Psychology and BDSM

Correlation? Nope.

I agree.

I seem to have appeal to significantly younger women who could accurately be described as being influenced by daddy issues.

I have assumed that those from backgrounds with anything from abusive fathers to detached or absent ones gravitate my way to fill that need...I figure they need a hug and it proceeds from there. Or not.

On the other hand, those with a WONDERFUL relationship with Dad I would gather gravitate my way (or not) for the warm association they have...I figure they miss him and need a hug and it proceeds from there. Or not.

I had once thought that there WAS such a correlation. The abused a little darker in their kink the happy a little more eager to try new or random things...

I met a girl people called "bubbles" I was at first annoyed at her irrepressible effervescence until I came to realize she is absolutely genuine. We never did play together, really, but in a dark corner one thing led to another and I had a fistful of hair and started down a dark path. I found that she had never under any circumstances been bound in anyway, yet had a wealth of kink experience. She expressed an eagerness to try that sometime, yet no one had ever sussed that out based on her presenting personality.

I think now people are a wonderful mix of contradictions.

So the general consensus seems to be that there is no correlation. That is intriguing. I myself am I believer that the environment the child grows up in will affect their future behavior. I also believe that serial killers, for instance, are exposed not only to a bad family life, but also have serious lack of development, or an impaired frontal lobe. I know that is totally off topic, but it is just something I am passionate about. I would have loved to major in Psychology, and become a Criminal Psychologist :)

I will have to agree with everyone so far. I don't believe there is a connection between the two. People are so unique and have so many interests. I just saw an armpit fetish the other day. Now that I do not understand... is it even an erogenous zone?

My (limited) take on the 'science' of psychology is you are far to logical a thinker to get along in a formal education setting on the subject. You raise good questions and too many of them have 'sure' answers for what I would think are simply not measurable. Honestly- I'm not a fan of soft science in general. Naval gazing is interesting but in my view requires no guidance or training to do so. This is not to say I don't highly recommend therapy, and the best practitioners I have met were PHds. My assumption is that they became so because of the TIME in service it takes to get the PHd.

Armpits? Not my thing, but as reasonable an erogenous zone as any- given the concentration of nerves. If I can tickle it I can generally find some way to incorporate it. I don't get boobs as Pavlovian visual stimuli. (Weaned to early perhaps? grin). That said, I found that they have lots of varied nerve endings, textural differences, and great responsiveness at times.
 
Last edited:
know about Hydrangea flowers, right? You can induce them to flower in different colors, depending on what you add to the soil. Acidic soil gives you blue flowers, alkalyn gives you pink, a narrow band of middle PH gives you cream-colored flowers.

So, you can point to nurture, right?

But-- the thing is, those flowers have the potential to change colors, innate within themselves. You can't change the colors of begonias by feeding them different plant foods, because begonias don't change color.

I must have missed this when it was posted. It's a great analogy!
 
know about Hydrangea flowers, right? You can induce them to flower in different colors, depending on what you add to the soil. Acidic soil gives you blue flowers, alkalyn gives you pink, a narrow band of middle PH gives you cream-colored flowers.

Side note: the difference between blue and pink hydrangeas is actually about aluminium ions: if the plant is taking up sufficient aluminium the flowers will turn blue, otherwise they'll turn pink. (I think the cream-coloured ones are a different variety of hydrangea altogether, but I could be wrong on that.)

Alkaline soil inhibits aluminium uptake, leading to pink flowers. But acidity isn't enough to give blue flowers - you also need sufficient aluminium, either naturally-occurring or artificially added.

I suspect this says nothing at all about the psychology of BDSM, but I'm a nerd and I like irrelevant sciencey tangents.
 
Side note: the difference between blue and pink hydrangeas is actually about aluminium ions: if the plant is taking up sufficient aluminium the flowers will turn blue, otherwise they'll turn pink. (I think the cream-coloured ones are a different variety of hydrangea altogether, but I could be wrong on that.)

Alkaline soil inhibits aluminium uptake, leading to pink flowers. But acidity isn't enough to give blue flowers - you also need sufficient aluminium, either naturally-occurring or artificially added.

I suspect this says nothing at all about the psychology of BDSM, but I'm a nerd and I like irrelevant sciencey tangents.
Is this how litmus paper works? Also, red cabbages. :D
 
and another thing, how common is aluminum in soil anyways? Probably very, now-- but Hydrangeas have been adored for many centuries.

Damn you, now I have to google. :eek:
 
Red onions turn green, too. I didn't know that until recently, when I made veggie burgers and used red onion in the patties. The leftover patties looked somewhat unappetizing after a night in the fridge because of the onion, but still tasted good.

I didn't know about red oranges. Interesting. Gives me ideas for my niece's birthday party. She loves all things gross.
 
Thanks, I didn't know that.
I suppose the colour of blood oranges must be due to anthocyanines just like with blueberrys and red cabbage, or perheps some other flavanoid?
Interesting!

Yeah, internet says anthocyanins. Also for Purple Congo potatoes - next time I can find some, I should try chemistry on them.

(BTW, mashed purple potatoes look SPLENDID.)
 
So the general consensus seems to be that there is no correlation. That is intriguing. I myself am I believer that the environment the child grows up in will affect their future behavior. I also believe that serial killers, for instance, are exposed not only to a bad family life, but also have serious lack of development, or an impaired frontal lobe. I know that is totally off topic, but it is just something I am passionate about. I would have loved to major in Psychology, and become a Criminal Psychologist :)


As a psych major, I can shed some insight. (GO ME)

It all comes down to the whole "Nature versus Nuture" argument, and in a way, I think that BDSM/rough sex comes down to both. I was spanked a lot as a child and slapped even after I turned 18 (one reason I left home). But it was only done by one parent, my parents separated when I was 5 and I lived with my mom. To this day I do enjoy being spanked and some things slapped. Just no backhands to the face. I have never really thought about the correlation, but this thread got me thinking. There's not a direct correlation, although in some cases, I believe correlation occurs, and we're just not aware of it.

With the serial killers (tangent), you'll find that many of them suffer from antisocial disorder, and in a way don't have the ability to process emotions. This usually doesn't come up until they are about 17, and it affects boys more often than girls, my guess due to the amount of testosterone in the different sexes bodies. An impaired frontal lobe, or even an impaired amygdala and other parts of the "old brain" can cause increased aggression and lack of emotions. Some of them have a tumor. And some just are born that way and can't help it. Again, Nature versus Nuture.
 
Back
Top