Is BDSM inborn or made ?

[Stella_Omega]

I think nature is the driving force that drives people into being straight. Not the "normal" or "abnormal" argument but given that procreation happens out of heterosexual intercourse I think nature drives us to be straight for the propagation of the species.

I don't think you understood what i was saying, actually. I said that most of us have the potential to go either way. And it can be totally situational. I'm a dyke and I have two kids. I can't count the number of gay men I know who've managed to knock up some woman unexpectedly. Our society pushes the either-or pretty , but even so the "Gold Stars" among us are pretty rare.

Sure, our society continues that with its imagery and entertainment but that's not exactly shocking.

Shocking? Far from it. It's so pervasive that people don't even notice. They only notice when someone points it out.

I get my kicks out of pointing it out.

 

[WastelandVoice]

I don't think you understood what i was saying, actually. I said that most of us have the potential to go either way. And it can be totally situational. I'm a dyke and I have two kids. I can't count the number of gay men I know who've managed to knock up some woman unexpectedly. Our society pushes the either-or pretty , but even so the "Gold Stars" among us are pretty rare. Shocking? Far from it. It's so pervasive that people don't even notice. They only notice when someone points it out.

I get my kicks out of pointing it out.

I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree that most of us have the potential to go either way.

I was being sarcastic when I said "that's not exactly shocking."

But my point was that there is no such thing as homosexual reproduction so I think nature is what pushes most of us toward being straight simply out of a need/desire to reproduce- the same instinct you see in animals that mate simply because it's mating time but on a different, obviously more self-aware scale.

Some people operate differently of course but I think the inborn tendancy to be heterosexual is a product of nature more so than nurture... society DOES nurture that tendancy, sure, because it's considered to be the "normal, natural progression of things."

 

[WastelandVoice]

What's more important to the survival of the species? Default heterosexuality for reproduction, or the ability to create more numerous bonded family groups that can work together for the greater survival of the species?

Creatnig more numerous bonded family groups that can work together for the greater survival of the species is not predicated on homosexuality or bisexuality though- that could/does exist in heterosexual society as well.

Regardless this is a fascinating conversation but I do think we're hijacking the original point of the thread which was asking whether the desire/interest in BDSM was inborn or made...

I'm cool to keep talking about this subject here or in PM's with someone but I dont' want the OP or anyone else to get upset at the subject switching over... just sayin'

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree that most of us have the potential to go either way.

I was being sarcastic when I said "that's not exactly shocking."

But my point was that there is no such thing as homosexual reproduction so I think nature is what pushes most of us toward being straight simply out of a need/desire to reproduce- the same instinct you see in animals that mate simply because it's mating time but on a different, obviously more self-aware scale.

And my point is that it's spectacularly easy to be straight for a minute and walk away having reproduced. Nature doesn't require a lifetime of straightness for that.

Some people operate differently of course but I think the inborn tendancy to be heterosexual is a product of nature more so than nurture... society DOES nurture that tendancy, sure, because it's considered to be the "normal, natural progression of things."

Yes, it surely is considered to be that. That's what I've said three times now...

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Creatnig more numerous bonded family groups that can work together for the greater survival of the species is not predicated on homosexuality or bisexuality though- that could/does exist in heterosexual society as well.

Of course, I'm not saying that it can't. I'm just saying there's a place in species survival for homosexual activity. Species survival is about far more than mere reproduction. Besides, humans have proclivities for many things that have no reproductive benefit. Even outside of the numerous non-reproductive sexual activities there are, there are untold numbers of hobbies and activities that have little, to no, to even NEGATIVE direct effects on reproduction.

And I think that this topic is still relevant to the OP. Perhaps not specifically BDSM, no, but the central question was more related nature/nurture, no?

 

[WastelandVoice]

Of course, I'm not saying that it can't. I'm just saying there's a place in species survival for homosexual activity. Species survival is about far more than mere reproduction. Besides, humans have proclivities for many things that have no reproductive benefit. Even outside of the numerous non-reproductive sexual activities there are, there are untold numbers of hobbies and activities that have little, to no, to even NEGATIVE direct effects on reproduction.

And I think that this topic is still relevant to the OP. Perhaps not specifically BDSM, no, but the central question was more related nature/nurture, no?

See, you're getting away from the scientific and logical and moving into the sociological, the emotional, and the intangible implication and effect of things.

Species survival is not now, ever, nor will it ever be in any way about far more than reproduction.. it IS and always shall be forever and always ALL about reproduction.. that's what "survival" is... reproduction and the continuation of the line.... survival... continuation. You can't argue that the survival of the species has nothing to do with reproduction- it is the essential core of it all.

Yeah, there's things that people can and will do that have little to do with reproduction but that wasn't the point I was making or the ideas I was talking about. That has nothing to do with anything. The fact that we do sexual things that aren't based off reproduction isn't the point- nor was it ever the point.

The fact is that the only way to continue the human line- for people to reproduce, for mankind to continue... is through heterosexual reproduction. There is no such thing as homosexual reproduction. My point was/is that nature has predetermined that we reproduce- you can't deny that- everyone knows that and understands it. And THAT is why people are driven to be heterosexual- because it's what nature has determined for them/us- it's the way we are programmed to be and the way we are brought up. It's the natural progression of things.... it's how things work and there's no shame or shock or big secret or propaganda or agenda there. We've known for years, YEARS, that animals instinctively know how/when to reproduce- are we that different? Taking ALL personal opinions, politics, ideas, morals, values, etc out of the equation and just looking at this issue in a scientific light- we reproduce heterosexually. That's what we do- that's how nature has intended us to do it. And that, my argument again at its core, is why people are driven to be heterosexual- because nature had decided that is how we do it... yes, it could have gone the other way but it didn't.

There are no absolutes and nothing is ever 100%. Yes there are people/animals/creatures that will deviate from that- absolutely. But that is not the path that nature has determined- you can't point to 3 or 4 or even 10 differnt animals that will on occasion do sexual things for a point other than procreation, or who will engage in homosexual activities and say "see!" when the other 40 million species don't do it. 3 or 4 or 10 out of 40 million is not the rule... it's the very definition of the EXCEPTION to the rule.

The sheer fact that there is only heterosexual reproduction and not any other form should tell you that nature has played a part in this. Nature, whether it be god, evolution, or anything else has decreed that reproduction happens through heterosexual means. This doesn't mean that homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, etc are in any way bad or wrong or immoral or anything- absolutely not- -- they're just different, a deviation (sociologically speaking) from the given norm the same way that left handed people or natural redheads are. Doesn't make them bad people or wrong or immoral or anything like that- there will always be those who think that way but take THAT viewpoint out of it. Take the opinion viewpoint out of it and just view things scientifically and without emotion.

Nature- however you want to define "nature" has determined that we reproduce in the heterosexual way and my point is, was, and continues to be that THAT is what drives us to be heterosexual. We are driven to reproduce and to do the things that will continue that. We are driven to be heterosexual because that is what our species is intended, so far as the working parts are concerned, to do. It is not society, not the media, not anything else.

There is a big hetero slant to the world? Of coruse there is. It's not a secret or a vast conspiracy that needs to be pointed out or observed... It's NOT shocking. If we reproduced through homosexual means there'd be a big homosexual slant to the world.

But we don't. So there isn't.

 

[FurryFury]

At what point do humans figure out that by, in part, over populating our planet we are killing it which will, in all likelihood, kill us?

Perhaps at this point in time, we are actually better off NOT reproducing but rather by taking care of the children already on the planet.

So that if a significant number of adults were non breeders it would actually, scientifically be much better for all of us?

 

[WastelandVoice]

At what point do humans figure out that by, in part, over populating our planet we are killing it which will, in all likelihood, kill us?

Perhaps at this point in time, we are actually better off NOT reproducing but rather by taking care of the children already on the planet.

So that if a significant number of adults were non breeders it would actually, scientifically be much better for all of us?

Oh I agree there's too many people walkin' around. But overpopulation is a result of man's own doing and not any inherent problem with the fact that we can reproduce or the method in which we reproduce. Furthermore many of the problems that come about as a result of overpopulation are exacerbated if not directly caused by the inability of mankind to maintain and/or advance its infrastructure to support a growing population.

Compared to much of the animal kingdom we're actually very slow breeders - 9 months? Takes a while. Also, our decisions for breeding have changed drastically over our history and it is now more of a personal decision and choice to reproduce more than anything else.

We've removed any natural predator man once had through technological advancement and our own evolution. All that remains are germs and diseases.. and the occasional shark attack

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oookay..

Moving on.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

See, you're getting away from the scientific and logical and moving into the sociological, the emotional, and the intangible implication and effect of things.

Species survival is not now, ever, nor will it ever be in any way about far more than reproduction.. it IS and always shall be forever and always ALL about reproduction.. that's what "survival" is... reproduction and the continuation of the line.... survival... continuation. You can't argue that the survival of the species has nothing to do with reproduction- it is the essential core of it all.

I'm not saying that species survival has nothing to do with reproduction. I'm saying it has to do with MORE than reproduction. There's no point to being able to reproduce if you and your offspring can not survive past puberty. For example, let's compare the coyote and the wolf. Why has one survived and the other been pushed onto the endangered list? There is a small reproduction difference, in that in a wolf pack only the alpha pair tends to mate, and every coyote pair may mate. But I'd say that factor is not the important one. Wolves require huge ranges with larger game and have a far more significant impact on the human areas they invade. Coyotes can survive with smaller ranges, smaller game, and can frequently live around the edges of humans for quite some time before they're even noticed, much less caught.

If you can't utilize enough resources, and your young can not survive, it doesn't matter how well you breed. You'll notice that the most prolific breeders tend have low resource requirements and either have precocious young, or young that mature rapidly.

If homosexual behaviors enhance the survival of reproducing adults, or young, then it has a place in the survival of the specie. Yes, without the heterosexual reproduction, it's moot (at least, in the species that reproduce heterosexually. There a number of reptile/fish species that don't). And homosexual behaviors are far from commonplace. I never said otherwise, simply that they were present.

I do not disagree that homosexuality is "exceptional". That doesn't make it unnatural, or keep it from being beneficial. There are exceptions to general "rules" (because we all know Nature has a rulebook!) everywhere. There are animals that survive without a single ray of sunlight, animals that never drink water, animals that walk on it and even a specie of jellyfish that never truly dies! It reverts to an immature state and then matures once again. How freakin' exceptional is THAT!

Anyway, my point is and ever has been that homosexuality may have a place in species survival. No, it won't directly result in offspring. Duh. But that doesn't mean it is irrelevant. There is more to species survival than simple reproduction. The psychological effects of sex that have a positive benefit could be enhanced if, to put it bluntly, more individuals were having sex. Homosexuality or bisexuality would enhance that, and not necessarily detract from reproduction. As Stella said, it only takes a minute of heterosexual behavior to reproduce!

BTW,being redhead or left handed, is not a sociological deviation. Red hair is a genetic variation and they're not entirely sure what makes some people left handed instead of right handed, but it's certainly not sociological. An example of sociological deviation is someone who lives as a hermit.

 

[djhindy]

I think It is made. I used to hate bdsm, on the principle that women are people, not possessions. Too many men misstreat their partners and abuse them. I thought bdsm was all about that. Now, however, I can see and agree with how submissive tendencies can make bdsm fun and sexy. I personally have found I'm a submissive. And I'm currently looking for a dominant woman.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think It is made. I used to hate bdsm, on the principle that women are people, not possessions. Too many men misstreat their partners and abuse them. I thought bdsm was all about that. Now, however, I can see and agree with how submissive tendencies can make bdsm fun and sexy. I personally have found I'm a submissive. And I'm currently looking for a dominant woman.

If you look at it one way, your nature STILL hasn't changed. You STILL can't bring yourself to think of women as possessions.

 

[FurryFury]

Good post!

I'm not saying that species survival has nothing to do with reproduction. I'm saying it has to do with MORE than reproduction. There's no point to being able to reproduce if you and your offspring can not survive past puberty. For example, let's compare the coyote and the wolf. Why has one survived and the other been pushed onto the endangered list? There is a small reproduction difference, in that in a wolf pack only the alpha pair tends to mate, and every coyote pair may mate. But I'd say that factor is not the important one. Wolves require huge ranges with larger game and have a far more significant impact on the human areas they invade. Coyotes can survive with smaller ranges, smaller game, and can frequently live around the edges of humans for quite some time before they're even noticed, much less caught.

If you can't utilize enough resources, and your young can not survive, it doesn't matter how well you breed. You'll notice that the most prolific breeders tend have low resource requirements and either have precocious young, or young that mature rapidly.

If homosexual behaviors enhance the survival of reproducing adults, or young, then it has a place in the survival of the specie. Yes, without the heterosexual reproduction, it's moot (at least, in the species that reproduce heterosexually. There a number of reptile/fish species that don't). And homosexual behaviors are far from commonplace. I never said otherwise, simply that they were present.

I do not disagree that homosexuality is "exceptional". That doesn't make it unnatural, or keep it from being beneficial. There are exceptions to general "rules" (because we all know Nature has a rulebook!) everywhere. There are animals that survive without a single ray of sunlight, animals that never drink water, animals that walk on it and even a specie of jellyfish that never truly dies! It reverts to an immature state and then matures once again. How freakin' exceptional is THAT!

Anyway, my point is and ever has been that homosexuality may have a place in species survival. No, it won't directly result in offspring. Duh. But that doesn't mean it is irrelevant. There is more to species survival than simple reproduction. The psychological effects of sex that have a positive benefit could be enhanced if, to put it bluntly, more individuals were having sex. Homosexuality or bisexuality would enhance that, and not necessarily detract from reproduction. As Stella said, it only takes a minute of heterosexual behavior to reproduce!

BTW,being redhead or left handed, is not a sociological deviation. Red hair is a genetic variation and they're not entirely sure what makes some people left handed instead of right handed, but it's certainly not sociological. An example of sociological deviation is someone who lives as a hermit.

 

[subElizabeth]

.....

 

[Stella_Omega]

humans build airplanes, guns, and stockyards, invent gods and crop circles and economic systems.

That's gotta be important too, hmm?

 

[FurryFury]

Love this!

humans build airplanes, guns, and stockyards, invent gods and crop circles and economic systems.

That's gotta be important too, hmm?