has in these cases been present both before and after adolescence, but rather about acquiring them. The former type consists entirely (if I recall my adolescent preferences completely enough) of the social more type, and really went away when I reached stage 5 in the Kohlberg "moral" developmental model (though morally relativist) as I rejected a large number of social mores at that time.
And then there is of course S&M, where the whole 'rush' issue can be a factor quite apart from the "primal wiring" and/or any kind of paraphilia per se; endorphins can get you "hooked" on anything. There are exercise addicts who actually go into a clically significant state of withdrawal if you prevent them from exercising for any extended period of time. No wonder pain can do the same thing.
Similarly, D/s, again apart from any "primal wiring" and/or any kind of paraphilia per se, can be wired a bit differently as well. If you attain sub space, I would estimate (based on comparing to other altered states for which I have the figures) that you get a cerebral PEA surge of about two to three orders of magnitude, which is (in terms of effect on dopamine release and reuptake inhibition) in the same range as heroin will produce, and somewhat more than cocaine will produce, without getting into the specifics of the neurochemistry involved. Of course, without some prior wiring, attaining sub space would be hard, I imagine.
quote:
ORIGINAL: slavejali
From my experience, I think people (whether dominant or submissive) who have a natural inclination towards exploration into sensation may develop more intense desires over time, that would be just a natural progression.
There is certainly a potential for desensitization with any kind of sensation play. I am not, however, sure if it would be correct to say that one desires more intense play after a while. It seems more likely to me that one desires the same response, and that more intense play is just a consequence of this.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Is the desire for SM a natural evolution - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread