Why we are as we are? (cont)

 

The lovemap

• The "lovemap" (John Money, 1986) is a neurological imprint of a person’s love ways. It is imprinted during the person’s development, from conception to early childhood. Physical or psychical events during this time can “vandalize” the lovemap, which will then develop in abnormal ways. Paraphilies are caused by abnormal development of such lovemaps.

Fine, but it doesn’t explain how or which events "vandalize” the lovemap to make it it paraphiliac, so it doesn’t help us. By the way, according to Money, a "normal" love map should be directed by lust, for sexual intercourse and reproduction, while a paraphiliac one is indirect, estimulated by non coital fantasies.  Is it  actually a spanking fantasy  paraphiliac and a "Tarzan" one not?
 

Psychological

• Developed cultures use symbols for various concepts. The fetish is a sexual symbol, which replaces the original, “natural” ones. Somehow, repressing sexuality in children and the advertising symbolism plays a part on it.

Probably true. But it doesn’t explain each person’s choice of symbols. (And it is not only valid for developed cultures. Humanity have always used symbols, the most common being words themselves)

 

• Symbolism, only different. Many of us seem to have an orientation toward dominance and/or submission from a very early age. But as young children, we have no frame of reference for what these feelings meant or what to do about them. So we conceptualize them in terms of what we already knew about life -- i.e., spankings, punishment, and stories.

This one is from Ann (of the Owners Manual) but it is as good as any other (at least our visitors know firsthand what they are talking about). It explains not only why we play, but also why we play in such a way. And it could be the explanation for our behavior, after knowing why we have that orientation.

 

• Compensation. People who in real life are dominant, try to get a submissive experience, and the other way around.
• Release of responsibility. A dominant, always in control, seeks some rest from its responsibilities by submitting.

But these could be  only true if only real life dominants play submissive, and the opposite. We know of some who seem to be natural submissives that anyway enjoy submitting.

Behavioral

• The fetishism is generated as a conditioned response, by relating early sexual experiences to its symbol. You were spanked as a child and it excited you, so the relationship was imprinted on you.

 

• A person that has been traumatized in the past replays the event, to try to get control over it and its effects. If you were traumatized at childhood by a punishment, you try to repeat it over and over again.

For these two, only if you were punished as a child. And it means that people should only enjoy the punishments to which they were submitted, which must be proved, and is probably false, even for those that were punished.

 

• A child who is the victim or observer of inappropriate sexual behaviors learn to imitate and is later reinforced for the behavior

Yes, of course. Most of us saw one of our parents spanking the other (or making the other kneel in the corner), and we learned from this… But it could be that we learn domination and submission from our parents.

 

• Individuals who are deprived of normal social sexual contacts seek gratification through less socially acceptable means

Were all BDSMers deprived of “normal sexual contacts”? We, at least, weren’t. Most of us found usually far more difficult getting the “less socially accepted” ones.

 

• Punishment causes fear and the desire to flee and this induces the normal body reaction of adrenalin release. Pain causes an endorphin rush. So, if hit hard and often, the relation between punishment and rush gets fixed in the child.

The part about the rush is true. But it doesn’t explain why some kids get fixed and others don’t, and, again, it only works if you were punished as a child. And of course, it doesn’t’ explain what dominants get from BDSM

 

• The act of presenting the buttocks for punishment resembles the pose of a female ape during copulation, causing a subconscious association of spanking and sex.

This works only for spanking.

 

• The fetishisms could be related to fear of things that could happen to you, if they don’t actually happen. (You knew of spankings and feared them, but you were not spanked)
• The fetishisms are related to things that were taboo when you learned of them (Spanking was a forbidden thing, so it excited you).

These two could imply that you could become a spankophile because you were NOT spanked. So much for the antispanking arguments.

Note: The behavioral theories are probably the older and better-known ones, only as unsupported by data as the rest. Even if heavily advertised by the antispanking movement as reasons for not spanking children, (and as many people enjoys other kind of punishments, it should be a reason for not punishing them at all) the fact that nearly as many of the spankophiles who write to the site were spanked as they (including me) weren’t, leaves about half of the cases unexplained.

Of course, these arguments are only valid if BDSM is sick, and has to be and could be avoided, which is taken for granted by anti spankers, and if it is acquired and not innate, which is not proved.

To the arguments relating spanking with BDSM, the pro-spanking community answers that if these were true, BDSM should have been more common in the past, when spanking was normal, which is not the case, as proved by the fact that Freud and other early researchers found few cases compared with other paraphilias. Which is not the case? BDSM is recorded in most human history, and in 19-century England, the paradise of children physical punishment, was also the paradise of professional floggers. (Maybe, as it was not considered so abnormal, people didn’t go for help)

We are not taking here a position in the spank/no spank controversy. It has nothing to do with our site. Only, we believe that children education is far too important for deciding about it for emotional, unsupported or plainly false arguments on both sides.

 

Published: 12/23/04

Rev: 06/08/05