The Biology of BSDM

[SimonDoom]

How many times have you enumerated?

--Annie (uncountably many)

I almost bit on this one.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

I almost bit on this one.

Oh you almost got him! Don't worry, there's always next time!

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Nobody really picked up on my post, so I'll be a bit more blunt.

I mentioned remembering having foot fetish tendencies at the earliest age, much before I knew anything about the bees, and at an age when I should have considered such ideas repulsive. I mean, I should have thought of feet as just eww, filthy! (much as someone else here! )

That makes me think that our sexual preferences and kinks might be at least partially inherited? I find that mindblowing in a way.
I mean, there's no way I could have simply formed an attraction at that age. Sure, with age, those preferences developed and expanded, especially when I became aware of my sexuality, but the basic attraction was present long before any true awareness.

But seriously, what do you guys think about your sexual preferences and kinks being genetic in nature? Does anyone have similar experiences?

 

[ElectricBlue]

But seriously, what do you guys think about your sexual preferences and kinks being genetic in nature? Does anyone have similar experiences?

To the extent that I ever enquired about my parents' peccadillos, I don't think so. Although... my first erotica was from my dad's bookshelf (Story of O, de Sade, that sort of thing), so perhaps I developed a similar taste in women and writing.

There was that time when a university girlfriend was staying with us one Christmas, sleeping in the spare room - my own room still containing a not very wide single bed. She came through the kitchen where Dad was making the morning pot of tea for my mum, and he swung around to greet her, kettle in one hand and teapot in the other, with his dressing gown not properly tied.

She observed later, "Well, indeed you are your father's son," and put that theory to the test. But that's not preferences and kinks, but certainly was genetics.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

To the extent that I ever enquired about my parents' peccadillos, I don't think so. Although... my first erotica was from my dad's bookshelf (Story of O, de Sade, that sort of thing), so perhaps I developed a similar taste in women and writing.

There was that time when a university girlfriend was staying with us one Christmas, sleeping in the spare room - my own room still containing a not very wide single bed. She came through the kitchen where Dad was making the morning pot of tea for my mum, and he swung around to greet her, kettle in one hand and teapot in the other, with his dressing gown not properly tied.

She observed later, "Well, indeed you are your father's son," and put that theory to the test. But that's not preferences and kinks, but certainly was genetics.

The reason I talked about an attraction that appeared at such an early age for me, basically when I was three or four, is that I can't see how that attraction could have been "nurtured" at that age, especially in a very chaste environment of my childhood. My parents were the type that rushed to cover my eyes if a tit appeared on the TV screen.

So, in the sense of the nature vs nurture debate, I'd say that one had to come from nature. Yet I never thought about kinks as something you could inherit.
Come to think of it, I think my dad had a thing for feet, even though everything was chaste as hell in my family. All of this feels too weird.

 

[ElectricBlue]

So, in the sense of the nature vs nurture debate, I'd say that one had to come from nature. Yet I never thought about kinks as something you could inherit.
Come to think of it, I think my dad had a thing for feet, even though everything was chaste as hell in my family. All of this feels too weird.

Ain't that the truth, @WeirdSet...

 

[Nynah]

But seriously, what do you guys think about your sexual preferences and kinks being genetic in nature? Does anyone have similar experiences?

I think sexuality has been more studied than kinks; as with all things I don't think it's a binary one way or another and a confluence of factors from both nature and nurture shape who we are in that aspect.

Regarding kinks, I have absolutely zero desire to find out how much my parents' and ancestors' genetics influence mine. Nurture-wise, I grew up in a very rigid, chaste household where sexual expression was repressed so I think there is a direct link between that and my interest in exhibitionism/voyeurism as kinks. Corporal punishment was also a factor in my upbringing which is almost certainly the proximate cause for my utter disinterest in impact play/pain/spanking of any kind.

 

[SimonDoom]

The reason I talked about an attraction that appeared at such an early age for me, basically when I was three or four, is that I can't see how that attraction could have been "nurtured" at that age, especially in a very chaste environment of my childhood. My parents were the type that rushed to cover my eyes if a tit appeared on the TV screen.

So, in the sense of the nature vs nurture debate, I'd say that one had to come from nature. Yet I never thought about kinks as something you could inherit.
Come to think of it, I think my dad had a thing for feet, even though everything was chaste as hell in my family. All of this feels too weird.

It's probably a stretch to say that there's a "foot fetish" gene. But it wouldn't surprise me if our genetic inheritances predispose us in different ways toward fetishes and kinks, or that your foot fetish resulted as a consequence of the interaction between your own particular genetic inheritance and your environment when you were young.

 

[nice90sguy]

a consequence of the interaction between your own particular genetic inheritance and your environment when you were young

200% agree, but of course, there is never, ever, THE explanation for any human beviour. And Sapolsky's massively popular book "Behave" goes deep into that, as does his even better second blockbuster, "Determined".

 

[SimonDoom]

Before diving into that, people may want to try the essay My Kinky Shadow which is by the same author, basically looking at BDSM through a Jungian lens. In as much as I understand it, which is not far despite the efforts of a few of the cited references trying to explain it in the pub, it's partly about reclaiming the 'Other' that we aren't meant to be, and coming to terms with our dark sides, and stuff. Kinda like punk, accepting queerness, embracing rock and roll, and such.

Anyway, try a few pages for free before getting into more rather dense text.

I read the essay you cited to. I recommend it. One of the passages I liked:

Shahbaz and Chirinos (2017) review over twenty years of research, which supports this update by the APA. The authors summarize these findings stating, “BDSM practitioners generally tend to have a higher level of self-esteem; are healthier than the average person; have better than average communication skills, imagination, and self-awareness; and are capable of undergoing insightful reflection during psychotherapy.”

I'm not an expert on Jungian psychology and would probably make a fool of myself to say too much about it. But I think there is a lot to the concept that we have a shadow side of ourselves, and that it's healthy to face it and accept it rather than trying to suppress it. When I look at my own interest in erotica, I think in some ways it is an effort to give expression to that shadow side. I think this is why I tend to take a sanguine view toward writing and reading erotica that is transgressive and "wrong." By writing such erotica we're not endorsing the things that happen in the stories; we're venting something that lies deep inside us, and that venting is healthy.

 

[SimonDoom]

Oh you almost got him! Don't worry, there's always next time!

1. Almost doesn't count.
2. No, there won't be a next time.
3. Wait, what did I just do?

 

[AG31]

So yea, if you wanna tell me (even by PM if you're more comfortable) that you'd rather I let this drop or just stop dorking out in general, please know I welcome the feedback and don't want to ruin any fun.

Please do continue! What's your background? (Apologies if you told us up thread and I wasn't yet paying attention.)

 

[AG31]

@SimonDoom said: I read the essay you cited to. I recommend it. One of the passages I liked:

Shahbaz and Chirinos (2017) review over twenty years of research, which supports this update by the APA. The authors summarize these findings stating, “BDSM practitioners generally tend to have a higher level of self-esteem; are healthier than the average person; have better than average communication skills, imagination, and self-awareness; and are capable of undergoing insightful reflection during psychotherapy.”

At the risk of sounding impossibly conceited, I thought I recognized myself (including my interest in BDSM) in this description. From reading posts in the forums, I understand that not every BDSM fan feels this way. As many have said, it's complicated.

And to pick up on another theme here, I had my first clearly BDSM dream at around age 6.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

Please do continue! What's your background? (Apologies if you told us up thread and I wasn't yet paying attention.)

I am a psychology generalist as a result of my previous job teaching college level psych (as an adjunct which basically made me an intructional temp worker). I'm also a bit of an applied psychologist if that term didnt' have a very specific meaning in the field and we just stuck with what it sounds like it means - I take psychology and apply it to whatever job and situation I find myself in, and that's served me quite well even when I'm not teaching. But because I'm an adjunct, I have to keep up with research and whatnot across the entire field because I might be asked to teach just about anything (even if I've never taken that course before which has been an interesting experience, basically making you a professional learner who teaches others).

Sapolsky certainly has more credentials (and citations) than I ever hope to have (somewhat by design, but also just because of his reach and work). He's lived a really interesting life and has broken some interesting ground in the field, but that's never really stopped me from questioning or fact checking any other expert either, often with success (as in, they wrote shit that I brought up because they hadn't thought of it before). Expertise certainly matters, but we do ourselves AND science as a whole harm if we bow too deeply to it.

And heck, Sapolsky is speaking outside of his area of expertise in this video. He answered by doing what you or I might do, or someone like Darryl Talks Games might do on YouTube - he learned something new and/or applied something he already knew to a question in front of him. And mostly he seemed to do it well, it just bothers me when experts rely on that expertise to make such broad statements and then misrepresent the consensus of the folks who do actually specialize in that field. If you ask him, though, he had no choice (last I knew, he was one of the behavioral neuroscientists who don't believe in free will, just that we don't know all of the relevant variables and lack computers with enough computing power to take them all into consideration once we do know which are relevant so that we can predict human behavior with 100% success. And now that I type that out - it would make a pretty cool story to be in a future where neuroscientists had figured that out and could therefore manipulate those variables to create their desired future).

I'm still in brain recovery mode (yes, this is recovery mode because I don't have to scroll websites or compile research citations, I babble about psychology in my sleep, literally. Since it seems folks are interested (or at least, no one has said here or via PM that I should shush), I will come back to this board to dissect his video further. He makes some very interesting points, I just think he also misses some important nuance and misstates some connections - it almost makes me wonder if instead of learning something new to answer a question he used what he learned in school which was not up to date with modern research, but that seems odd given that when he *did* give citations, they were often modern enough. That one I won't know - us cogs don't really get to just email the experts willy nilly and expect an answer.

Before diving into that, people may want to try the essay My Kinky Shadow which is by the same author, basically looking at BDSM through a Jungian lens.

And related to the above - I'm not ignoring this recommendation. Working through it as well - shadow work has recently been a focus on mine just for fun and so I'm loving these recommendations on this thread! Y'all are freaking awesome.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

@SimonDoom said: I read the essay you cited to. I recommend it. One of the passages I liked:

Shahbaz and Chirinos (2017) review over twenty years of research, which supports this update by the APA. The authors summarize these findings stating, “BDSM practitioners generally tend to have a higher level of self-esteem; are healthier than the average person; have better than average communication skills, imagination, and self-awareness; and are capable of undergoing insightful reflection during psychotherapy.”
At the risk of sounding impossibly conceited, I thought I recognized myself (including my interest in BDSM) in this description. From reading posts in the forums, I understand that not every BDSM fan feels this way. As many have said, it's complicated.

And to pick up on another theme here, I had my first clearly BDSM dream at around age 6.

Also tagging @SimonDoom

I don't know anything about the genetics of BDSM, so I can't speak to that, but I just wanted to add here - there is a confound that I don't know if they accounted for here: Good communication in relationships. I've seen, for example, reports of the same in consensual polyamorous relationships, which often emphasize the need for open and honest communication about relationship desires and needs. The same would absolutely be true of healthy BDSM relationships.

It's also why the BDSM community at large HATED 50 Shades of Grey (at least, those corners of the community to which I had a connection at the time it was all over the place). Communication and consent were so lacking, it just undercut some central values that newbies in local scenes were always "trained" in for lack of a better word (yes, I know, we don't train our doms, but ... yea we do).

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

Ironically, this came in my email inbox today in one of my many newsletters. Thought the folks on this thread might find it interesting even though it's only tangentially related to BDSM: https://www.psypost.org/controlled-fear-might-temporarily-alter-brain-patterns-linked-to-depression/

 

[FrancesScott]

he was one of the behavioral neuroscientists who don't believe in free will, just that we don't know all of the relevant variables and lack computers with enough computing power to take them all into consideration once we do know which are relevant so that we can predict human behavior with 100% success

This is of course a mathematically innumerate position to take. Three body problem anyone?

 

[nice90sguy]

The book "Determined" points out early on, to allay confusion, that our behaviour is 100% determined (by external and internal factors, which I partially listed in an earlier post on this thread) but that fact does not make it threfore PREDICTABLE. To know how a person will behave in the future gets rapidly impossible after more than a tenth of a second. There are too many interacting factors at play.

The three body problem is a very simple example of showing how a a derministic system can be neverthless unpredicatble.

At its core, all Sapolsky is asserting is that human behaviour ia like any other process in nature: The causes of our behaviour are many and complex, but there's no magic involved.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

The book "Determined" points out early on, to allay confusion, that our behaviour is 100% determined (by external and internal factors, which I partially listed in an earlier post on this thread) but that fact does not make it threfore PREDICTABLE. To know how a person will behave in the future gets rapidly impossible after more than a tenth of a second. There are too many interacting factors at play.

The three body problem is a very simple example of showing how a a derministic system can be neverthless unpredicatble.

At its core, all Sapolsky is asserting is that human behaviour ia like any other process in nature: The causes of our behaviour are many and complex, but there's no magic involved.

Any behavioral determinists I have ever interacted with have added a "yet" after the "cannot be predicted." It's not that it never *could* be predicted, simply that we do not (yet) have the model or computing power to do the predicting (or, rather, the ability to adjust the model at speeds great enough to account for the chaos). I have heard the same within the circle of physicists discussing the three body problem (although I admit that those conversations have been far less frequent than the ones I've had with deterministic neuroscientists). Could that be sampling bias in terms of those I've had contact with? Absolutely. I readily admit this is outside of my area of expertise and I am leaning on the work and perspectives of others here. But that "yet" has always seemed very important. But, as I've mentioned Sapolsky is not one with whom I've interacted, so I couldn't tell you if he adds that "yet" when thinking about determinism.

Apologies for not tagging you in the post. I saw you had mentioned his two popular books and you appear to have some skin in the game with regards to defending his positions (and have read quite a bit of his work, suggesting you are either a fan of his or within the same field of study). I have not seen my posts as largely being in opposition to yours nor do I see value in you and I necessarily going back and forth - but I also readily admit (and want to make clear that I know this is a me problem and not a you problem) that I cannot cite the sources right now that would be necessary to document his errors. It's knowledge I have bouncing around in there from that generalist background and some of the things I've needed to use it for, but that knowledge doesn't include those citations. I have to dig. I can't right now. You'd be amazed how long even writing this reply has taken, but replying to you feels important because I don't like discouraging scientific discussion and I fear that my missing the tag there may have done so (or felt that way which can do so whether intended or not).

It's important to me to state, publicly, that the criticisms I was making of his arguments were not intended as criticisms of you sharing the video or of you overall. I think it's an interesting watch, I think it brings attention to a really cool aspect of BDSM which has clearly been of interest to many here, and discussions like these, even when people politely disagree, have great value. I also get the sense that you are either a fan of Sapolsky's in general or find yourself somewhere within the field of psychology in particular. Either fascinate me and add to the fact that I've been enjoying the interactions on this thread (heck, even if you were neither of those things, I'd still be enjoying. It's a great thread). If you have not been enjoying the interactions, though, then I will bow out and leave it at that. I'm not here to take away anyone's joy and this is your thread, not mine.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

This is of course a mathematically innumerate position to take. Three body problem anyone?

The three body problem can be solved to any desired degree of accuracy. The solution will be approximate, but it can be accurate to one centimeter over 1 million years, given accurate observations.

--Annie

 

[FrancesScott]

The three body problem can be solved to any desired degree of accuracy. The solution will be approximate, but it can be accurate to one centimeter over 1 million years, given accurate observations.

--Annie

I do know that. Depends what you mean by solved. I’d use approximated instead. And there is a non-zero probability of any approximation being wrong.

But the claim that with powerful enough computers we will naturally be able to accurately model human behavior is frankly hogwash.

I hate experts in one field wandering into another one, of which they know nothing, and making demonstrably false claims.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The three body problem can be solved to any desired degree of accuracy. The solution will be approximate, but it can be accurate to one centimeter over 1 million years, given accurate observations.

--Annie

In a theoretical scenario where you know the initial state exactly. IRL, we never know the initial state exactly (thanks Heisenberg) and those uncertainties increase over time to the point where they become significant.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The reason I talked about an attraction that appeared at such an early age for me, basically when I was three or four, is that I can't see how that attraction could have been "nurtured" at that age, especially in a very chaste environment of my childhood. My parents were the type that rushed to cover my eyes if a tit appeared on the TV screen.

So, in the sense of the nature vs nurture debate, I'd say that one had to come from nature. Yet I never thought about kinks as something you could inherit.
Come to think of it, I think my dad had a thing for feet, even though everything was chaste as hell in my family. All of this feels too weird.

Some things aren't either nature or nurture. These two people are monozygotic ("identical") twins, raised in the same family. They did not turn out the same:

 

[FrancesScott]

In a theoretical scenario where you know the initial state exactly. IRL, we never know the initial state exactly (thanks Heisenberg) and those uncertainties increase over time to the point where they become significant.

And, in a chaotic system, a tiny difference can get magnified very quickly.

We still cling to the illusion of precision for some reason. Precision is for math, not physics.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

In a theoretical scenario where you know the initial state exactly. IRL, we never know the initial state exactly (thanks Heisenberg) and those uncertainties increase over time to the point where they become significant.

Certainly, but measurement uncertainty also makes mathematically solvable problems have increasingly unreliable predictions. My point was, the three-body problem being mathematically not solved doesn't mean it's automatically chaotic, nor does being mathematically soluble make something non-chaotic.

--Annie