RemoteUser
Posts: 2854
Joined: 5/10/2011
Status: offline
|
Let's be clear from the outset, here. I'm breaking this down for my own edification. If I have to wade into a swamp, I have every intention of applying all of my observational powers.
quote:
ORIGINAL: galleyslave
modern science tries to study BDSM as just a sexually arranged transformation of usually/regularly/non-sexually unpleasant activities and experiences into pleasure
Bit misleading, that. "Modern science" without indicating persons or an established organization is what Mr. Wiki rightfully calls "weasel words". Like saying "most people" (which people? what sources?), it is a mechanism for justification, not study.
quote:
we can easily agree that no complex phenomena like BDSM could appear merely by accident, with no proper application and purpose.
Also misleading, assumption through artificial agreement. Still not scientific, more like rhetoric.
quote:
If we try to classify each activity of a human being as "healthy" and "unhealthy", any classification of that sort would depend on what result we'll consider "ultimate".
"We" are not classifying, "you" are asking the reader to agree with your definitions. Since I don't, that rather nullifies most of the rest of your very long paragraph.
quote:
"healthiness", actually, is just some mathematical function in the precise parameters of the physical training, whipping, and other BDSM activities involved.
Which function are we using? Are we measuring joules of energy expended; muscle mass increase; lung capacity; general endurance? There are more options, but I think that's quite enough to make the point salient, which is: you need to define this generalization, which also seems to bear no citations or supporting rationalizations.
quote:
While some "summands" may damage the body
Math doesn't physically injure people, but some find it quite painful nonetheless. If you are referring to ratios, then a point of reference is still required for any assessment to be made.
quote:
Such an optimization task, I suppose, might be even formulated as a minimax problem (one of the principal mathematical terms related to the continuous optimization theory)
Continuous optimization requires variables, real or hypothetical, which means having reference points and a method of measurement to determine change in terms like "better" or "detrimental".
quote:
no other biological species are able to combine so many activities
If multitasking is defined as merely physical, you would be sadly mistaken. There are many creatures that are more physically complex and equally astute on this great green earth.
quote:
Secondly, the role of hormones in BDSM may be re-considered or, to formulate more precisely, determined with a greater accuracy too.
Hormones are a chemical reaction to a form of stimulus. Determination of hormonal secretion only defines their existence; the reasoning applied to defining the stimulus in the scientific method would involve the removal of all other forms of stimulus for verification. How would you propose to do that?
quote:
subconsciously we (actually each of the human beings) are just looking for the "optimal ordeals" not causing any permanent damage
The human condition and its relation to acts of self-destruction, not to mention the existence of aberrations at the individual level, refutes this. Nietzsche approaches this thought the closest, and he does not define humans by what they face, but how they face it, in determining their worth.
quote:
it's well known that the probability of becoming interested in BDSM depends on the person's intelligence and even education.
This assumes that no one who shows interest in BDSM can be stupid or uneducated. Sadly, real life does not reflect this.
In regards to immortality through BDSM, as you posited in a further post, I would have to wonder whether you mean through legacy or actuality. Those with a pregnancy fetish might certainly be validated in the former; the latter presumes an actual halt in the natural decay of anything made by two or more atoms being smooshed together. Suspending entropy indefinitely is in direct opposition to the known laws of physics, regardless of summands, hormones, or intellect.
I feel that your piece might be construed as philosophical from its assumptive approach with no empirical data, in which case, there is plenty to discuss in regards to theorization. The science, I am afraid, is lacking. I am interested to see whether you have any responses for the commentary I have provided you for discussion purposes.
_____________________________
There is nothing worse than being right. Instead of being right, then, try to be open. It is more difficult, and more rewarding.
|
RE: some scientific thoughts about bdsm - 
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