Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
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: