Milgram's Experiment

[SkeletonGirl]

Hello all

I'm new to this forum and it's my first post

Excuse my English because I live in Switzerland and I speak French, but I think I can be understood.

Last week I studied Milgram and his famous experiment. I don't really want to explain the whole thing so I have taken explanations from Wikipedia:

Subjects were recruited for the Yale study through newspaper ads and direct mail. The experiments occurred in two rooms in the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall on the university's Old Campus. The experiment was advertised as lasting one hour, for which the respondents would be paid $4.50 whether they completed the task or not. The participants were men between the ages of 20 and 50, from all educational backgrounds, ranging from an elementary school dropout to participants with doctoral degrees.[1]

The role of the experimenter was played by a stern, impassive biology teacher dressed in a technician's coat, and the victim was played by an Irish-American accountant trained to act for the role. The participant and a confederate of the experimenter were told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment to test the effects of punishment on learning.[1]

A slip of paper was then given to the participant and another to the confederate. The participant was led to believe that one of the slips said "learner" and the other said "teacher," and that the participants had been given the slips randomly. In fact, both slips said "teacher," but the actor claimed to have the slip that read "learner," thus guaranteeing that the participant was always the "teacher." At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.[1]

The "teacher" was given a 45-volt electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the learner would receive a shock, with the voltage increasing with each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair.[1]

The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, the learner gave no further responses to questions and no further complaints.[1]

At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.[1]

If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:[1]

1. Please continue.
2. The experiment requires that you continue.
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4. You have no other choice, you must go on.

If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.

The results of this experiment is very unbelievable: something like 90% of the persons would kill if they are told to do so to because they have someone that is just higher in the hierarchy. Someone that takes responsibility of the actions.

Milgram made this experiment because he didn't know how German soldiers had been able to do such atrocities during the war.


I have now a question:

Would you do everything your Master ask you to do? Do you have limits?
I know some of you have limits, but it's for the things that could be done on you, but on someone else?

Do you think you are a sub because you like to put on someone else the responsibilities?

I don't ask if you would kill because I think it doesn't go so far, but why not?

I know it's a long post, but I think the question is quite interesting.

 

[shyybabe]

Hi Skeleton Girl. Very interesting post. I'm not sure I can answer from the standpoint of an experienced person with master/sub relationship because I'm not, but it has crossed my mind more than once when contemplating even if I could do this kind of a relationship. I'm a rather headstrong person who has definitely ideas of right and wrong. Allowing someone to dominate me would be a huge leap. Although one I'd like to make if I could find someone that I trusted that much.

I'll be intrested to hear what others thoughts on this are.

Welcome.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Hello all

I'm new to this forum and it's my first post
...
I have now a question:

Would you do everything your Master ask you to do? Do you have limits?
I know some of you have limits, but it's for the things that could be done on you, but on someone else?

Do you think you are a sub because you like to put on someone else the responsibilities?

I don't ask if you would kill because I think it doesn't go so far, but why not?

I know it's a long post, but I think the question is quite interesting.

I can't answer from the perspective of a submissive or slave because I am not one. But I'll answer from my point of view...

I expect my slave (or a submissive partner) to obey all of my orders that are ethical and legal. I would not expect them to obey orders that are, on the face of them, unethical, illegal, or cross known value lines. I expect slaves to have limits, not only in things that they will have done to them but also regarding things they will do at my request. Slaves are human beings, not robots. As human beings they have morals, a conscience, a soul.

If someone is coming to me and wants me to accept all the responsibility in their life, they are sadly mistaken. I hold my slave responsible for their life choices and decisions, for their obedience or disobedience. Just because the slave turns over power and authority to me, does not mean they are absolved of their personal responsibility. The slave(s) is/are responsible for their decisions and for carrying out their day to day activities.

A slave, or submissive, is not released from their personal responsibility to me, to society at large or to themselves by their decision to submit to my authority. To believe otherwise is simply delusional and a fantasy. The reality is that they will be held accountable for their actions for good or ill.

 

[SkeletonGirl]

I really agreed with what you said, but are we really conscious about how much power we have on someone other/ conscious about how far we can go if we are under control?

And I want to add that the persons that were tested weren't really conscious that they would have killed someone. Everybody can say: "Yeaah it's only the others that can kill someone, I won't do it. I'm strong enough". But in fact I think that is not true. or maybe for a little part

 

[CutieMouse]

I have now a question:

Would you do everything your Master ask you to do? Do you have limits?
I know some of you have limits, but it's for the things that could be done on you, but on someone else?

I would do whatever was requested of me, by the person I chose to enter a relationship with.**

Do you think you are a sub because you like to put on someone else the responsibilities?

To an extent, I believe a lot of people are drawn to submission, because it gives them permission to not make decisions, or be in charge- a vacation for real life, if you will.

I don't ask if you would kill because I think it doesn't go so far, but why not?

I know it's a long post, but I think the question is quite interesting.

To me, the experiment you spoke of (and reason for the ** in my response to the first question), outlines exactly why it is important to be fully compatable with whomever you do BDSM with. There are certain things I find distasteful; if I make sure anyone I'm intimate with, also finds them distasteful, then limits aren't much of an issue.

As for why one wouldn't go "too far" and why that limit is there, I'd say it's a twofold issue:

A) The dominant party is responsible for their charge, and because of that responsibility they are obligated to behave in an ethical, sane manner, which will not damage their "property"... ordering a submissive to do something that will destroy their life, land them in jail, etc, isn't in a dominant's best interest, as it kinda breaks the "property", and leaves them without anyone to do lovely things to/with.

B) Submissives aren't stupid. I'd not enter a relationship with someone who expected me to break my own personal moral/ethical codes, or damage my integrity- if a situation arose after entering a relationship where I was asked to do so, I'd be gone so fast his head would spin.

 

[graceanne]

No, I wouldn't.

But for those that would, that's why you make sure you know the person you are submitting to. Once again it all boils down to COMMUNICATION!

 

[SkeletonGirl]

I'm not saying that subs are stupid, not at all.

I just wanted to know your opinion about this interesting question

 

[graceanne]

I'm not saying that subs are stupid, not at all.

I just wanted to know your opinion about this interesting question

I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't think you did. Frankly it doesn't require stupidity to kill someone in that way, it just requires a weak will.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Would you do everything your Master ask you to do? Do you have limits?

I try and do everything he asks of me and if I do not succeed, unless he changes his mind it is expected i continue to try until I succeed. Some of the things he asks are not that easy as to say 'yes Master' and sail through them...often they take months of mental preparation. I have no limits...he does. A 'no limits' relationship is about the pyl not having limits, not the PYL. That means they will obey within the limits of the PYL, but will not hold limits of their own.

I know some of you have limits, but it's for the things that could be done on you, but on someone else?

No matter how egotistical or dominant a PYL may be, they are also subject to the laws and rules of their country of residence and the country which they are in, and as such have an obligation to respect the pyl is also bound by those same terms. Add to that, no PYL who operates under the SSC ideal, or even what is suggested to be healthy BDSM, will involve someone outside the relationship who has not consented to whatever the act may involve.....that means they are not about to ask a pyl to rob a bank, murder a stranger or friend etc., assault someone etc., because those people are not involved in D/s and have not given their consent to be involved.

Do you think you are a sub because you like to put on someone else the responsibilities?

No, I have already raised 2 children alone, paid off a mortgage, gone back to school and university, built a career, all alone, so I am not looking to find someone th take responsibility. If anything, I have in many ways increased my responsibilities as that is the way he likes it and the way which makes his life easier. If I was looking to pass the buck, he never wold have bothered with me.

I don't ask if you would kill because I think it doesn't go so far, but why not?

Answered that one above.

Catalina

 

[CutieMouse]

I'm not saying that subs are stupid, not at all.

I just wanted to know your opinion about this interesting question

I didn't think you were saying submissive sorts were stupid; I was simply pointing out that one still retains their brains, even when handing themselves over to another, which helps avoid the whole breaking laws/doing unethical stuf, stuff.

 

[Agincourt]

erase

 

[lil_slave_rose]

I have now a question:

Would you do everything your Master ask you to do? Do you have limits?

i do everything Master asks of me within the limits set in our relationship AND the law. do i have limits? yes i do, and i don't think ANYONE has NO limits.

I know some of you have limits, but it's for the things that could be done on you, but on someone else?

meaning? i mean if you mean for example, one of my limits is no needle play. could i watch Him doing it to someone else? hell yea, if they had consented to it....would *i* do anything to someone Master asked me to that is against my limits, probably not. but i'm not quite sure if this is even what you were looking for

Do you think you are a sub because you like to put on someone else the responsibilities?

no, i am a submissive because it's who i am naturally. i still have responsibilities and i'm not sure why everyone thinks that when you give up control that the responsibilities are taken over by the Dom, in some that may be the case, for me, no. i have a responsibility to serve Him to the best of my ability, to take care of myself and my children, to take care of my home so that He has a nice home to come to after work, and eventually i will have the responsibility of working and helping pay the bills. so no, i do not think i'm a submissive to put off my responsibilities to someone else.

I don't ask if you would kill because I think it doesn't go so far, but why not?

why not? because it's against the law and anyone who will kill because their Master asked them to is not a submissive they are someone who does not have a mind of their own and no conscience therefore making them like any other 'killer' out there. Master and i have spoke on this same subject before and even taken it to a chat room we used to visit on yahoo. if a Master asks his submissive to kill someone, and she does, who is at fault, should the Dom be held responsible. my answer to that question, is yes He should be held responsible for HIS part, and the submissive should be held responsible for hers. they both made choices, and just because i am a submissive does not mean i follow everything Master says if it could cause me or someone else harm. that is why SSC is a HUGE part of the lifestyle for me.

I know it's a long post, but I think the question is quite interesting.

i hope i answered your questions and gave you a little insight into the way i see things, obviously these are my opinions and i don't expect everyone to agree with me. great questions by the way..made me think a little

 

[SkeletonGirl]

I knew there was a problem when I thought it was a little bit the same for both situation but I know now what I forgot: Communication. I don't think a soldier can really communicate with his superior, he's told to do so and can't speak.

But even if it doesn't work for Master/sub or slave relationship, it is really interesting to know what we can do if we are asked to do so.

I myself could'nt think I would kill or do something illegal if He asked me to

 

[MasterPhoenix]

I remember having read about that expiriment...

I don't know that it has a lot of relavence in BDSM...

 

[Famosae]

Welcome to the forum. I'm new here, too.

If you found Milgram's experiment interesting, you should read the biography written about him. I can't remember the author, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I think it's called "The Man Who Shocked the World." Obedience experiments are always interesting. The Stanford experiment is really cool, too. (It the one where half the subjects are assigned guard positions and the other half prisoner positions.) The power dynamics are absolutely fascinating.

I joined this forum because the D/s lifestyle appeals to me in certain respects. However, your questions echo my concerns almost perfectly. This is the main reason why I haven't opted to just "dive in" though I've had the opportunity recently. I don't know if I'm capable of trusting someone enough to relinquish control in situations that may put me on shaky moral ground (particularly regarding casual sex,) or in situations that may jeopardize my future. My desire to be a sub stems more from my need to trust someone completely and to discover a sense of strength rather than from a desire to shirk responsibility.

Really interesting questions!

 

[FluteMaster]

Good Question!!

Ahhh, the psychology of relationships.

OK, Milgram's experiment, I seem to remember, was about conformity. That means, how far are we prepared to go in breaking our internal rules in conformity to someone else's wishes. Note that the leader of the eperiment wore a white coat - a strong authority symbol in 50's America when the experiment was done. In addition, there have been other versions of this same experiment which have been looked at other cultures and social dynamics.

Thus, the problem with taking Milgram's study and attempts to apply it to D/s relationships is one of Authority rather than Communication. Nazi Germany and 30's Japan took state authority to a level that is incomprehensible to most of us. Dissension was brutally punished and conformity to miliitaristic ways of thinking was made absolute (in ideal at least). Add to that the high level of propaganda, and you have a society which is already prone to unquestioningly accept the commands of someone who out-ranks them.

Milgram, to his horror, discovered just those same sorts of tendancies in America of the 50's, ie a willingness to do what someone says when that person seems to be superior to us.

And that is because, as social animals, we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, desirous of conforming to our social group. Germany and Japan worked not because they were totally alien, but because they took existing tendancies and played them to the utmost.

Jump to D/s, though, and I believe we are talking about a wholly different set of factors. Or rather, (as we are all multidetermined in our reasons for doing what we do), addtional factors.

A D/s relationship may be driven by all sorts of factors that are outside the scope of Milgram. The submissive may achieve a high degree of pleasure from relinquishing physical control, (see breath play, bondage and orgasm denial), or emotional/intellectual control. The latter may be the result of a desire to explore aspects of a personality which are supressed elsewhere, (as in the working environment), or because there are strong emotional/sexual turnons asociated with it.

The submisive may even desire to be a submissive because they have a strong desire to please a significant other (and note, to please one does not mean a deire to please all), or to be treated in a humiliating way.

That desire to please, of course, may also be tied in with a strong element of pleasure from reaching and then breaching limits they had previously thought were beyond them. And interesting example of would be breaking taboos such as watersports. Is this because of the thrill of doing something "naughty" as well?

Mind you, (and this is because of the variety of human sexual responses), there are those who derive a strong sexual thrill from submitting to someone who is playing a strong authority role - cf Uniform play etc.

But, all these submissives may, in other aspects of their lives, actually be strongly anti authoritarian, or so deeply empathetic that they would rather die than cause pain or upset to another.

The bottom line is that the D/s scene is peopled with individuals who are in that scene for as many reasons as there are people, and have multiple reasons themselves for why they are Dominant or submissive.

In answer to the "would you kill question", therefore, I would say that D/s is mostly a red herring. Being in a relationship, whatever its character (Vanilla or Kinky), makes one more liable to perform actions for the significant other that one would normally think more about. However, that is not about authority, but about relationship building. In these cases, the strong emotional bond adds significant dynamics of its own, and may lead to behaviour out of one's norm.

LOL - hope this doesn't add to the confusiuon too much.

ps - I was thinking about adding in things like Stockholm Syndrome and the effect of Hazing Rituals and their promotion of Conformity. Maybe another time.

 

[catalina_francisco]

and i don't think ANYONE has NO limits.

You'd be surprised. I think what makes people believe no-one can have 'no limits' is because they equate it with having no limits means you will automatically do whatever you are ordered to without difficulty. Our experience is it means you will do your best to do it and if you fail, you keep trying until you succeed or he withdraws the command. Believe me, there have been times when he has tested me by saying he is going to do xyz to me and see if I submit to it thinking I would scream blue murder and refuse...but he was disappointed when even though I might have been crying and super stressed, I prepared for whatever it was he was supposedly planning. Thankfully, the incidents I refer to (and which I am not about to go into detail of because I am not feeling like the 'you're nuts' lectures) were never his intention to actually carry out, but he was interested to see if I really had committed to 'no limits' and not a pseudo version where I thought I could refuse if something was too far into horrific because of some delusion he didn't have the right to expect that of me.

No limits for us also means he has the right to change his mind about things he may have previously (prior to my taking this full committment) have said he would never do and wasn't interested in doing. It is his right to decide he now wants to experience thos things, and there have been more than a couple which have already been acted on despite it being a previous limit of his or both of us prior to being 'no limits'. Despite these incidents, I still do not doubt his commands or explicit plans on what he would do if I displeased him by doing the 2 things he simply will not tolerate. Fortunate for me I don't have the urge to do either of those things so I don't have to worry, but if I did I have no doubt of what he would do to me.

Catalina

 

[SkeletonGirl]

The Stanford experiment is really cool, too. (It the one where half the subjects are assigned guard positions and the other half prisoner positions.) The power dynamics are absolutely fascinating.

I've seen a movie called The Experiment, a German movie, that speaks about this experiment. It's a really good movie, but it has only one mistake: it seems that there is a man who is mad and it is him who makes things get worse and worse.

But it's a really good movie. If you find it and have time to watch it, then...

 

[DVS]

This was on American TV a couple of weeks ago. They had actual testers speaking of how they felt, and the reason they made the choices they did. It was interesting.

Now, as for its relevance to BDSM, the test it self doesn't have a lot of relevance, although pain was involved...the testers were administering shocks to the subject, after incorrect responses were given.

But, the question that has been asked does have some relevance to BDSM in that the experiment was just the method used to bring the necessary thought process to light. It was to put the proper slant on the thread, if you will.

So, to answer the question, I'd think every true pyl wants to and tries to do anything their PYL asks. This is a given, but within limits. Be these limits of the pyl or the PYL, they are still limits.

After these limits, we have laws we all must live with, as members of society. And, beyond that, we are all still caring human beings. At least I hope we are. Bringing harm to other humans, helpless animals and property just because your PYL maybe wanted to test your devotion, should be against everyone's better judgement.

Some might say I'm taking this beyond the asked question, but I just wanted to say what others might consider not necessary to say. When someone says they would do anything their PYL asks, most of us know that doesn't mean "anything". You trust our PYL not to ask for things, but someone who doesn't know any better might misunderstand.

I also liked how everyone seems to be using the word "ask" instead of "demand" when speaking of their PYL's wishes. I think asking is healthy, where demanding can be close to abusive.

 

[ownedsubgal]

very interesting indeed. i am another where the only limits i am subject to are those of my Master's, which are everchanging, and not always shared with me. morality or society's law truly does not play a factor in whether or not i obey him, because his will IS law for me. as has been posted, that does not mean that following his will is always easy or painless, far from it. but there are simply no other options. and yes my Master makes demands, he does not ask. to ask implies a choice in the matter.

 

[Famosae]

I've seen a movie called The Experiment, a German movie, that speaks about this experiment. It's a really good movie, but it has only one mistake: it seems that there is a man who is mad and it is him who makes things get worse and worse.

But it's a really good movie. If you find it and have time to watch it, then...

I've seen that, and it is really good. Not actually how the experiment turned out, but very thrilling.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Okay... so like... where do I go to volunteer to be the teacher???

 

[DVS]

Okay... so like... where do I go to volunteer to be the teacher???

The prison experiment was done in the basement of some college building, on the west coast, I think. But, that was back in the 70s. That TV show I mentioned in my first post also interviewed several of the students that participated in that experiment.

There was one member of the guards who instigated the humiliation and punishments of the prisoners. The other guards were mostly followers and went along with his lead. He said he had watched the movie "Cool Hand Luke" a few nights before and he took his cues from the way the guards acted in that movie.

Of course, the prisoners weren't all whimpering fish, either. Some of them locked themselves in the cells and dared the guards to come in after them. There was quite a stand off for a while. But, the guards got other prisoners to condemn the so-called instigators, limiting their power and ultimately their effectiveness. Eventually, most of the prisoners complied with guard's demands, to make it easier on everybody.

As to where you can apply for teacher? Start your own experiment group. Get a grant from the government, find you a dark and damp basement for your perfect setting and figure a way to make your results benefit society as a whole. It shouldn't be a problem, knowing so many government grants go to some really strange causes.

I'd guess a good experiment could be testing the Stockholm syndrome with submissives. I bet you would have no problem finding some vict...I mean volunteers for your test case. Oh...a few good Doms would also be necessary. I'd say one Dom to every five submissives would be about right. The submissives would be naked, of course, and the Doms would carry something quite nasty, like maybe a cattle prod.

Maybe I digress?

 

[Yasashii_Kaze]

I can't answer from the perspective of a submissive or slave because I am not one. But I'll answer from my point of view...

I expect my slave (or a submissive partner) to obey all of my orders that are ethical and legal. I would not expect them to obey orders that are, on the face of them, unethical, illegal, or cross known value lines. I expect slaves to have limits, not only in things that they will have done to them but also regarding things they will do at my request. Slaves are human beings, not robots. As human beings they have morals, a conscience, a soul.

If someone is coming to me and wants me to accept all the responsibility in their life, they are sadly mistaken. I hold my slave responsible for their life choices and decisions, for their obedience or disobedience. Just because the slave turns over power and authority to me, does not mean they are absolved of their personal responsibility. The slave(s) is/are responsible for their decisions and for carrying out their day to day activities.

A slave, or submissive, is not released from their personal responsibility to me, to society at large or to themselves by their decision to submit to my authority. To believe otherwise is simply delusional and a fantasy. The reality is that they will be held accountable for their actions for good or ill.

hijack
I know I'm coming in way late here, but I just had to say something. I get quite a few questions from BDSM sympathetic but somewhat confused friends who are under the impression that I've given my conscience away because I'm a slave. The above sums up nicely the individuality that I retain, even in a total power exchange. Thanks so much for your insightful post, Evil_Geoff.
/hijack

 

[lil_slave_rose]

You'd be surprised. I think what makes people believe no-one can have 'no limits' is because they equate it with having no limits means you will automatically do whatever you are ordered to without difficulty. Our experience is it means you will do your best to do it and if you fail, you keep trying until you succeed or he withdraws the command. Believe me, there have been times when he has tested me by saying he is going to do xyz to me and see if I submit to it thinking I would scream blue murder and refuse...but he was disappointed when even though I might have been crying and super stressed, I prepared for whatever it was he was supposedly planning. Thankfully, the incidents I refer to (and which I am not about to go into detail of because I am not feeling like the 'you're nuts' lectures) were never his intention to actually carry out, but he was interested to see if I really had committed to 'no limits' and not a pseudo version where I thought I could refuse if something was too far into horrific because of some delusion he didn't have the right to expect that of me.

No limits for us also means he has the right to change his mind about things he may have previously (prior to my taking this full committment) have said he would never do and wasn't interested in doing. It is his right to decide he now wants to experience thos things, and there have been more than a couple which have already been acted on despite it being a previous limit of his or both of us prior to being 'no limits'. Despite these incidents, I still do not doubt his commands or explicit plans on what he would do if I displeased him by doing the 2 things he simply will not tolerate. Fortunate for me I don't have the urge to do either of those things so I don't have to worry, but if I did I have no doubt of what he would do to me.

Catalina

ok, i will retract my previous statement, and when i said it, i knew i would regret it *smiles* because it didn't come out right, i meant more that they have morals maybe? and would not do anything asked of them that breaks the law, would land them in jail, etc....and hopefully would not be asked that...anyway i'm doing a terrible job of explaining again so i'll stop..hehe...