Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
Insofar as the ratios are similar, it is relevant to the topic. If there is no difference, there is no correlation, which strongly implies no causation.
Prove it. Cite it.
I have come to see that it is the opinion of some in this community that it should be assumed to be the same. This is willful ignorance. I will not use it.
I might ask you to do the same. That is, citing the correlation. Although, as I pointed out, it'd have to be something representative. Most current research is based on samples that don't readily generalize.
Baring good evidence to either side, we'll have to assume both options are possible, which is what I've done so far. Although I lean in one direction, I'm always very happy to have hunches replaced by hard facts, or even better-supported hunches, to the contrary.
And I don't need to cite my statement: it is intrinsic to scientific method, and indeed logic (IIRC fundamental to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy). If you want me to cite other posters' statements, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. I don't have the energy for that. I barely have track of my own cites, as I read and absorb information at a fairly high pace, and frequently, I don't keep the reference around if I don't need it for data.
Also, bear in mind that I'm not a researcher myself, although much of what I bring up is from talking in-depth with people who are. This is also one of the reasons I haven't got the cites handy: some information has been passed on in-person, and the rest has been absorbed in the course of reading up on something for a specific purpose, I just happen to not have forgotten it.
quote:
In depth introviews. Why assume- blindly, I might add- that it hasn't?
Introspection is generally considered a suspect methodology, although I'd be inclined to admit its validity for some people. Secondhand introspection is more suspect, though. I am willing to concede that abuse may have contributed in the cases you've mentioned, in the interest of argument.
And why assume that I made the assumption? I'm inclined to think that it only rarely is a significant part of the underlying causology, based on my experiences with how the mind works and how this contrasts with how people think it works. That's an inclination, and not even a strong one, but not an assumption.
quote:
They didn't. Quite the opposite. They just don't like the subject.
Ah. My apologies, then. I got the impression that you said that some of them even denied that abuse had been a factor in their attraction to BDSM.
quote:
It is due to rape in the respect rape led to it. Cause/effect. And, yes, some of them -are- using BDSM to overcome it.
Using BDSM to overcome it can be fair, although if the trauma is extensive, it should be done with a Dom that has a thorough understanding of any mental health conditions they may have "contracted" (for lack of a better term), as well as the treatment methodology preferred for those conditions. Prior experience in treating people outside a BDSM context is preferrable, but not necessarily required. Not understanding the treatment methodologies and conditions, however, will at best lead to a less optimal recovery than what could be achieved with professional therapy.
If you'd like advice in this regard, you can PM me, or start another thread about it and alert me to it via PM. I can't deal responsibly with PTSD or Borderline, for instance, but I can offer responsible advice with regard to e.g. depression and anxiety. Seriously, I do want to help, and I'm not "out to get you", which is the vibe I get from your post. Forgive me if that isn't the case. Forums aren't big on body language and intonation.
As to cause/effect, that is why I addressed the issue of how important it is to have an idea of the correlation. If there is no difference in prevalence between vanillas and BDSM'ers, then there is very little grounds to suspect any causal relationship. I understand the causality you suggest, I'm just not sure it's really there. Bear in mind that people are notoriously bad at self-evaluation, although I'm not necessarily implying that this is the case when your subs tell you their abuse led to their interest. I'd love to map it out if it is, though.
quote:
God damn it. People are assuming I'm saying BDSM is evil. This assumption is freaking annoying.
Hardly. If you wanted to say that, you wouldn't be on this board, and engaging in serious debate, at that.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm making no such assumption.
quote:
I can't possibly understand how such researches might have trouble with open and honest inquary. It's not like people have been overly defensive.
Some people are overly defensive, no doubt. But the main problem with the research is simpler than that... It's about agendas, political correctness, and toeing the party-line. Research usually gets funded, and the funding often gets cut if assertions are made that the funding body does not like; research in these areas is usually funded by people that have clear biases. Political correctness is very important to avoid having one's research disregarded and one's reputation tainted by being a "troublemaker", or worse yet, a "radical". And not toeing the party-line is equivalent to taking on the "establishment".
There's a very large machine out there, built on the current assumptions in the field. Those assumptions are frequently erroneous. Yet taking on a machine that includes those that have made a living out of the field, as well as media and society itself, is a daunting task, so those that publish serious research often keep it fairly quiet, and try to avoid making headlines. Which of course does nothing to further the acceptance of their findings into the current paradigm.
quote:
But, seriously. You're telling me people fail to get good information, then go on to cite a grievance of the community against someone that may have once claimed to be interested in research, expecting me to understand- and, further, accept- the assumption nothing can come from thought. -No.-
I'm sorry, this paragraph didn't quite parse for me. Could you please rephrase it?
quote:
You're excused. I hope you remember there's a time and place for things in the future.
I hope you were being sarcastic, and that you see my point about how this is actually on-topic for the thread.
quote:
To help you out, please remember a park being pulic doesn't mean you can have a naked picnic, nor a public thread on how to remove a particular virus from your computer isn't an area for you to complain about your low tax return this year.
Obviously. Yet, my comments, as well as those of others in this regard, have been on topic. While discussing from an assumption that the cause/effect relationship has been established is certainly a valid intellectual exercise, it is hardly in the interest of getting to the bottom of the matter without first establishing the causal relationship. Absent an established causal relationship, it becomes of relevance to the thread to discuss both options; i.e. the option that there is a causal relationship, and the option that there isn't.
Hope this made sense.
|
RE: Abused into submission - 
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