The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[BLoved]

Once humans evolved culture, biological evolution pretty much stopped being an impetus for change. Instead of changing to fit our environment, we changed our environment to suit ourselves. This process began about 50,000 years ago, when hominins began to walk upright.

uhm ... you mean something closer to 3 million years, or more. Austalopithecus Afarensis or something even older.

Our pelvic construction became narrower and longer, and our heads became bigger and parturition became dangerous.

Actually, walking on two legs preceded bigger brains by something close to a million years, perhaps more. Homo Habilis. Stone tools and the steady advance of brain development seem to have gone hand in hand.

Females could no longer step away from the tribe and drop a baby-- they needed a helper. And guess who the helpers were? Other females, older and more experienced.

That appears likely, based on studies of primitive tribes.

Hunters (males) tend to avoid blood prior to a hunt as predators tend to be particularly sensitive to that scent (wounded animals, carcasses).

Love, according to this model, did NOT begin with male-female pairing, kids, it began with mother-daughter pairing.

I don't believe I've said Love began with pair-bonding.

My understanding of Love leads me to believe any mother who fights to defend her young is expressing Love, be they human or otherwise.

Considering birds and alligators demonstrate this trait, Love is a very ancient drive which we've inherited from our ancestors.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Geez. It must be really fun to be this guy's "beloved."

 

[clock1]

Having trouble keeping up?

We've been talking about intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding.

Through 1,000 generations of successful human reproduction the link between the two have ensured that females with offspring weren't left unprotected or unprovided.

But they have been left unprotected and unprovided in many instances. There is research that looks over and over at "sneaky sex" in many animals, particularly primates, of which humans are.

Many posters have espoused what they think or believe. Fact is there is research, which, while not answering every question certainlky keep the wild meanderings at a minimum.

There is a great deal of material available. A few to consider I've listed below.

Read:
Sara Blaffer Hrdy's "Mother Nature"
Robert Wright "The Moral Animal"

Read Helen Fisher, Amy Parrish or William Tooke

Read about the Bari people of Veneauela or the Oneida comune of New York (1837)

 

[BLoved]

And I'm saying *blood* and *familial* bonds are more important in that setup. A man married because her dad and brothers were going to kick his ass if he didn't. A woman's children were cared for because the women hung together. The interactions between the parents of offspring are usually more limited, children in a lot of again so called "primitive" cultures have very little dad face-time, and mom just as little.

You are describing more recent societies than those which dominated most of those 30,000 years of evolution.

You are thinking of more modern societies where urbanization has occurred and a man has a choice regarding a mate.

Most of those 30,000 years was spent on migration routes hunting and gathering with the same small group of family, with chance encounters involving other tribes where an exchange of young adults might occur to avoid in-breeding.

I suspect most young adults were grateful enough to find one person with whom they could share intimacies without the need of anyone to force them into a life-long commitment.

 

[BLoved]

Dude, you really need to learn more about the subject. Bonobos are famous for casual recreational sex.

C.F. Jan De Waal.

In all the literature I've read their sexual interactions strengthen the social (emotional) bonds.

 

[00Syd]

In all the literature I've read their sexual interactions strengthen the social (emotional) bonds.

What literature is that?

 

[BLoved]

It should, but Godwin's Law never stopped a discussion from continuing!

Godwin's Law doesn't apply when it is simply a matter of stating historical fact.

Otherwise, Godwin's Law acts as a gag order preventing any mention of the Nazis or their policies.

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” - Winston Churchill

 

[Stella_Omega]

uhm ... you mean something closer to 3 million years, or more. Austalopithecus Afarensis or something even older.

Eh feh, I'm tired and in fact this is my area of research-- but the paper I want is at my office and not in digital form.

Actually, walking on two legs preceded bigger brains by something close to a million years, perhaps more. Homo Habilis. Stone tools and the steady advance of brain development seem to have gone hand in hand.

There's a lot of newer evidence on the subject.

That appears likely, based on studies of primitive tribes.

Um no, because the "primitive tribes" that we can study are all already Homo Sapiens.

Hunters (males) tend to avoid blood prior to a hunt as predators tend to be particularly sensitive to that scent (wounded animals, carcasses).

yeah, the Might Mammoth Hunter dudes, of course.

Nope-- we are talking much much earlier, when man was still foraging, long before we began to use tools-- or at least, long before we began to use stone tools, the only materials which have lasted long enough for us to see.

I don't believe I've said Love began with pair-bonding.

You sure seem to conflate the two.

My understanding of Love leads me to believe any mother who fights to defend her young is expressing Love, be they human or otherwise.

Considering birds and alligators demonstrate this trait, Love is a very ancient drive which we've inherited from our ancestors.

Fighting to defend one's young is not love. That's your basic reproductive imperative at work. The minute those baby alligators are ready to walk away, momma not only stops defending them, she will eat them if she runs into them once more.

Nurturing your progeny, feeding them milk from your breast, sheltering them from the elements, teaching your baby to speak the language of your society, indoctrinating the child with the culture it will live in for the rest of its life-

That is love. Only birds, which are warm-blooded, and mammals, nurture offspring in this way, and only three groups in the world go beyond essential child-rearing to teach culture-- Apes (including humans most notably), Elephants, and Dolphins. These three critters are also the only animals known to have a special type of brain neuron, called "Spindle neurons," which seem to be a crucial part of the mechanism of self-awareness.
CF Jan de Waal.

 

[Netzach]

Eh feh, I'm tired and in fact this is my area of research-- but the paper I want is at my office and not in digital form.
There's a lot of newer evidence on the subject.


Um no, because the "primitive tribes" that we can study are all already Homo Sapiens.
yeah, the Might Mammoth Hunter dudes, of course.

Nope-- we are talking much much earlier, when man was still foraging, long before we began to use tools-- or at least, long before we began to use stone tools, the only materials which have lasted long enough for us to see.

You sure seem to conflate the two.Fighting to defend one's young is not love. That's your basic reproductive imperative at work. The minute those baby alligators are ready to walk away, momma not only stops defending them, she will eat them if she runs into them once more.

Nurturing your progeny, feeding them milk from your breast, sheltering them from the elements, teaching your baby to speak the language of your society, indoctrinating the child with the culture it will live in for the rest of its life-

That is love. Only birds, which are warm-blooded, and mammals, nurture offspring in this way, and only three groups in the world go beyond essential child-rearing to teach culture-- Apes (including humans most notably), Elephants, and Dolphins. These three critters are also the only animals known to have a special type of brain neuron, called "Spindle neurons," which seem to be a crucial part of the mechanism of self-awareness.
CF Jan de Waal.

Avian moms will also sit there quietly during siblicide episodes.

 

[Netzach]

You are describing more recent societies than those which dominated most of those 30,000 years of evolution.

You are thinking of more modern societies where urbanization has occurred and a man has a choice regarding a mate.

Most of those 30,000 years was spent on migration routes hunting and gathering with the same small group of family, with chance encounters involving other tribes where an exchange of young adults might occur to avoid in-breeding.

I suspect most young adults were grateful enough to find one person with whom they could share intimacies without the need of anyone to force them into a life-long commitment.

I suspect most young adults were thrilled to have survived childhood, and weren't especially picky.

 

[BLoved]

My point is that you lump my current relationship in with "one night stands" because I can't say I will be with The Man until I die - even though there is a great deal of emotional bonding involved.

I went back to see what you've said about your relationship and uncovered this quote from the "Book-burning ..." thread:

You are starting from a viewpoint that anyone who doesn't do it your way (love=BDSM) is unethical. I've been in love based BDSM relationships that were horrifically mentally abusive. I for one consider it to be unethical to abuse someone, but since the man loved me (and for a while I him), I guess to you that was an ethical relationship? My current relationship is not love based, but it is respect based... best relationship I've ever had, actually. But according to your views, it is unethical.

Have you noticed how you define "love"?

I've been in love based BDSM relationships that were horrifically mentally abusive.

Tell me such a definition for "love" doesn't represent a dysfunctional attitude.

And when I speak of "love", what do you hear?

horrifically mentally abusive.

You claim to have been abused by people in "love based BDSM relationships" (note, plural) and you define "love" as "horrifically mentally abusive".

You claim the "best relationship" you've ever had is one "not love based", one where you refuse to give a commitment.

In what way is this anything like the love I'm talking about?

In what way is your definition for "love" superior to mine?

In what way is it a symptom of a dysfunctional attitude towards love, the result of experiencing abuse that has driven you to pursue a relationship where love won't happen?

In what way does that deny my statements credibility about casual 'bdsm' and those who participate in it?

Why should anyone else embrace your love-less existence as something they should emulate?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Why should anyone else embrace your love-less existence as something they should emulate?

why should anyone else emulate her? Because they, too, might equate "love" with "horrific abuse."

I might suggest that the two of you are actually talking about the same thing, using different words for it.

 

[CutieMouse]

I went back to see what you've said about your relationship and uncovered this quote from the "Book-burning ..." thread:

Have you noticed how you define "love"?

Tell me such a definition for "love" doesn't represent a dysfunctional attitude.

And when I speak of "love", what do you hear?

You claim to have been abused by people in "love based BDSM relationships" (note, plural) and you define "love" as "horrifically mentally abusive".

You claim the "best relationship" you've ever had is one "not love based", one where you refuse to give a commitment.

In what way is this anything like the love I'm talking about?

In what way is your definition for "love" superior to mine?

In what way is it a symptom of a dysfunctional attitude towards love, the result of experiencing abuse that has driven you to pursue a relationship where love won't happen?

In what way does that deny my statements credibility about casual 'bdsm' and those who participate in it?

Why should anyone else embrace your love-less existence as something they should emulate?

Your love carries a foundation of 3 weeks prior to lifetime commitment.

My version of love takes more time to develop than that.

Your version of love denies that anything bad, damaging, or dysfunctional can occur in long term committed relationships (you give yourself a very handy loophole by stating that abuse can't occur in "loving" relationships).

My version of love acknowledges that there are people in the world who believe they are loved/loving, who actually have very unhealthy relationships.

My definition of love is not superior to yours; however, I disagree with your view of the subject - specifically that one is somehow safer, better off, more emotionally enlightened, etc through forming a lifetime bond with one person after a period of three weeks or less.

You assume my life is loveless, because I don't utilize the exact same language as you (using words like care, compassion, respect, concern, support instead of "True Love"). It is not.

I wish you well.

 

[BLoved]

Um no, because the "primitive tribes" that we can study are all already Homo Sapiens.

The mechanics of delivering a big-brained offspring remain the same, regardless of subspecies.

yeah, the Might Mammoth Hunter dudes, of course.

~smile~

Someone had to do it. Just be glad the men did, otherwise humanity might not have made it

You sure seem to conflate the two.Fighting to defend one's young is not love. That's your basic reproductive imperative at work.

Try telling that to the oyster.

The minute those baby alligators are ready to walk away, momma not only stops defending them, she will eat them if she runs into them once more.

Actually, she carries them in her mouth and delivers them to a 'nursery', defending them against encroachment. In the nursery they learn to hunt for themselves.

She may eat them later, but for a while even an alligator experiences a "maternal instinct".

Nurturing your progeny, feeding them milk from your breast, sheltering them from the elements, teaching your baby to speak the language of your society, indoctrinating the child with the culture it will live in for the rest of its life-

That is love. Only birds, which are warm-blooded

And as old as the dinosaurs, from which they developed.

, and mammals, nurture offspring in this way, and only three groups in the world go beyond essential child-rearing to teach culture-- Apes (including humans most notably), Elephants, and Dolphins. These three critters are also the only animals known to have a special type of brain neuron, called "Spindle neurons," which seem to be a crucial part of the mechanism of self-awareness.
CF Jan de Waal.

And how does de Waal explain such a specialized evolutionary product existing in three families as divergent as these?

 

[CutieMouse]

why should anyone else emulate her? Because they, too, might equate "love" with "horrific abuse."

I might suggest that the two of you are actually talking about the same thing, using different words for it.

Actually I've walked away from familial and intimate relationships I once thought loving, because I came to realize they were not. The only thing I would wish anyone to emulate re: that concept, is a sense of strength and self-preservation.

I've repeatedly tried explaining my views of love are similar to BL's, simply couched in different words... but you know, I'm just a poor broken shell of a human being, raised by abusive people, repeating the same abuses overandoverandover, submissive due to my horrible history, incapable of any true connection, independent thought, or ability to overcome the past.

Until I learn my lesson and commit the next 40+ years of my life to a guy off CollarMe.... a true [white knight] dominant, well, *sigh*... I must accept that I am just doomed to a life of emptiness.

[/sarcasm]

 

[warrior queen]

You are describing more recent societies than those which dominated most of those 30,000 years of evolution.

You are thinking of more modern societies where urbanization has occurred and a man has a choice regarding a mate.

Most of those 30,000 years was spent on migration routes hunting and gathering with the same small group of family, with chance encounters involving other tribes where an exchange of young adults might occur to avoid in-breeding.

I suspect most young adults were grateful enough to find one person with whom they could share intimacies without the need of anyone to force them into a life-long commitment.

surely....... no, couldn't be....... the highlighted and underlined section seems to suggest that you believe this kind of CASUAL (and therefore 'abusive') behaviour was *gasp!!!* normal for our ancestors!

does this then mean that we are actually genetically programmed (those 30,000 yrs of evolution you quote so often) to indulge in casual and therefore abusive behaviours???

where does that then leave your 'true love' theory?
are you actually wrong, and have inadvertantly admitted to being so?

day-yam!!! i'm so glad i decided to check the thread!

 

[BLoved]

Your version of love denies that anything bad, damaging, or dysfunctional can occur in long term committed relationships

Incorrect.

(you give yourself a very handy loophole by stating that abuse can't occur in "loving" relationships).

I pity you that you believe a person can both love and abuse someone.

Love and abuse are mutually exclusive.

I can no more abuse the person I love than I could love a person I was abusing.

Abuse is an expression of fear, not love.

I wish you well.

And I you.

 

[BLoved]

[/sarcasm]

Surprising how we hide the truth from ourselves, even when we desperately want to see it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The mechanics of delivering a big-brained offspring remain the same, regardless of subspecies.

~smile~

Someone had to do it. Just be glad the men did, otherwise humanity might not have made it

I always laugh at the notion of the Mighty Mammoth Hunter. It says so much about the fantasies of men, and so much about their ignorance of what kind of hunting actually sustains a clan.

Try telling that to the oyster.

Dude you'll have to explain that one, I am curious.

Actually, she carries them in her mouth and delivers them to a 'nursery', defending them against encroachment. In the nursery they learn to hunt for themselves.

She may eat them later, but for a while even an alligator experiences a "maternal instinct".

Mammals go a long way past that. We feed our babies while they mature. And the few cultural animals exhibit so much more than an instinct; we continue to nurture one another after maturity.

And as old as the dinosaurs, from which they developed.

From one genus of dinosaur. Which may or may not have done much nurturing, we can only conjecture. Regardless, it's a visible fact that mammals do so.

And how does de Waal explain such a specialized evolutionary product existing in three families as divergent as these?

There is no real need to explain that; the structures exist in these few groups, and the brains that have them exhibit certain unique traits-- like recognising themselves in mirrors, response to distress that goes beyond mere emotion contagion, the ability to place themselves in another creature's perspective.

For further information, i strongly urge you to read De Waal's books. He's the primatologist that described Bononbos and proved they were a different species to Chimps, and is a wonderful and enjoyable author to boot.

(Arrgh, it's Frans de Waal, not Jan... I am ti-ruhd! )

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually I've walked away from familial and intimate relationships I once thought loving, because I came to realize they were not. The only thing I would wish anyone to emulate re: that concept, is a sense of strength and self-preservation.

I hear you! BUT!

I've repeatedly tried explaining my views of love are similar to BL's, simply couched in different words... but you know, I'm just a poor broken shell of a human being, raised by abusive people, repeating the same abuses overandoverandover, submissive due to my horrible history, incapable of any true connection, independent thought, or ability to overcome the past..

Until I learn my lesson and commit the next 40+ years of my life to a guy off CollarMe.... a true [white knight] dominant, well, *sigh*... I must accept that I am just doomed to a life of emptiness.

[/sarcasm]

You have got to stop speaking in passive-aggressive phrasing like this, my darling mousie. I love me a strong sub, who chooses to do what she's doing because that's what she's chosen. As far as I can tell, that's you in reality.

DO NOT talk yourself down to a dickwad, not in play, not in sarcasm. Speak straight, love. Don't give a prick who has already pointed his gun at you any further ammunition.

 

[CutieMouse]

Surprising how we hide the truth from ourselves, even when we desperately want to see it.

Congratulations you fucking useless piece of human trash. You are officially the second person in 6 years to offend me badly enough to use foul language.

You are a pretentious, ignorant, arrogant prick. I pity any woman who is so brainwashed and weak willed as to suffer your imbicilic version if "dominance", much less "love". Because through your words and actions you show your true colors. You are one manipulative fuck; no wonder other communities "silenced" you - your twisting of words and callous indifference towards others is nothing short of evil.

I take it back. I don't wish you well at all.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Congratulations you fucking useless piece of human trash. You are officially the second person in 6 years to offend me badly enough to use foul language.

You are a pretentious, ignorant, arrogant prick. I pity any woman who is so brainwashed and weak willed as to suffer your imbicilic version if "dominance", much less "love". Because through your words and actions you show your true colors. You are one manipulative fuck; no wonder other communities "silenced" you - your twisting of words and callous indifference towards others is nothing short of evil.

I take it back. I don't wish you well at all.

Bravo!

 

[chy_girl]

Congratulations you fucking useless piece of human trash. You are officially the second person in 6 years to offend me badly enough to use foul language. *snip*

......

Well said.

Bravo!

QFT

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

pair-bonding.

Covalent bonding!

Argh!

(Ok, I think I'm ready for semester to start again)

 

[clock1]

Incorrect.



I pity you that you believe a person can both love and abuse someone.

Love and abuse are mutually exclusive.

I can no more abuse the person I love than I could love a person I was abusing.

Abuse is an expression of fear, not love.



.

Whoa!

Love can certainly coexist with abuse. I have worked with abused children for many years. Some of the most abusive parents love their children the most. They abuse in the name of discipline. They may "fear" sparing the rod will spoil the child" and quote (slightky askew) the book you cite societies from in an earlier post as their justification. However, they love their children. The children even know it, and make excuses/allowances for the abusive behavior.

So, the same can happen in relationships. Cutiemouse points out that she was in a mutual loving relationship where abuse occured. Eventually that abuse (along with other factors I wouild imagine) was no longer compensated for by the love, and love died. You erroneously deny that love ever existed.

Yes, love can die. Everything dies. Pair bonding for life is a myth upheld by societal rules of order. It does not happen to any species as a matter of biology. (Individuals, sometimes many, in some species do achieve this, but it is not the absolute in any, especially humans.)

You have abused people you loved. You were simply unaware, and they too kind to point it out to you. That too is part of human nature on both sides.

Abuse may have aspects of fear, but fear and love are no more mutually exclusive than abuse and love. You are trying to take your minimally backed by research view of love/abuse/biology and paint the entire world, all cultures and many animal species with the same brush of your limited knowledge and education. (Dare I say emotional attachments?)

The world is much bigger than that and DNA will continue to replicate itself within and external to what is "known" by any individual or group of individuals.