The psychopathic sub

[YourCaptor]

I met a psychopath sub.

She ended up falling for me quick. Yes they can love, mostly.

I wanted someone to fuck really rough, she wanted to get fucked really rough.

The trick to not getting burned is to keep them separate, but I always do that anyway. I don't introduce kink girls to my personal life.

The nice think with a psychopath is you can tell exactly if you have them on the edge or if you can push them a bit more simply by paying attention to the quantity of boredom they express. The more bored the are the more comfortable they are with the situation.

Additionally if you keep one step ahead of them, they will do such sweet things for you.

I feel like its easier to read a psychopath than it is to read an empathetic girl.

Granted she did not have any criminal past. If I found out a psychopath was a criminal I would walk away.

 

[Netzach]

Got you! And I will check out the reference. Thanks!

Seriously though, when the female does not select, the same laws apply. The alpha male will only mate with an alpha female. So it is only the gender that changes, not the mechanism itself.

I hate to keep harping on this point, but no. The science of the last 5 years has consistently been finding that "always" is about 70 percent, and you know, when you really observe it consistently, we were wrong. A lot of social animals do not have alpha pairs at all - the relationships are more complicated and more nuanced and there are lots of ways to win the gene passing lottery.

 

[Netzach]

I do it 1/3rd ironically, 1/3 to be annoying, and 1/3 because I feel that way.

I like these proportions. I think they sum up my relationship to Female Supremacy.

 

[Netzach]

Field note: If you really like rapey taken against her will painful gang bang sex, hammerhead sharks and ducks are your totem animals.

 

[Netzach]

I met a psychopath sub.

She ended up falling for me quick. Yes they can love, mostly.

I wanted someone to fuck really rough, she wanted to get fucked really rough.

The trick to not getting burned is to keep them separate, but I always do that anyway. I don't introduce kink girls to my personal life.

The nice think with a psychopath is you can tell exactly if you have them on the edge or if you can push them a bit more simply by paying attention to the quantity of boredom they express. The more bored the are the more comfortable they are with the situation.

Additionally if you keep one step ahead of them, they will do such sweet things for you.

I feel like its easier to read a psychopath than it is to read an empathetic girl.

Granted she did not have any criminal past. If I found out a psychopath was a criminal I would walk away.

I'm pretty impressed with your skills. I just don't want that psychic glop on me, man. That and actually being called by an angry apparently abusive-ish vanilla husband no one bothered to tell ME about, was less than thrilling.

 

[MeekMe]

Whenever BDSM and psychology are mentioned it seems there are two conclusions. Either BDSMers are super duper special because they're somehow mentally superior to vanilla people. Or they're terribly damaged and we should be finding a therapy for them. I think some people view D/s as some kind of special uber-relationship. I see it as just another relationship, no more special than any other kind.

The psychopath thing isn't really a huge problem for just dominants. Honestly, it seems more appropriate to think of ways to not get caught up in the manipulation, which can happen in any kind of relationship involving someone who may be psychopathic.

I had a friend learn the hard way. He introduced me to a friend of his, immediately I knew things with her would not end well. They weren't dating, just friends. Eventually, I let him know I didn't trust her and that he should be careful. He didn't listen. So she used him until he no longer had anything she needed. She wrecked her boyfriend's life by systematically isolating him from friends and family and then manipulating him to financial ruin. Then threatened my friend and tried to ruin his reputation.

That relationship was one of friendship and nowhere near D/s. I don't see how making up new terms to describe subs is helping anything. I just see these articles about the troubled and healthy sub as giving people complexes. Now you want to introduce your theory about psychopathic subs and how to warn people about them. The new insult around circles will be, "forget that one! They're just a psychopathic sub." "Yeah, I ditched him when I realized he was a psychopathic sub."

But alas, we love strongly defined labels.

 

[CutieMouse]

I can't help it... <smiles> always makes me think of whatshisname.

Talk about psychopath...

 

[Bramblethorn]

1. Of course every sub thinks she has the best and only Master. The same happens among animals, every female always allows herself to be selected by the most powerful male (as far as she can tell). Otherwise survival of the fittest would not work. Nature works according to specific and very logical and functional rules. Why would selection among human females be any different?

Um, you do know that lesbians do BDSM, right? And gay men?

Netzach has already given a good response, but I'll chime in: you have a very confused understanding of evolution. "Fit" (in Darwinian terms) and "powerful" are not at all the same concept. A male who can drive off rival males and mate with other females is "fit" after a fashion... but a "wimpy" male who invests a lot of energy into looking after his partner and making sure their kids survive is also "fit". And so is a male who listens to his partner and lets her good ideas override his bad ones.

The interplay between those different forms of "fitness" is complex, and the link between evolution and psychology is not straightforward - the widespread occurrence of homosexuality across the animal kingdom should demonstrate that!

I will agree that there are very few real Masters because I have researched the matter extensively, on a personal level. Of course, statistically speaking, this leaves us still with a few thousand of them. I believe they will suffice - though barely (that also explains polyamory in BDSM).

Uh. Poly BDSMer here. This theory has NOTHING to do with it for me and mine. The fact that I have more than one partner isn't because they were short of doms and had to share me. It's because we were attracted to one another, and didn't feel an obligation to be monogamous, and BDSM is one of the ways we enjoy playing with one another.

(also, the notion of "real Masters" makes me roll my eyes in the same sort of way I'd do for somebody who says that Beethoven is the only composer who ever wrote "real music". Unless we're discussing Doctor Who villains.)

Not a single person who has actually studied mammalian or other mating will agree with this simplification. First of all, a lot of species rely on female selection. Almost all harem animals display rampant female infidelity, and almost all beta and lesser males manage to spread some genes. If not, everything would be inbred out of existence. A lot of species even have small males who mimic female appearance to get close enough to mate - making the guys trying to duke it out basically failed biological branches. There are a lot of survival strategies out there. One episode of meerkat manor followed by one episode of Real Housewives is all it takes to figure this out.

And in at least some of those cases, the females prefer the small sneaky female-impersonators when given the choice.

I just want to mention that one of the widely-recognised biological names for this behaviour is "the sneaky fucker strategy", because this is pretty much my favourite biology fact.

Dear Netzach, first of all please let me say that I find the intense eloquence of your reply quite flattering. I must have hit a nerve with what I said.

I wish people would stop using this "I must have hit a nerve" when they get a strong negative reaction to something they said. To me it comes across as very dismissive: rather than considering whether the strength of that response is because the respondent knows what they're talking about, it implies that it's because of some special sensitivity on their part.

There is no single female, anywhere in the world, who would willingly go with a mangy, deformed, scrawny-looking male representative of the species... unless of course... he is Woody Allen.

Really? You've polled them ALL?

Women want someone whom they judge as THE BEST. You for example, would you ever take second best? I seriously doubt it. Even I would not, and I'm easy...<smiles>

Tim Minchin says it well:

http://www.vagalume.com.br/tim-minchin/if-i-didnt-have-you.html

If you hang out for "absolute BEST" you'll die alone before you ever find them. I'm sure my partner and I both had more compatible options, somewhere out there in the universe. But at some point you gotta say "this is pretty good, I'm going to put in the effort to make THIS work" rather than hanging out to see if there's somebody who's 0.01% better.

Please let me remind you of the necessity of safe, sane and consensual, in such matters.

Noting that SSC is not a universal standard. Some prefer RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink), which is more about people making informed choices about what risks they'll accept, rather than mandating a low-risk approach.

 

[KoPilot]

Really? You've polled them ALL?

The man clearly has a BScA (a bachelor of science in the field of anecdotology). I believe he is more than qualified to speak on the subject of mistaking stereotypes as universal fact.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I hate to keep harping on this point, but no. The science of the last 5 years has consistently been finding that "always" is about 70 percent, and you know, when you really observe it consistently, we were wrong. A lot of social animals do not have alpha pairs at all - the relationships are more complicated and more nuanced and there are lots of ways to win the gene passing lottery.

Good piece about that here: the guy who brought "alpha wolf" into popular consciousness back in the 1970s has spent the last fifteen years trying to tell people that he was wrong.

http://io9.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629

 

[Stella_Omega]

White Knight Complex rides strongly on our control/top impulses. I struggle with this myself. A good crazy manipulation is catnip to a lot of us.

I'm constantly encouraging Dom dudes (and ladies but even less so) to stay in touch with what they *want.* The needs of the sub and relationship are primary in the relationship it's true, but when every fucking thing is a "need" and you lose touch with your own identity (and I've seen this happen to guys a LOT) then you are in trouble and you are going to suffer immensely, as you are now no longer Dominant in the relationship and a vanilla one is probably healthier for you than this nuttiness.

As someone once told me; Keep your transparency. Do not mirror.
let the expectations pass through you like sunlight through a pane of glass.

Field note: If you really like rapey taken against her will painful gang bang sex, hammerhead sharks and ducks are your totem animals.

I just read about a duck that has a 16 inch long penis, flings it out there and lassos the closest lady duck he can get at.
And they don't seem to care if they get a duck of the wrong species, either. So much for reproductive strategy!

 

[1sickbastard]

Netzach has already given a good response, but I'll chime in: you have a very confused understanding of evolution. "Fit" (in Darwinian terms) and "powerful" are not at all the same concept. A male who can drive off rival males and mate with other females is "fit" after a fashion... but a "wimpy" male who invests a lot of energy into looking after his partner and making sure their kids survive is also "fit". And so is a male who listens to his partner and lets her good ideas override his bad ones.

The interplay between those different forms of "fitness" is complex, and the link between evolution and psychology is not straightforward - the widespread occurrence of homosexuality across the animal kingdom should demonstrate that!

I'm going to chime in on the evolution thing as well.
As far as my limited knowledge & understanding of evolution goes, it doesn't matter much what individuals choose as much as it is a matter of population mechanics interacting with a dynamic environment which produces selective pressures that determine which mutations (also an ever-occurring process) are neutral (which is estimated at like 95% of all mutations, or so I've heard), which are negative & which are positive.
And because the environment in which a population exists is dynamic, those mutations that would confer a real advantage are also dynamic: those mutations that had been neutral or negative in previous generations could become positive in subsequent generations
Those mutations (or established traits) are only beneficial if they help the nextgeneration survive. Once a segment of a population has reproduced, the genetic advantages for that segment do not automatically confer advantage on subsequent generations.

Or, in other words, it's not who we select as mates but which of our children successfully produce offspring who will successfully produce offspring, etc, if you see what I mean.

 

[Stella_Omega]

exactly, 1sicko.

Furthermore, harmful mutations do not get weeded out of a species-- unless they are lethal to the organism before it can reproduce. Stupid behavior in adults is evolutionarily neutral, since we can make our babies at such a young age. Pretending bullshit is evolved behavior, is nothing but a just so story invented to make weak excuses for people who like the bullshit.

 

[dora_salonica]

A guy long dead now, from my home country, used to say: Νήφε και μέμνησο απιστείν.

This means: keep your sobriety and always, always doubt.

I take this literally. And the first person that I doubt, is me.<big smile>

Some minor points on the very interesting things said above:

I hate to keep harping on this point, but no. The science of the last 5 years has consistently been finding that "always" is about 70 percent, and you know, when you really observe it consistently, we were wrong. A lot of social animals do not have alpha pairs at all - the relationships are more complicated and more nuanced and there are lots of ways to win the gene passing lottery.

Are there any references which I might check? I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

Thanks also for the reference to hammerhead sharks. I have found this interesting video on their mating behavior:

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/shark-week/videos/shark-mating.htm

It seems that only the strong mate. The others, stay in the mud, breathing heavily, lol.

Also here:

"The male hammerhead sharks prefer larger females because they have been shown to have more babies, or pups. The larger females can bear 3 to 4 times more pups than the smaller or younger females. The bigger females are almost always located in the middle of a school of hammerheads where she is most protected. This is also the first place male hammerheads go when they are looking for a female to mate with."

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4569342_hammerhead-sharks-mate.html

It seems then that the shark will almost always look for the largest female, to ensure good offspring. Please inform our good sharks that mistaking stereotypes for universal fact is frowned upon, lol.

I like these proportions. I think they sum up my relationship to Female Supremacy.

Hmm... if I may add my opinion, supremacy rarely has to do with aggression. It is only the small dogs that bark, and they bark due to feelings of inadequacy. The large dogs do not feel the need to bark. They come at you out of nowhere, if you are being foolish. And rightly so. If you are the biggest, the best, the most powerful, the richest, the most intelligent, the most knowledgeable etc, why waste valuable energy that can be used for sex?<smiles>

Good piece about that here: the guy who brought "alpha wolf" into popular consciousness back in the 1970s has spent the last fifteen years trying to tell people that he was wrong.

http://io9.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629

I enjoyed the article, thanks!

If I may quote from it:

"This doesn't mean that wolves don't display social dominance, however. When a recent piece purporting to dispel the "myth" of canine dominance appeared on Psychology Today, ethologist Marc Bekoff quickly stepped in. Wolves (and other animals, including humans), display social dominance, he notes; it just isn't always easy to boil dominant behavior down to simple explanations. Dominant behavior and dominance relationships can be highly situational, and can vary greatly from individual to individual even within the same species. It's not the entire concept of wolves displaying social dominance that was dispelled, just the simple hierarchical pack structure."

I have already made reference to our culture changing the way dominance works. Each female (and male, certainly) will judge who is alpha to her (or to him) in a variety of ways. Indicatively I mentioned money and intelligence. There are other ways to determine dominance: for example, some women - but not Netzah - will fall for the guy (or girl) who appears to be highly popular. If everyone else wants that person, it must mean that he or she has something good to offer. And so on. There are so many different ways to determine who is the One. But I think that every time we make a mating choice - unless we are just on a nympho spree, lol - the mechanism comes into play. We do not go against our nature, unless we are self-destructive and we think that this is a good kink. Most probably, it is not (personal opinion).

I just read about a duck that has a 16 inch long penis, flings it out there and lassos the closest lady duck he can get at.

On the subject of duck rapes (lol, really enjoyed that one), please note that, "The success of this design is proven by the fact that as many as one in three duck matings are rapes, but in nine out of ten of these, the offending sperm is eliminated, so 97 percent of all duck offspring are the result of the choice of the mother."

Source: http://www.webvet.com/main/2009/01/09/duck-mating-sex-lives-ducks

PS. Why is this a heated argument? The subject was psychopathic subs, lol.

 

[dora_salonica]

I'm going to chime in on the evolution thing as well.
As far as my limited knowledge & understanding of evolution goes, it doesn't matter much what individuals choose as much as it is a matter of population mechanics interacting with a dynamic environment which produces selective pressures that determine which mutations (also an ever-occurring process) are neutral (which is estimated at like 95% of all mutations, or so I've heard), which are negative & which are positive.

The definitive book on gene selection, The selfish gene, by Richard Dawkins (it is a free download and you will love it):

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/selfishgene-dowkins.pdf

 

[dora_salonica]

Um, you do know that lesbians do BDSM, right? And gay men?

Yes. I am bi, personally.

I am sorry that I do not use he or she all the time, I find it tiring. I am sure that lesbians and gays will understand that I have nothing against them. Some of my best friends are gay, a transsexual too (lovely Tania) and I often frequent a lesbian bar, in Ladadika, in Thessaloniki, called Alma libre. If you ever visit my hometown, make sure to look it up! Live music every Friday night!

Netzach has already given a good response, but I'll chime in: you have a very confused understanding of evolution. "Fit" (in Darwinian terms) and "powerful" are not at all the same concept. A male who can drive off rival males and mate with other females is "fit" after a fashion... but a "wimpy" male who invests a lot of energy into looking after his partner and making sure their kids survive is also "fit". And so is a male who listens to his partner and lets her good ideas override his bad ones.

Certainly, I agree with that. Perhaps I did not manage to convey the argument very clearly, and for that I apologize. Dominance can be proven in many different ways for the human species.

I do not feel confused about my understanding of evolution, though I am not an expert. Especially after reading Dawkins I felt that the matter was rather clear. I may be wrong of course.

The interplay between those different forms of "fitness" is complex, and the link between evolution and psychology is not straightforward - the widespread occurrence of homosexuality across the animal kingdom should demonstrate that!

I have not researched that yet, so I cannot contribute to that specific discussion.

Uh. Poly BDSMer here. This theory has NOTHING to do with it for me and mine. The fact that I have more than one partner isn't because they were short of doms and had to share me. It's because we were attracted to one another, and didn't feel an obligation to be monogamous, and BDSM is one of the ways we enjoy playing with one another.

Of course, I understand. For our rather small - though very vibrant - Greek BDSM community, that is not the case. We recycle Doms, because there are so few of them (there are many assholes though...) So sometimes we have to share, even if it means less time and less attention by the Dom (I am in a poly relationship with 4 other girls and our loving Master, for almost three years now).

(also, the notion of "real Masters" makes me roll my eyes in the same sort of way I'd do for somebody who says that Beethoven is the only composer who ever wrote "real music". Unless we're discussing Doctor Who villains.)

It is because you have not been fucked over by fake Masters. Vivaldi, Bach, Debussy, do not go around being total assholes.

I have met my share of villains. Real ones, not silly people who think they are important, but truly bad people. You know what I mean?

I just want to mention that one of the widely-recognised biological names for this behaviour is "the sneaky fucker strategy", because this is pretty much my favourite biology fact.

The cuckoo has a very interesting strategy too. You can read about it here:

http://www.ur.umich.edu/0405/Apr25_05/22.shtml

I wish people would stop using this "I must have hit a nerve" when they get a strong negative reaction to something they said. To me it comes across as very dismissive: rather than considering whether the strength of that response is because the respondent knows what they're talking about, it implies that it's because of some special sensitivity on their part.

I am sorry. I for one will not do it again, since it is upsetting to at least one person. I honestly expected a different discussion though, so I was surprised. That is all.

Really? You've polled them ALL?

Polls do not work that way. We poll some and then we extrapolate. If however you are aware of some research indicating that women do not prefer the best, I am all ears.

Tim Minchin says it well:

http://www.vagalume.com.br/tim-minchin/if-i-didnt-have-you.html

I am sorry to disappoint Mr Minchin, but my mileage varies seriously. I have met some of the most amazing people in my life. And mated with them. I am very selective - except when I am on a nympho spree, lol.

If you hang out for "absolute BEST" you'll die alone before you ever find them. I'm sure my partner and I both had more compatible options, somewhere out there in the universe. But at some point you gotta say "this is pretty good, I'm going to put in the effort to make THIS work" rather than hanging out to see if there's somebody who's 0.01% better.

I think that every single moment is a choice. Of course we choose what is best for us, in the particular moment. Sometimes the best choice is to be alone, rather than mate with someone who "doesn't cut it". I am sure most people will agree with that.

Noting that SSC is not a universal standard. Some prefer RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink), which is more about people making informed choices about what risks they'll accept, rather than mandating a low-risk approach.

Indeed, you are right. I also practice RACK. Still, I am very aware of the rules of logic and safety and I only take calculated risks - some times I have fucked up, as with the branding which I have on my shoulder, but I knew what I was doing, so...<smiles>

 

[All_4_Love]

Whenever BDSM and psychology are mentioned it seems there are two conclusions. Either BDSMers are super duper special because they're somehow mentally superior to vanilla people. Or they're terribly damaged and we should be finding a therapy for them. I think some people view D/s as some kind of special uber-relationship. I see it as just another relationship, no more special than any other kind.

Seriously, Meek, where do you come up with some of this stuff?

That relationship was one of friendship and nowhere near D/s. I don't see how making up new terms to describe subs is helping anything. I just see these articles about the troubled and healthy sub as giving people complexes. Now you want to introduce your theory about psychopathic subs and how to warn people about them. The new insult around circles will be, "forget that one! They're just a psychopathic sub." "Yeah, I ditched him when I realized he was a psychopathic sub."

But alas, we love strongly defined labels.

This is complete bull. Absolutely ridiculous!

This makes for interesting conversation, delves into psychology, and goes beyond some of the superficial aspects of BDSM. It's engaging. It's thought provoking. It is in no way what you have just described above.

It is the small minds of people that create the circumstance that you are entailing, not intellectual conversation and debate.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The definitive book on gene selection, The selfish gene, by Richard Dawkins (it is a free download and you will love it):

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/selfishgene-dowkins.pdf

TSG is certainly a tremendously influential book on natural selection, but "definitive" it's not. Even at the time it was criticised by other biologists, Gould among them, for placing too much emphasis on genes as the unit of selection. In the last thirty years there have been huge leaps in technologies like epigenetics, DNA sequencing, and in big-data techniques used to analyse genetic information, which have shown that the role of genes in evolution is much more complicated than TSG made out.

Here's an article covering some of those issues:

http://aeon.co/magazine/science/why-its-time-to-lay-the-selfish-gene-to-rest/

Yes. I am bi, personally.

I am sorry that I do not use he or she all the time, I find it tiring.

I commend "they" as a perfectly respectable gender-neutral pronoun, both plural and singular.

I do not feel confused about my understanding of evolution, though I am not an expert. Especially after reading Dawkins I felt that the matter was rather clear. I may be wrong of course.

A lot of Dawkins' popularity lies in his ability to make people think that evolution is a simple process and they understand it. People like to believe that the universe has simple rules, whether they're getting them from Dawkins or from religion.

But if you read more recent material about evolutionary mechanisms by other researchers (the article I linked above has some names) you'll find that the science is far more complicated and unsettled than TSG would suggest.

The cuckoo has a very interesting strategy too. You can read about it here:

http://www.ur.umich.edu/0405/Apr25_05/22.shtml

The relationship between the cuckoo and its hosts is actually a bit more nuanced than that article describes. The article tells the same version a lot of us heard in childhood: cuckoos lay their eggs in another bird's nest, tricking that bird into raising the baby cuckoos at the expense of its own young. In biological language, a parasitic relationship.

But more recent research has shown that a cuckoo's egg can actually be beneficial to its host - baby cuckoos can protect their nest-mates from predation because they secrete a noxious substance that deters predators.

http://www.aaas.org/news/science-parasitic-cuckoos-provide-nest-protection-crow-hosts

Polls do not work that way. We poll some and then we extrapolate.

As it happens, I know a little bit about polling. A couple of the things I know:

- Extrapolating from a convenience sample (e.g. personal acquaintance) is extremely unreliable. Unless you're starting from a randomised sample with good coverage of the total population, it's unwise to attempt any sort of generalisation.

- Even with a good sample design, the accuracy of extrapolation is limited by the sample size. If you want to assert that "there is no single female anywhere in the world who'll do X" then you need to sample almost all the women in the world. (To be exact, if you want to assert that at a confidence level of p=0.05, then you'd need to sample 95% of the women in the world.)

If however you are aware of some research indicating that women do not prefer the best, I am all ears.

It doesn't work that way. If you want to make an assertion about what every single woman in the world prefers, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

 

[dora_salonica]

Seriously, Meek, where do you come up with some of this stuff?

Perhaps she has heard too many times ridiculous assertions about subs. I tend to be quite understanding when subs get upset with generalizations.

However - and thanks for intervening on my behalf - my purpose is in no way to generalize or accuse submissive women. I am a sub, it would be idiotic of me to do that. First of all I recognize the danger of generalizations and labelling, secondly I am very aware of the uniqueness of each one of us and thirdly I stated very clearly when opening the discussion that if there are psychopaths in the general population, well, surely there will be some among us too. I have come across some anyway, and I was really looking for useful input by others with similar experiences.

This makes for interesting conversation, delves into psychology, and goes beyond some of the superficial aspects of BDSM. It's engaging. It's thought provoking. It is in no way what you have just described above.

You are so kind. Thank you. I was beginning to worry a bit that perhaps I have upset people by opening this subject - though interestingly we ended up discussing... evolution, lol. Not that I am complaining.... This is fun - and some of the articles I had the opportunity to check out are thought-provoking. My thanks to all who are taking the time!

 

[rosco rathbone]

This always starts with BDSM and ends up with bonobos, wolf pack sociology and Richard Dawkins.

 

[IrisAlthea]

This always starts with BDSM and ends up with bonobos, wolf pack sociology and Richard Dawkins.

Yup, the need for a theoretical superstructure seems to be really strong for some.

 

[dora_salonica]

This always starts with BDSM and ends up with bonobos, wolf pack sociology and Richard Dawkins.

Don't you just love bonobos? Lol...

Here's an article covering some of those issues:

http://aeon.co/magazine/science/why-its-time-to-lay-the-selfish-gene-to-rest/

Thank you for the link.

I came across Mr Dobbs a while ago, when I was researching loneliness. It had come to my attention that there were too many deaths - at quite a young age - among members of the Greek BDSM community. I wanted to see if loneliness could in some way affect our health. This is how I discovered Steve Cole, a UCLA researcher and his work, the lonely people studies. You can read about it here, where it mentions gene expression theory and is actually quite related to the issue I was researching:

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/the-social-life-of-genes-64616/

I fail to see, though, how the theory of gene expression negates the mechanism of mating. Among all species, from the peacock to the Wodaabe (made famous by Werner Herzog, whose film you can watch here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnO1QDqpaQ ) mating ritual is geared towards finding the best - not the second best, lol.

I commend "they" as a perfectly respectable gender-neutral pronoun, both plural and singular.

In my humble opinion, constant use of "they" would seriously hamper my writing style - which I have honed over the years to what you are relishing now (English is my second language by the way). I do thank you for your kind suggestion though and please allow me to congratulate you on your sensitivity towards the LGBTQ community.

Personally, I try to do what I consider more important in helping the LGBTQ community in my home country by collecting, posting and translating articles pertaining to gay rights, new laws about adoption by homosexual parents etc. You can find some of that work here - though it will be all Greek to you, lol:

http://www.greekbdsm.com/showthread.php/3599-Έρευνες-για-ομοφυλόφιλους-γονείς

http://www.greekbdsm.com/showthread.php/3449-Ομόφυλα-ζευγάρια-και-παιδιά/page6

Thank you also for the link on the cuckoo. I shall read it with pleasure.

As it happens, I know a little bit about polling. A couple of the things I know:

- Extrapolating from a convenience sample (e.g. personal acquaintance) is extremely unreliable. Unless you're starting from a randomised sample with good coverage of the total population, it's unwise to attempt any sort of generalisation.

- Even with a good sample design, the accuracy of extrapolation is limited by the sample size. If you want to assert that "there is no single female anywhere in the world who'll do X" then you need to sample almost all the women in the world. (To be exact, if you want to assert that at a confidence level of p=0.05, then you'd need to sample 95% of the women in the world.)

I agree with you actually on that one (how could I not...) An excellent book about such fallacies is "Thinking fast and slow" by Kahneman. I cannot be certain that there is no single female anywhere in the world who is not looking for the best, when searching for a mate. There might be crazy people out there, idiots, self-destructive women, how on earth would I know?<smiles>

It doesn't work that way. If you want to make an assertion about what every single woman in the world prefers, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

Absolutely right. Got me there. I cannot prove it. There is no research on self-evident matters such as that one, no one will do it, you see, the scientific community will laugh at them. It is taken for granted that women will take Mozart any day of the week and not Salieri, for the simple reason that women are really, really shrewd in such matters. And they will never actually seek out a mediocrity for a mate.

The reason mediocrities get to mate is that other mediocrities accept them, thinking they are the best for them. And indeed, for them they are.

I am sorry if I sound condescending. I had to make the point, which had not been understood, I think. Perhaps it is more clear now. Of course, if one claims to truly understand what "average" is, one will realize on the spot that most of us are mediocrities who think highly of themselves. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Lol.

 

[MeekMe]

Perhaps she has heard too many times ridiculous assertions about subs. I tend to be quite understanding when subs get upset with generalizations.

However - and thanks for intervening on my behalf - my purpose is in no way to generalize or accuse submissive women. I am a sub, it would be idiotic of me to do that. First of all I recognize the danger of generalizations and labelling, secondly I am very aware of the uniqueness of each one of us and thirdly I stated very clearly when opening the discussion that if there are psychopaths in the general population, well, surely there will be some among us too. I have come across some anyway, and I was really looking for useful input by others with similar experiences.



You are so kind. Thank you. I was beginning to worry a bit that perhaps I have upset people by opening this subject - though interestingly we ended up discussing... evolution, lol. Not that I am complaining.... This is fun - and some of the articles I had the opportunity to check out are thought-provoking. My thanks to all who are taking the time!

Seriously, Meek, where do you come up with some of this stuff?

This is complete bull. Absolutely ridiculous!

This makes for interesting conversation, delves into psychology, and goes beyond some of the superficial aspects of BDSM. It's engaging. It's thought provoking. It is in no way what you have just described above.

It is the small minds of people that create the circumstance that you are entailing, not intellectual conversation and debate.

I'd say most of the topics that deal with BDSM and psychology pretty much go the same direction. A lot of generalizations and crackpot theories by people who need to write a paper for their psych class.

In some recent studies it was concluded that most psychological disorders are not somehow more prevalent in BDSM than in the general population. So, unless we're trying to figure out why someone has an inclination towards BDSM, shouldn't the question just be for the general population? Based on everyone here, I'd say we were all apart of the general population, we just happen to have some kinks. I don't think separating BDSM practitioners from the general populace is really helping anything. It's like we're lepers on an island. How can we protect lepers from psychopathic lepers?

When you take psychopath and put submissive after it, is the topic somehow shiny and new? Or are we just talking about a psychopath that identifies as submissive? Or decided that they aren't submissive, but playing the role that would give them the stimulation they need? The little story I shared was to show that I think this thread is just trying to put a BDSM twist on information that is already out there and readily available. How is the submissive psychopath different from the general population psychopath? Or the dominant psychopath? A psychopath that takes a dominant role seems more terrifying, IMHO.

I never said that the conversation wasn't thought provoking. I think about these things all the time. I also realize, that for myself, it's not very helpful. The more I try to analyze these things, the more complicated it gets. I prefer it to be simple. I don't think I'm a special snow flake because I'm submissive. I don't think I'm a special snow flake because I enjoy service. I AM part of the general population.

I also think that posting my point of view is worthwhile, because there may be others out there seeing it from a similar point. If you like to ponder the deep wonders of the world, by all means do it. I am not stopping anyone. But realize that this is a discussion board and the whole reason we're here is to share our opinions, even if they're different.

Where do I get this from? My mind. I draw my own conclusions and I generally don't copy and paste someone else's work and say "THIS! This thing I posted is exactly what I think!" I'm not particularly smart in the book sense, but I do have common sense. So while I'm not using big words and fancy sentence structure, I am speaking my own thoughts.

Please, tell me some more about how my opinion is bull and ridiculous. It gives me the warm fuzzies.

 

[dora_salonica]

When you take psychopath and put submissive after it, is the topic somehow shiny and new?

You are quite right in what you are saying and I apologize for failing to convey what I really had in mind.

The reason I quoted from Kahneman's book on psychopaths is the following: he said that a therapist should recognize that he or she has fallen prey to the charm of the psychopath and take the necessary precautions. I made the analogy because in D/s subs will come to a Dom and place themselves in his responsibility and care, much like a patient would with a therapist. But what would happen if this sub is actually a psychopath? Would a Dom fail to notice? That is the question!

In the vanilla world this does not happen. The relationship does not involve care and responsibility by one member of the relationship. Care is mutual...

I never said that the conversation wasn't thought provoking. I think about these things all the time.

Don't worry about it. I fully understand. And up to a point I share your concerns. And your opinion is extremely valuable and it helps to keep things into perspective.

By the way, I am also part of the general population and not a snowflake, lol.

 

[KoPilot]

In my humble opinion, constant use of "they" would seriously hamper my writing style - which I have honed over the years to what you are relishing now (English is my second language by the way). I do thank you for your kind suggestion though and please allow me to congratulate you on your sensitivity towards the LGBTQ community.

Yes, because "she-sub" and "He-Dom" can be considered "style".

This is hilarious.