Why we are as we are?

 

Most of us have wondered about how we got to enjoy BDSM, why we like dominance and submission, spankings or humiliation. So, we made some research on the area, and we found many theories, but no answers. Most of the theories are just speculation, mental constructions based on scanty, biased, or no data.

We will talk only about the etiology of the sadomasochistic paraphilias, the ones that are the reason for our site. We believe that all those are closely related, while voyeurism, pedophilia, and all the rest, have a different etiology.

Our conclusions

We’ll give them now, so you don’t have to read the full article, if you prefer not to.

In our view, BDSM is about power exchange, and not about pain. The tendency for dominance or submission is innate, probably genetically determined, and maybe related to serotonin levels.

If a Dominant can get a high on serotonin from a domination fantasy and the submissive one on endorphins from pain or humiliation, then all would be explained…

Of course, being the human being as flexible as it is, genetics and biochemistry can only give inclinations for behavior, and not determine it. The history of the person, his or her personal experiences, will finally decide what s/he enjoys, and in which way it will reveal in his or her life. This would have to be explained by other theories.

But we believe that, no matter how much they punished you, you are going to become a spankophile if you have that tendency, and you will not if you don’t, and no matter if you were never punished or heard about punishment, you will enjoy it anyway if so inclined.

About the theories

No theory is predominant or widely accepted. That is enough for suspicion. (No scientist doubts about relativity, quantum mechanics or evolution. They have been proved true).

Most theories try to explain one area or another of our games, another reason to suspect they are wrong. We believe that the right theory should explain all the pain and humiliation games, because they probably have a common origin, as shown by the fact that most of us enjoy several of them.

Some common assumptions behind the theories, for us false or at least unproven are:

• Paraphilias are sick. Even now, with a supposed wider acceptance of human differences, most theories are based in a “moral” perception of how we should behave, with the assumption that different is sick, even when it is usually buried in pseudoscientific terminology.

 

•  “Common knowledge” (but unsupported) assumptions like men are mostly dominant and sadists, and women mostly submissives and masochists, which even if it looks superficially so in a society that educates to that end, is unproven and not necessarily true.

 

• BDSM is about enjoying pain. For us, BDSM is about power exchange, about domination/submission, and pain is secondary. Many people play BDSM games that do not involve pain.

 

• The paraphilias are a substitute for normal sexual relations. As far as we know, it is not usually true. Most, if not all, of us have “normal” sex, along our BDSM games.

 

• It is acquired. For us, it its innate. As far as we know, many people have some memories of reacting to pain or humiliation from very early in the life. Even if sometimes the awakening is tied to a specific situation, it does not prove that the tendency was not present earlier.

The data, when it exists at all, is usually biased because statistics are taken mostly from professional practices, where the people they studied went (or was sent there by the authorities) for help, because they felt troubled or they got into trouble. So, the typical patient is a male, ill adjusted, anxious, perturbed and, maybe truly, sick.

 

Most of BDSM practitioners, who are more or less well-adjusted (a psychologist said: “all of them are neurotic, as everybody else is”) and have somehow assumed that they are different, don’t go for help, so the studies are made on selected minorities, which makes them not statistically significant.

Even so, this do not discourage the researchers, and you find pearls like

“Paradoxically, while sexual sadism is more common in men, there appears to be a predominance of female domatrixes found in sadomasochistic pornography” (Weinberg, 1984, 1987)

In real science, a paradox means that either the data or the theory is wrong. About “sadism being more common in men”, he should read some of the letters we receive from our gentle lady visitors…

The theories

We will show all the theories we know of, most of which try to explain just one aspect or another of BDSM, following them with our own comments or conclusions. Of course, our conclusions are mental constructions based on scanty, biased or no data, but by some reason, we don’t feel alone in this. And , as we are not looking for research grants, we can admit the fact, on one side, and we have a direct (and personal) contact with BDSM, on the other.

 

• Psychoanalytical
• Psychodymanic
• The lovemap
• Psychological
• Behavioral
• Physical
• Evolutionist
• An uncommon one
• Biochemical
• Genetic

 

Psychoanalytical

• According to Freud, masochism is based on the Oedipus complex. Masochism is formed in infancy, when the child discovers that his or her incestuous connection with his or her parents has to be repressed. As the child feels guilty, s/he feels the s/he should be punished, and the sexual love, sense of guilt and need for expiation results in the fantasy of being spanked or humiliated. They talk also on the fear of castration in boys or the envy for the lack of a penis in girls.

As a matter of fact, this is the most accepted (at least by psychoanalyts) of many different theories proposed by Freud along the years. As in most of Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, these are just speculation, with scanty and non-statistical data supporting them. They assume as real the existence of the Oedipus complex, the fear of castration and other also unsupported mental constructions. Freud is also assuming that what we like or need is pain or punishment.

 

Psychodimanic

• Sadger (1926) proposed that children developed a tendency to sadism when their caretakers both bring sexual pleasure when beginning toilet training and deny it when preventing masturbation.

Only if he could prove that only paraphilics suffered these experiences, what we think is unlikely.

 

• Friedberg (1956) suggested that teething is the root of sadism.

It makes life easy. If the person has teeth s/he is a sadist. (We did not read the theory, so we are prejudging. But it looks so unlikely, that we don’t think we should waste any time on it).

 

Published: 12/23/04