Nature or Nurture

[dr_mabeuse]

This is a continuation of a discussion in the "Appeal of being sexually controlled and dominated" thread, and concerns the origins of BDSM behavior: are you born being D/s (nature) or is it something you learn to be or adopt in response to psychological influences (nurture).

Well, let me rephrase that, because all human behavior is probably a mixture of nature and nurture. Let's ask instead if one predominates over the other.

My own feeling is that it's predominantly nature: that D/s behavior is an expression of something built-in to us. Specifically, I think that D/s is like an exaggerated version of the kind of typical male-female mating behavior we see as instinctive in other animals. In D/s, the aggressive, controlling nature of the male and the passive, accepting nature of the female are both so exaggerated as to seem like charicatures of themselves.

One reason I support this is that most D/s people don't seem especially curious about the origins of their behavior. They seem to just accept it as part of who they are and go about their business. They seem to instinctively know that it's just built-in.


---dr.M.

 

[Bachlum Chaam]

I am and always have been of a dominant disposition my father I believe wasn't so I find it hard to decide where it came from if not nature.

My own thoughts are ladies that are submissive are rebelling more against the tide of feminism sweeping the world. although I also believe I may be a chauvanist and quite an unrepentant one at that

 

[english vicky]

nature. i have, ever since i was a little girl been submissive. i was a child that dreamt about being in a harsh cold prison, who played with bandages just to feel bound, who went to concerts just to be in close contact with dominating security guards that excited me.

Nature...at it's best.

vicky

 

[Seattle Zack]

dr m, you may have gotten the wrong impression from my posts in the other thread; I tend to side with you on the general origins of the nature of the M/f D/s relationship.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it's not difficult to imagine that dominant males tended to procreate more than submissive males; similarly, submissive females tended to produce more offspring that dominant females. We're not that far removed from the cavemen, in an evolutionary timeline, so those innate tendencies certainly must play a major role in our sexual tendencies.

As far as why it's such a strong urge in some of us, what exactly triggers it -- that's the interesting question from my point of view. Fetish, which overlaps a great deal of BDSM activity, seems to arise more from environment than biology. Some fetishes are so specific -- down to certain cloth patterns and such -- that it's hard for me to imagine that it arises from a genetic predisposition.

Perhaps the "trigger" (for lack of a better word) may come from some environmental source, rather than a defined predisposition. However, D/s play, in a general sense, seems very primal to me. Something about it seems to transcend our "civilized" conditioning, and it's quite satisfying on a very deep level.

--Z

 

[Bikewer]

I've written out this essential summation on many occasions; I suppose I just ought to save a copy.....

Fascinating stuff indeed; I'm one of those kinky people who are curious as to origins and causes. I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject, which might generally be called Sexology.

John Money was probably the most-published researcher in the field, and he wrote a number of interesting books on a variety of subjects, including forensic sexology, paraphilia, and even one book on "The breathless Orgasm"...the paraphila of asphyxophilia.

Anyway, back to the formation of our sexual selves...

Embryos start out female; those with the proper chromosome set are "masculinized" during development. It was thought previously that this "Y" chromosome set was fairly simple; essentially an on-or-off switch. Recent examinations of the human genome show us it's much more complicated than that.
This leads to the likelyhood of more "transcription errors" occurring, especially with male children.
(of interest is the fact that of the nearly-50 categorized paraphilias (fetishes) , men are subject to 40+, while females exhibit only 6 or 7)

The developing fetus is also subject to hormonal levels in the mother's bloodstream, which can effect sexual development at certain critical junctures.
After birth, the child goes through a process of developing a "lovemap", or psychological construct of an idealized mating partner. This is built up from contacts with parents, siblings, caregivers, and so forth. This lovemap is usually complete by age 3, though the child may be quite unaware of any particular attractions till much later.
(most folks who are variously kinky report being aware of it fairly soon; I know I was.)
The lovemap can be affected or "vandalized", as Money puts it, by a number of things, most prominently child abuse.

Complex stuff, and hardly nailed down. Research is hard to get funding for, and difficult to do in controlled ways. Fascinating, however.

 

[James G 5]

I've written out this essential summation on many occasions; I suppose I just ought to save a copy.....

Fascinating stuff indeed; I'm one of those kinky people who are curious as to origins and causes. I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject, which might generally be called Sexology.

John Money was probably the most-published researcher in the field, and he wrote a number of interesting books on a variety of subjects, including forensic sexology, paraphilia, and even one book on "The breathless Orgasm"...the paraphila of asphyxophilia.

Anyway, back to the formation of our sexual selves...

Embryos start out female; those with the proper chromosome set are "masculinized" during development. It was thought previously that this "Y" chromosome set was fairly simple; essentially an on-or-off switch. Recent examinations of the human genome show us it's much more complicated than that.
This leads to the likelyhood of more "transcription errors" occurring, especially with male children.
(of interest is the fact that of the nearly-50 categorized paraphilias (fetishes) , men are subject to 40+, while females exhibit only 6 or 7)

The developing fetus is also subject to hormonal levels in the mother's bloodstream, which can effect sexual development at certain critical junctures.
After birth, the child goes through a process of developing a "lovemap", or psychological construct of an idealized mating partner. This is built up from contacts with parents, siblings, caregivers, and so forth. This lovemap is usually complete by age 3, though the child may be quite unaware of any particular attractions till much later.
(most folks who are variously kinky report being aware of it fairly soon; I know I was.)
The lovemap can be affected or "vandalized", as Money puts it, by a number of things, most prominently child abuse.

Complex stuff, and hardly nailed down. Research is hard to get funding for, and difficult to do in controlled ways. Fascinating, however.

I've read some of that same research in reference to the formation of homosexuality, especially in reference to floods of female hormones affecting brain development in male fetuses, and some of the articles did refer to those circumstances being factors that might influence someone to be more affected by items during the formation of sexuality that migth develop in to "non-standard paraphilias" (eg, KINK )

 

[ownedsubgal]

to really discuss this i have to take it out of a sexual context. for me that is easy as being a submissive is not a part of my sexual nature, it is just my nature, period. i am strong believer that some of us within this lifestyle called D/s are just among the few in this modern ever-evolving world who still have that ancient, primal hardwiring. i don't feel that the way we live is an exaggeration of anything...i think it's just natural, for those of us who simply cannot be any other way. it doesn't take a great deal of imagination for me to envision my Master as a fierce hunter on the plains, killing some mighty beast with his bare hands and the most rudimentary of weapons...or as some tribal leader of old, making the decisions for a small group of families. a Dominant is not what he is when he feels like it, or when he's horny...it's just who he is. just as a submissive is who i am. so, for people like us i think it's an old instinct, that once upon a time ensured the survival/continuation of our species. too bad we live in a culture/society that feels that this natural state of being between man and woman is sick and demeaning. because of this i've often wished we could move to a middle eastern or african islamic society, where we would be considered the norm.

my answer? it's nature, imo.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

nature. i have, ever since i was a little girl been submissive. i was a child that dreamt about being in a harsh cold prison, who played with bandages just to feel bound, who went to concerts just to be in close contact with dominating security guards that excited me.

Nature...at it's best.

vicky

This is the kind of thing that makes me think that BDSM is biological and hard-wired, and you're not alone. I know quite a few subs who report being into rope and being tied up at an age before they even knew what sex was. I can clearly remember pestering the little girls to play cowboys and Indians so I could tie them up. I had no idea why it excited me so much, but there's no denying it excited me.

I also had this fascination with hardware stores and the stuff they sold, way before I had any idea of what sex was, let alone BDSM. I just loved those chrome-plated hooks and shackles. I had no idea why, they just seemed terribly cool to me. I realize now that my fascination was erotic. Or rather, pre-erotic.

Now why in the world should that be if D/s is a learned behavior? On the other hand, it's pretty hard to accept that there's a gene that predisposes you to like chrome-plated screw eyes.

It's enough to make you think that Jung was right, that we're born with pre-existing stories and ideas in our head.

---dr.M.

 

[Netzach]

I've always been the way I am. There wasn't a time in my life where I wasn't trying to argue away parental authority or retreat simply so I would be left the fuck alone. If this is all fundamental hunter-gatherer stuff there's always a freaked out priestess in her own hut who the men consult to have themselves explained to themselves. That'd be me.

 

[Bikewer]

Dr. M....It was much the same with me. I was fascinated by bondage, especially chains, manacles, and similar "dungeon" items long before I connected the idea to anything sexual.

When I was kindergarten-1st grade age, my dad had done up the semi-finished basement playroom with bar, ping-pong table, and so forth. He also adorned the walls with Vargas pinups culled from men's magazines.

Even at that age, I was fascinated by one image, a "Harem Girl" done up in pretty golden chains.

Of course, if the research is correct, we may be influenced in some way by environmental causes well before the time when we first experience conscious thought. (median of 3 or so).
So....who knows? Tis' fascinating.

 

[James G 5]

to really discuss this i have to take it out of a sexual context. for me that is easy as being a submissive is not a part of my sexual nature, it is just my nature, period. i am strong believer that some of us within this lifestyle called D/s are just among the few in this modern ever-evolving world who still have that ancient, primal hardwiring. i don't feel that the way we live is an exaggeration of anything...i think it's just natural, for those of us who simply cannot be any other way. it doesn't take a great deal of imagination for me to envision my Master as a fierce hunter on the plains, killing some mighty beast with his bare hands and the most rudimentary of weapons...or as some tribal leader of old, making the decisions for a small group of families. a Dominant is not what he is when he feels like it, or when he's horny...it's just who he is. just as a submissive is who i am. so, for people like us i think it's an old instinct, that once upon a time ensured the survival/continuation of our species. too bad we live in a culture/society that feels that this natural state of being between man and woman is sick and demeaning. because of this i've often wished we could move to a middle eastern or african islamic society, where we would be considered the norm.

my answer? it's nature, imo.

While we're relating this to sexuality, I don't think we're saying it's exclusively tied to it
Sex is the STRONGEST human drive after eating
Many of our behaviors are based around sexually determining factors, even if we don't realize it
I think the BDSM as part of nature is semi-congruent with sex but not 100% tied
In your case, maybe your sexuality is part of your submission, rather than your submission being part of your sexuality, as in the "scale" I mentioned in the other thread?

 

[Desdemona]

I'll jump on the "I'm hardwired this way" bandwagon.

I wanted to be the Indian that was tied up when I watched westerns as a little girl. Ken and GI Joe were always tying up Barbie and Midge at my house (and then they did all sorts of disgusting things to them. I didn't really know why, but Ken and GI Joe sure did like having Barbie's face shoved in their crotches. LOL).

I was the one trying to nurture everyone around me. If someone was sick, I tried to take care of them. If somebody needed something done, it was my instinct to do it.

I couldn't help myself then and I can't help myself now. It's a part of who I am. I need to serve and to take care of others. It doesn't matter if the service I render is sexual, domestic or something else.

I've learned to choose to whom I give my service, however. I reserve my submission and my service for one person.

 

[Seattle Zack]

'Tis indeed fascinating, dr. M, and you touched on a salient point. Glad you started this thread.

What would cause us to fetishize, at an early age, such things as chain links and leather straps? I know that I was always fascinated by them as a kid, even though I didn't know why.

I was always the one who liked to tie the girls up with the ski rope back at the fort and tickle torture them for secret information, rather than run through the forest hunting for Indians, although that behavior is easier to generalize.

But the inherent attraction to ropes, cables, elements that suggest restraint -- it's got to be cultural, don't you think? Dudley Dooright cartoons, perhaps -- the girl tied down to the railroad tracks ...

--Z

 

[english vicky]

[color=royal blue]Call me silly if you like, but i sometimes wonder about spirituality and past lives in this.

i don't know and i'm not even sure what my take on this is. is it possible that if past lives really do or in fact, did exist, the submissives we know now were slaves and the dominants Masters to slaves?

It is just something that crosses my bizzare little mind sometimes, but i thought i would share that.

Sorry to comment on something that is almost another topic, i thought it fit nicely into this one too.

vicky [/color]

 

[dr_mabeuse]

[color=royal blue]Call me silly if you like, but i sometimes wonder about spirituality and past lives in this.

i don't know and i'm not even sure what my take on this is. is it possible that if past lives really do or in fact, did exist, the submissives we know now were slaves and the dominants Masters to slaves?
[/color]

Well, if the Law of Karma exists, then probably the subs in this life were Masters in the previous one, and vice versa.


---dr.M.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I am and always have been of a dominant disposition my father I believe wasn't so I find it hard to decide where it came from if not nature.

My own thoughts are ladies that are submissive are rebelling more against the tide of feminism sweeping the world. although I also believe I may be a chauvanist and quite an unrepentant one at that

Bachlum, there you go again, thinking submissive means non-feminist. In my experience Feminism strengthens the position of female submission by producing strong individuals who have something to offer and submit as opposed to the ones who lay down and say 'Take me, I'm yours'. Where is the fun or challenge in that?!!

Catalina

 

[dragonhearted]

Bachlum, there you go again, thinking submissive means non-feminist. In my experience Feminism strengthens the position of female submission by producing strong individuals who have something to offer and submit as opposed to the ones who lay down and say 'Take me, I'm yours'. Where is the fun or challenge in that?!!

Catalina

Do you thrive on challenge and conflict, Catalina?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Do you thrive on challenge and conflict, Catalina?

No, actually anyone who knows me will tell you I am considered one of the most peaceloving and peaceful people they've met, but that does not mean I am mute and dumb and accept silence as my only position in life if I have something to say. You see I have no problem with learning and sharing, but I do have a problem with misconceptions which distort reality. I am all for encouraging dialogue and not trying to shut people up or encourage a board full of threads with repeated "I agree' postings which really add to nothing. Perhaps you yourself have a comment on the topic as to your opinion you could share so others could learn and think about, as so far this above one has not told us anything about your position? And if you are afraid for Bachlum, I am sure he will enlighten you to the fact we are online friends.

Catalina

 

[spankableBelle]

I'll jump on the "I'm hardwired this way" bandwagon.

I wanted to be the Indian that was tied up when I watched westerns as a little girl. Ken and GI Joe were always tying up Barbie and Midge at my house (and then they did all sorts of disgusting things to them. I didn't really know why, but Ken and GI Joe sure did like having Barbie's face shoved in their crotches. LOL).

I was the one trying to nurture everyone around me. If someone was sick, I tried to take care of them. If somebody needed something done, it was my instinct to do it.

I couldn't help myself then and I can't help myself now. It's a part of who I am. I need to serve and to take care of others. It doesn't matter if the service I render is sexual, domestic or something else.

I've learned to choose to whom I give my service, however. I reserve my submission and my service for one person.

i have to agree with Des. This has always been 'me'. i just didn't know there was a collective name for it until a few years ago...

belle

 

[PinkOrchid]

 

[catalina_francisco]

Thanks for sharing Pink Orchid, it is not always the easiest thing to do. I daresay you have had many analysis go through your mind over the years, all of which become tumbled from time to time for most of us simply because we are in the middle of that analysis while also trying to direct it. I do not think your desire to only top men who are at least your equal is unusual under the circumstances.

Catalina

 

[dragonhearted]

For my part........

I do not see myself as a dominate, although I am often aggressive or assertive in my views/opinions. In bed I am very much the submissive...which is not to say I don't get a little "wild" in the throes of passion.

However when it comes to matters outside the bedroom, I am very much in charge. I have been raising two children by myself these 7 years, running my own household. Whenever I have had a boyfriend in my life who tried to tell me how to run things, I got angry, defensive, territorial...

As for if we are born to it or if it is nurtured over time...I believe both are possible. It depends on the person, in my opinion.

 

[Quint]

I think Pink's views most closely reflect my own. Yeah, I wanted to be the victim/damsel in distress when I was too young to know the word "bondage." Yeah, I fantasized about being a sex slave before I really knew what happened in sex. But I don't think that's the end of my explanation.

For me, I think the vast majority of my submissive tendencies have had to do with self-respect. Wanting attention. Wanting praise. Wanting to make people happy with me. That I think is ENTIRELY nurture. I don't want to psychoanalyze my childhood or my relationship to my parents or being military and constantly feeling excluded from my peers...but it's all there.

So color me nurtured.

 

[Netzach]

I grew up in a matriarchal but fatalistic family.

Daddy was never there. Absent. Male figures were cipherlike, and remote.

The kind of women who throw their hands up at the least bit of adversity. "See I told you this would happen."

The world is a horrible place out to get you. You will fail. You will be crushed. Terrible things are going to happen.

The emphasis on safety, suffering, martyrdom, and futility of risks had a lasting and negative effect on any sense of autonomy or confidence I might have had.

Sure, I was confident in the intellectual arena. I knew I had that under my belt. They stroked the ego that could handle a spelling bee or a comprehensive exam. No problem.

But handle money? Handle men? Go out at night and not get attacked? I grew up with a family that would call each other after a five minute walk from house to house, to make sure the other party got in ok. It was house arrest.

The only solution was to move 1500 miles away and get therapy, and a few years older without having to go back home, crying, and failed completely.

Of course, when a normal, competent, intelligent ADULT male trusted me and thought enough of me to want to kiss my shoe and let me hurt him with whips, this was balm to my soul. Maybe *they* will never think that I can manage my life, but other people do. Competent people. Strong people. Not only manage my own life, but a little piece of theirs. Maybe more.

Pop freudian anatomy of a femdom.

 

[wolf2002]

Pop freudian anatomy of a femdom.

Beautiful post... you are an amazing Lady.


Wolf