The Biology of BSDM

[kreemi_pi]

It's kind of creepy, because he's being interviewed by his daughter, but he says a lot of intersting stuff. And he answered all my penis-size questions too...

And the daughter's kinda hot...or is my brain mis-wired

 

[kreemi_pi]

Which reminds me of a joke...

Q: Why are old guys attracted to young women?

A: because their brains are Miss wired

 

[nice90sguy]

And the daughter's kinda hot...or is my brain mis-wired

Nope, it's been scientifically proven in another eposide of their podcast that the daughter is indeed hot

 

[nice90sguy]

A: because their brains are Miss wired

: polite applause emoji:

 

[kreemi_pi]

It's kind of creepy, because he's being interviewed by his daughter, but he says a lot of intersting stuff. And he answered all my penis-size questions too...

I like this dude! Smart guy with a great beard. But i think the daughter win the "sexual selection" contest here

 

[lustatsea]

As others have also said, I think the world of BDSM is so diverse and individual experiences of it so varied, not to mention mutable over time as one grows and evolves in relation to internal and external influences (physical, chemical, social, cultural, etc), that a biological explanation can only ever be a data point in a much more complex constellation of factors. I don't pretend to understand my own constellation yet but I'm certain it isn't as reductive as confused fight-or-flight.

Has anyone read this book from last year The Deep Psychology of BDSM and Kink? Seems like something some folks on this thread may find intriguing, whether for insights or debate fodder. I haven't read it and I'll say right away that my knowledge of Jungian psychology is about as good as my knowledge of car engines, IE good enough to tinker, with a high risk of fucking shit up. Lol. But I'm curious.

 

[Britva415]

I think one thing that is being missed here (and I have no idea if it was missed in the original scientist's explaination) is that the "fight or flight" response being referenced isn't just for anger and fear, but anger and fear are really all we think about when we hear "fight or flight," unless we already know more than they seem to have been discussing.

Instead, that phrase is used to avoid a more intimidating sounding one, the sympathetic nervous system. This system is involved in anger and fear, sure, but also in lust, love, excitement, and ecstasy. Any emotion that you consider a "high energy" type emotion involves an activation of your fight or flight response.

So what differentiates between it being considered pleasant or unpleasant? What makes it sexually arousing versus not? A big answer to that is how you cognitively assess the situation. Those feelings of safety and consent folks mention. They are thoughts that change the way the same exact physiological response (same intensity of activation of that fight or flight response) can become a different emotion entirely. There was research done, for example, where college students met an attractive member of the opposite sex (it was early research that assumed everyone was heterosexual) either in a "safe" situation (sitting in a waiting room) or an "unsafe" one (I believe they were walking on a rickety bridge across a ravine It was scary, but no one was injured in the making of this science). Later, they were asked to rate the attractiveness of the person they met. Those who were walking over the ravine found the person they met to be more attractive than those in the safe situation. That is, they mis-attributed the arousal (another word for activating that fight or flight response) to being attraction rather than, you know, being afraid of being on a rickety bridge over a ravine. They then compared those ratings to a third group - they walked over the ravine but didn't meet the member of the opposite sex until later, when they were back in the waiting room of the science lab. That third group? Their scores were just like the group that never crossed the ravine. They didn't meet this member of the opposite sex while their fight or flight response was active, so they didn't experience that arousal, and didn't have any reason to misattribute it.


tl;dr from the babbling? The use of "fight or flight" is a GROSS oversimplication of the biology here that leads to making assumptions about the emotions that go with that biology. When we get rid of those assumptions and add in that where we *think* that arousal came from (even if that thinking is subconscious) helps to decide what emotion we experience as a result - most of the comments here makes sense while still being able to say "yea, that scientist had the right of it, he just...oversimplified things to the point of seeming wrong." You can even look at the comments saying that bondage let's the chronically stressed out relax using the sympathetic nervous system a little differently - that's someone with chronic arousal in that system finally letting the parasympathetic ("rest and digest" is what it's often oversimplified as) do its job. More biology helping to drive our psychology - we can never escape it.

I've seen it explained that arousal depends on the parasympathetic pathway but orgasm depends on the sympathetic pathway. They're both active at the same time, and the relative activation between them is a dynamic situation.

It's also not a simple matter of "active" vs. "not active." What's more important is WHY they're being activated or de-activated. That's a cognitive process more than a reflexive process.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

As others have also said, I think the world of BDSM is so diverse and individual experiences of it so varied, not to mention mutable over time as one grows and evolves in relation to internal and external influences (physical, chemical, social, cultural, etc), that a biological explanation can only ever be a data point in a much more complex constellation of factors. I don't pretend to understand my own constellation yet but I'm certain it isn't as reductive as confused fight-or-flight.

Has anyone read this book from last year The Deep Psychology of BDSM and Kink? Seems like something some folks on this thread may find intriguing, whether for insights or debate fodder. I haven't read it and I'll say right away that my knowledge of Jungian psychology is about as good as my knowledge of car engines, IE good enough to tinker, with a high risk of fucking shit up. Lol. But I'm curious.

Okay, so now I have something else on my reading list. That sounds fascinating and like something I have to hide from curious minds...

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

I've seen it explained that arousal depends on the parasympathetic pathway but orgasm depends on the sympathetic pathway. They're both active at the same time, and the relative activation between them is a dynamic situation.

If I'm remembering properly (I can't properly pull up the research once I have kids popping in and out) - this is the physiology, but not the psychology, of sex. Why does that matter? Because the body may respond to even unwelcome sexual contact - the psychology of sex pushing one way while the physiology is doing quite the opposite. Trigger warning for a bit more of an explanation of unwanted sexual contact here. It's why you can't assume "she wanted it" simply because lubrication of the vagina or "he wanted it" when an erection happens. This can happen in part because the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems are not on opposite ends of a spectrum. Don't think a scale that can go either one way or the other. Instead, look at two systems that do seemingly opposite things but that can be both active at the same time and produce interesting results when they are.

It's also, again, this is based just on memory, a curved graph, and there's a peak point where they show a crossover interaction. Again, I'm working with closing my eyes and picturing a graph I saw quite some time ago, so pardon if I'm not picturing it perfectly here. Basically, there's an "optimal" level of relaxation and an "optimal" level of arousal. Too much or too little of either can lead to sexual difficulties or unpleasantness in as many forms as their are humans it seems. I will try to remember to pull up the study that I am remembering this from tomorrow if I can if someone hasn't done so already.

EDITED TO ADD: I hate that I forgot to include this: I absolutely agree, there is a cognitive process involved. It's just that sometimes we think it happened for reason A when really it was reason B but often why we THINK it happened is the only part that matters. 1

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Has anyone read this book from last year The Deep Psychology of BDSM and Kink? Seems like something some folks on this thread may find intriguing, whether for insights or debate fodder. I haven't read it and I'll say right away that my knowledge of Jungian psychology is about as good as my knowledge of car engines, IE good enough to tinker, with a high risk of fucking shit up. Lol. But I'm curious.

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

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

 

[TheLobster]

It's kind of creepy, because he's being interviewed by his daughter, (...)

*sounds of T/I writers furiously jotting down ideas*

 

[EmilyMiller]

My reaction to journalists (or people who have just googled) citing scientific matters is generally . What you often get is oversimplification, cherry picking, and even - in extreme circumstances - cognitive dissonance, and actual error.

But, to give a slightly different perspective to @Erozetta, for me fear <> arousal. Anticipation / uncertainty (within a framework of utter safety) can equal arousal with the right person. Certain types of pain (falling short of lasting flesh trauma) can equal arousal, again with the right person.

If defy anyone to be spanked erotically by someone who knows what they are doing and to not find it spine-tinglingly, breathtakingly arousing.

 

[nice90sguy]

One of Robert Sapolsky's refrains throughout his books is "It's complicated." His principle is that, for EVERYTHING we do (and feel), there are multiple interacting causes: Neurological, Hormonal, Neuroplastic, Psychosocial, Societal, Historical, Genetic.. and more.

Fixing on one interpretaive viewpoint of our behaviour at a time is both necessary and insufficent for our understanding. Sapolsky spent twenty years studying baboon social behaviour, which has given him an appreciation of just how similar, and also how unique, human behaviour is, to other primates. The biggest difference, is, of, course, cultural -- humans are the only species that's smart enough to have culture -- which allows mega-scale cooperation through common myths and conventions (like nations, money, religions, race, and, the jewel in the crown, language).

The term "BDSM" is not really a useful term for me -- it's too disparate and sloppy. At its core is the recognition that sex for humans (and many other animals) is connected with power and dominance, and also that physical pain and suffering can sometimes be a source of pleasure and relief from a different form of suffering (e.g. guilt, fear).

If defy anyone to be spanked erotically by someone who knows what they are doing and to not find it spine-tinglingly, breathtakingly arousing.

Well, that's kind of tautological. If you missed out the word "erotically", it would be an assertion, and a false one. Having gone to a school where corporal punishment was common, I can tell you, being spanked can be horrible. You have to want to be spanked for it to be erotic.

 

[stickygirl]

I watched a video made by a well-known neuroscientist, where he "explained" BDSM in terms of the amygdala (fight-or-flight) response. Basically, he was saying that people "consfuse" the adrenal response casued by sexual arousal with the similar activation of the amygdala when you're scared/angry. It didn't ring true to me at all; I find that both fear and anger LOWER my sexual arousal, which is why my personal sexual kink (hypnosis) is very much connected with letting go and lowering stress.

The thread where people talked about "hate fucks" (a turn-off for me), made me think that there's probably something to it though.

A complete misrepresentation of the professor's carefully chosen words.

 

[redgarters]

Basically, he was saying that people "consfuse" the adrenal response casued by sexual arousal with the similar activation of the amygdala when you're scared/angry.

As stated by many, this is at best a huge oversimplification. BDSM is about so much more than sexual arousal. It's about connection, emotional need, trust, and the list goes on. To me, this only speaks to the general uninformed view that BDSM is all about getting sexual gratification from pain or inflicting pain. Exactly that general misinformed view of BDSM is why I wrote A Melody of Surrender - a lesbian romance that tries to show how BDSM relationships are often more about the emotional connection rather than the sexual acts.

After all, it does take a hell of a lot of courage to sharing your kinky desires with your partner. You risk shame, embarrassment, eliciting disgust, and ostracization and so forth, but if the response from your partner is enthusiasm, the catharsis from that is amazing.

This. Oh god this.

I can tell you, being spanked can be horrible. You have to want to be spanked for it to be erotic.

That's a given, BDSM without consent is not BDSM, it's abuse.

 

[nice90sguy]

A complete misrepresentation of the professor's carefully chosen words.

I don't think so: The key point he was making is about the amygdala being involved in both male sexual arousal and fight-or-flight responses: I've linked the key point here:

That's pretty much what I said in my O.P.

 

[stickygirl]

I don't think so: The key point he was making is about the amygdala being involved in both male sexual arousal and fight-or-flight responses: I've linked the key point here:

That's pretty much what I said in my O.P.

Just stop.
At outset of describing the processes of consensual sexual violence he refers to a variety of studies that discovered between 20 and 30% of the population found bdsm of any interest, which means your own position is most common. [ 21:54]

Later, in summarising consensual sexual violence he says 'the overall picture is the possibility that...' and [24:44] 'it seems like that's the best we have to try explain that' ( confusion between sexual aggression and aggressive arousal ) 'but that doesn't explain everything...' . These are not key points - he was being as circumspect as he could be, while politely trying to avoid making the questioner sound ridiculous.

He does not use the phrase 'fight-or-flight' in this section of the video. Maybe you misheard that?

Please don't ask me to go back an listen to it again: it's clear enough from the first time that he thinks there are no conclusions to be made, only suppositions and even those are couched with words like maybe, might be, something like, seems like, possibility.

 

[nice90sguy]

your own position is most common

You seem to be under the illusion that you know my position. YOU just stop.

"Fight-or-flight response" is a common non-technical term for amygdal response.
Read my previous post about "it's complicted" Sapolsky has written thousands of pages on the causes of human behaviour, and if I hadn't read those thousands of pages, I wouldn't have bothered watching the video.
He writes and speaks from a scientific standpoint, which is scrupulously sceptical and cautious. Everything a scientist claims is open to retratcion and modification. Everything is about probabilities, and possible causes. So as a good scientist, he's drawing attention to his continual point that, when it comes to human behaviour,.. it's complicated.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

I all his caution and skepticism, Sapolsky overstates and is over-certain in his conclusions. For instance, he says that male sexual agency is in the amygdala and female in the hypothalamus. No one-sentence summary like that can be correct, brains and human decision-making are not ever, ever that simple. Also, in every case I'm aware of, differences like that are statistical and not absolute. Also also, how did they measure this difference? FMRI? Sapolsky gives no sources. If it's FMRI I'm forced to say "dead salmon", and I think Sapolsky would agree if he was reading this.

--Annie

 

[Kumquatqueen]

If defy anyone to be spanked erotically by someone who knows what they are doing and to not find it spine-tinglingly, breathtakingly arousing.

Sounds a bit 'no true Scotsman' - if the person isn't aroused, you just weren't doing it erotically enough?

I disagree, because I know a few people who despite trying it aren't into spanking at all - some of whom are into other types of pain and BDSM. And others who might be aroused but from the fondling, being on display to an audience, and embarrassment, rather than from the spanking itself.

Similar to my girlfriend trying her best to persuade me that needle play is erotic. Does nothing for me, but the pretty lady playing with my breasts for ages is nice. And she claims I'm the weird one...

 

[EmilyMiller]

Similar to my girlfriend trying her best to persuade me that needle play is erotic.

Yeah - that’s a nope for me

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Yeah - that’s a nope for me

Once I found out that the needles go horizontally through the skin rather than downwards, I went from 'hell no' to 'what's the point of that?'

You know when kids put pins through the top layer of their fingertips and run round pretending to be zombies? It's just like that. Though apparently some people feel a spreading warmth and find that erotic.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Once I found out that the needles go horizontally through the skin rather than downwards, I went from 'hell no' to 'what's the point of that?'

You know when kids put pins through the top layer of their fingertips and run round pretending to be zombies? It's just like that. Though apparently some people feel a spreading warmth and find that erotic.

Not interested on anything for which the marks don’t disappear relatively quickly. And I’m actually wincing at the idea of needles.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

He writes and speaks from a scientific standpoint, which is scrupulously sceptical and cautious.

Here's the problem though - what he stated wasn't just oversimplification, there were multiple instances of flat out inaccuracy.

I all his caution and skepticism, Sapolsky overstates and is over-certain in his conclusions. For instance, he says that male sexual agency is in the amygdala and female in the hypothalamus. No one-sentence summary like that can be correct, brains and human decision-making are not ever, ever that simple.

This is an example of that inaccuracy. It's not just that he's oversimplifying the involvement of the amygdala and hypothalamus in men VS women. That I'd understand. In science education, especially in a quick YouTube video, that happens. I get that, and then I write long posts on forums to provide context, but I get that it's necessary.

The problem, however, is this is flat out false, as are other claims he makes. I've reached my limit in my ability to read research today (medical condition, my problem, def not yours), so I can't give cittions or anything at the moment but if folks want, I can summarize. It will, however, take a while (read: days) as reading research is a major challenge for me at the moment (so, not because it'll be a dissertation, more because my brain will tell me to stop). Alternatively, if no one wants that, then I'll just keep it in my head (heck, if you'd rather I stop dorking out on the boards in general, just tell me and I'll shut my face. No fun if no one else is having fun).

I do stand corrected I think on the study with the bridges. My memory insists there were three groups and only one was on the bridge, but I'm either thinking of an earlier study or am just flat out wrong. I want to ensure that I admit when I'm wrong, though we both agreed on the results, the methods matter too. And what his daughter says about Schacter? That's in line with what I was saying about cognitive appraisal of a situation - what I *think* is going on. It was his model (and ones that came after) I was thinking of.

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

And regardless, thanks for sharing the video. It's always interesting to see what is out there and imma think critically about what's in a video like that regardless of where I find it - it gives a good jumping off point for learning more.

 

[SimonDoom]

`

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

I prefer to give people a full and complete opportunity to dork out. So, take a break and get your rest and then come back and dork away.

This is a more interesting thread than most. It's worth dorking about.