Question about Psychology of BDSM (with apologies)

[Mumei]

I've never had the opportunity to engage in BDSM type activities, but such activities make up almost all my fantasies.

I don't know if I count as being "into BDSM" by the standards of people who actually practice the lifestyle, but anyway, the fantasies and desires are there.

I am puzzled by this. I can't for the life of me figure out why it should be that I have these kinds of desires. And I've had them ever since I can remember--since before I understood what sex is!*

I'm starting this thread to open up discussion of theories of the psychology and psychological origin of this kind of thing. Is it just that "there are different kind of people in the world?" Or are there particular kinds of events or childhoods or whatever that are particularly likely to produce a, shall we say, "BDSM friendly" sort of person? Are there particular personality types drawn to BDSM activities?

My own personal motivation is just to work through my perplexity over this (what I encounter as an) odd fact about myself. I simply can't account for the kinds of thoughts that go through my head in connection with sex. I figure a discussion like this might help, or might help me get over any need to work through the perplexity.

But my personal motivation for this post shouldn't control the thread. I'm not here just to "talk about me" so much as to hear what people think about the topics I'm bringing up.

Mumei

*That may seem strange, but I should clarify, my fantasies dating before my discovery of the nature of sex did not involve explicitly sexual acts. But they involved bondage and pain--both the giving and recieving thereof--as well as slavery and a sort of "fetishizing" (if that's the right word) of the notion of a challenge to one's endurance. And despite the lack of actual "sex acts" in these pre-sex fantasies, they were clearly sources of a sexual kind of pleasure for me.

[TomOfSweden]

Maybe just maybe, you are confused because you live your life after a moral code that doesn't aply to humans. Free your mind and I'm sure you'll understand. Read a little Nietzsche, Lacan, Focault and Deleuze. And I think it will become a lot clearer.

Normality and mental sanity is a myth. There is no natural equilibrium for the human mind where we are in harmony. And there's plenty of instincts that drive us forward.

edit: and above all nobody really knows what it is that makes us pervy. Psychology isn't really a science. They're all just guessing. So what ever feels good for you, probably is what you should be doing.

[karin]

'normalcy' so to speak within socialital groups differ from area to area..country to country. BDSM is a very wide-scoped spectrum of many activities that people enjoy. many reasons for people wanting to hurt..or be hurt...abound. almost as many as there are of us that practice. and then the non-painful side of BDSM or D/s. i myself lived in a very D/s marriage for many years...having no clue that thats' what it was. no kink...just..me waiting on him hand and foot. seemed natural. i digress.

from the words i read from you...it seems you have more than a passing interest. where did those thoughts come from? only you can answer that. you are not 'weird' or 'wrong' or 'broken'. i can't begin to imagine how many non BDSM couples enjoy a swat on the ass during sex. it heightens sensations. some of us...just take it to deeper levels.

if you want to pm me..please feel free...

i'm a shrink LOL *lookin' at Tom hard* hey....no one said it was a science. its alllllllllll about listening *winks*

[TomOfSweden]

'normalcy' so to speak within socialital groups differ from area to area..country to country.

I think it's more interesting to figure out if there is anybody at all who lives up to the normal "image". I've had a pretty active sex-life in my not so short life, and either I've been just plain lucky, or all women/people are really into BDSM. D/s is the norm. It's how we are wired. We may not all use the BDSM lingo, but sex with no element of domination I don't think anybody would like. Not really.

Sure there are a lot of people that are too scared to live out there fantasies. But that doesn't make them less into BDSM. Just less into life in general, not more normal.

Isn't that so?

[Ozme52]

Caveman moog... strong. Kill antelope. Feed clan.
Protect cavegirl ockaocka. She no challenge moog, make moog happy.
Moog happy, he let ockaocka sleep near him... Moog snore... sound like cave lion, keep jackels away from cave. ockaocka happy.

ockaocka put ugh-ugh weed in moog's soup... taste bad. moog cuff ockaocka... she sorry. he forgive. make ockaocka happy.

[Sir_G]

Caveman moog... strong. Kill antelope. Feed clan.
Protect cavegirl ockaocka. She no challenge moog, make moog happy.
Moog happy, he let ockaocka sleep near him... Moog snore... sound like cave lion, keep jackels away from cave. ockaocka happy.

ockaocka put ugh-ugh weed in moog's soup... taste bad. moog cuff ockaocka... she sorry. he forgive. make ockaocka happy.

Very succinct Oz. Made me laugh but at a grass roots level is so true.

[karin]

Ozme....absolutely...'nuff said *grins...wanders off*

[Mumei]

Thanks for the replies so far. But I think I've miscommunicated. I am not concerned that my fantasies are not "normal." "Normalcy" is not a value for me.

I take it the way you guys have interpreted my original post is as saying something like "In every other way, I'm normal, so why am I not normal in my sex fantasy life?" I take it this is how you read what I called my "perplexity." But that was not what I meant. Rather, its just that whereas pretty much everything else I know about myself I am able to integrate into a coherent picture or story about myself, my sex fantasy life stands apart. Its like that constitutes a story wholly unrelated to the story that makes up my public and social life. This is what perplexes me. I've integrated everything together, except for this one thing. Yet there's no denying: It's all me.

Also, I should note, I do not find in myself any particularly strong desire to integrate this further aspect of myself into the larger story of myself. That is, in fact, a little perplexing in itself. But there it is.

TomofSweden, you can probably replace my talk of "story" above with some appropriate locution concerning "interpretation," and you'll see that Nietzsche's thought has indeed already done some work in helping me articulate the position I find myself in. The other authors you mentioned, I have not read. But I hope you see now that my concern isn't for "normalcy" but rather I simply am (as I said in my OP) perplexed by the situation in which I find myself, and interested in working through that perplexity somehow. I have no preconceptions as to what the end of such a working-through should look like.

Next topic:

I do not understand Ozme's post and the ones following upon it. What is it you guys are saying is "true" about the situation he depicts? The situation does not appear to me to be appealing at all. (I say this both as my "public" "self" and as the "self" who fantasizes.) Does this mean that I've not really got BDSM in mind after all?

Mumei

[Psynymph]

Mumei, darling, stop trying to fit yourself into a box thats easily defined.

thats almost impossible to do these days. whatever works for you, works for you. you are the only person who you truly have to answer too.

i believe Ozme is trying to say that acts of Dominance and submission come from our baser instincts. at least well thats what i got from His post.

[fantassy]

What an awesome first post, Mumei! Should lead to some interesting thoughts. My bdsm interest totally doesn't fit with the rest of my views of myself as a strong, independent, intelligent, equal (if not superior) woman. Actually, those are not just my views, that is who I am. In most of my life, I am all about women having equal opportunities and mental abilities and not sacrificing their lives for men. So where does the desire to submit come from? Why does submission increase my pleasure? Perhaps it is strength seeking strength in another. Perhaps it is a safe way (since my bdsm interest is strictly limited to the bedroom) to relax and take a break from being the person I demand of myself. Perhaps Ozme is right, and a bit of the cavewoman who sought safety by submitting to the caveman still exists in my dna and seeks release in this limited way. I don't know, but I sure am interested to learn what others think - especially the resident shrinks. But don't worry, Mumie, just because the caveman scenario turns you off (it totally turns me off), that bdsm isn't for you. There seems to be as many bsdm variations as there are bsdm relationship. Take as much or as little as works for you.

fantassy

[Mumei]

Mumei, darling, stop trying to fit yourself into a box thats easily defined.

Psynymph, sweetie, that's not what I'm trying to do at all. (Why did you think I was?)

thats almost impossible to do these days. whatever works for you, works for you. you are the only person who you truly have to answer too.

I agree with this. (Why did you think I wouldn't?)

i believe Ozme is trying to say that acts of Dominance and submission come from our baser instincts. at least well thats what i got from His post.

Who says they're "baser"?

mumei

[Mumei]

fantassy, I appreciated your post. Sorry I don't have anything more substantive to say about it.

mumei

What an awesome first post, Mumei! Should lead to some interesting thoughts. My bdsm interest totally doesn't fit with the rest of my views of myself as a strong, independent, intelligent, equal (if not superior) woman. Actually, those are not just my views, that is who I am. In most of my life, I am all about women having equal opportunities and mental abilities and not sacrificing their lives for men. So where does the desire to submit come from? Why does submission increase my pleasure? Perhaps it is strength seeking strength in another. Perhaps it is a safe way (since my bdsm interest is strictly limited to the bedroom) to relax and take a break from being the person I demand of myself. Perhaps Ozme is right, and a bit of the cavewoman who sought safety by submitting to the caveman still exists in my dna and seeks release in this limited way. I don't know, but I sure am interested to learn what others think - especially the resident shrinks. But don't worry, Mumie, just because the caveman scenario turns you off (it totally turns me off), that bdsm isn't for you. There seems to be as many bsdm variations as there are bsdm relationship. Take as much or as little as works for you.

fantassy

[karin]

um...people took their time to think this thru for you....and got picked apart......*leaves this alone*

[Psynymph]

karin i don't think mumei is picking us apart directly, just our opinions.....

*laughs* no big deal, mumei is trying to start a debate.....

[karin]

i see that psy...soooooooo not going there..*chuckles* perhaps a specific question would be more in order since her rather ambiguous monologue is leaving us all answering 'wrong'

[TomOfSweden]

TomofSweden, you can probably replace my talk of "story" above with some appropriate locution concerning "interpretation," and you'll see that Nietzsche's thought has indeed already done some work in helping me articulate the position I find myself in. The other authors you mentioned, I have not read. But I hope you see now that my concern isn't for "normalcy" but rather I simply am (as I said in my OP) perplexed by the situation in which I find myself, and interested in working through that perplexity somehow. I have no preconceptions as to what the end of such a working-through should look like.

Well, I think understanding human nature is the key to being less perplexed. I think that having a submissive nature is what most people are. That's just how the world works.

Next topic:

I do not understand Ozme's post and the ones following upon it. What is it you guys are saying is "true" about the situation he depicts? The situation does not appear to me to be appealing at all. (I say this both as my "public" "self" and as the "self" who fantasizes.) Does this mean that I've not really got BDSM in mind after all?

Mumei

Being vague is only a trick to cover up superficiality. Always. This thing that men protect the family, work and the woman is submissive at home is 100% myth created in the 40'ies. It's got nothing to do with basic human behaviour and has no basis in history. It's easy to find out if you spend some time studying. Sorry about being such an abrasive idiot here. But I couldn't find any way of formulating this kindly. Reinforcing false mythic images which have never been true really gets to me.

This is all covered by Focault. It's his main thing. Linky. But all modern philosophers share this view on this. This is just the continuation of the old Christian moral system we inherited, and which had pretty much died out by WWI had been replaced by new moral systems. Fear of god wasn't working. But it isn't a flaw in Christianity, we probably had the same moral codes in the religions before Christianity, that it simply took over.

The main features are.
Original sin - basicaly, we're all flawed and are no good no matter how hard we try. This is still pervasive in our culture. No matter if we're atheist or not.

Satan - We need an evil threatening other that defines us. ie what we're not. This was replaced by comunism, disease, radioctivity, drugs and so on depending on where you live. Different countries have their own Satans.

Garden of Eden/the noble savage - Humanity used to be better and now we're corrupted. We have to fight this corruption and return to naturalness.

Just take a thing like comunism. The maths doesn't stack up. Nobody ever who worked on it could have thought it was a good idea. It didn't matter. It wasn't a economic system. It's just Christianity in a new skin. All utopian ideologies are all about returning to the Garden of Eden where there exists no hate or greed.

The nuclear family was a similar construction to replace religion. It's original sin, all over again. It's a model of a family which very few people can live up to, which is the key to understand it. Women who didn't find a good man to take care of her was to feel guilty about it. Men who didn't find a good housewife and couldn't afford a nice car was similarly suposed to feel guilty about it. It's god nothing to do with any external force creating this, but a need in our culture. We have been used to this so long that if we don't have this, we create it superficially.

In the old European world the family was mostly a economic institution where both parties worked and the husband had fun sex with prostitutes. He had children with his wife. Most people lived in very cramped housing, and nobody ever had any private life. Cooperation with neighbours and family was vital for survival. Above all, mortality was very high so one parent families where very common. See, nuclear family is all just myth. We couldn't even begin to relate to that world today.

[Mumei]

Sorry, I'm not trying to debate anything.

If it seems like I'm correcting people on some things, its not because its important to me to be "right" about something, but rather, I'm trying to clarify just what it is my OP is asking. It seems its been misunderstood, and what better way is there to clarify it than by addressing those misunderstandings?

The crux of the misunderstanding seems to be that people are reading some stereotypes into it. Examples include: People have told me not to worry about whether I'm normal, not to try to fit myself into an easily defined box, and that I shouldn't think I have to answer to anyone but myself. The thing is, I don't care whether I'm normal (and don't see where I've implied that I do), I don't believe I do or should fit inside an easily defined box (and don't see where I've implied otherwise,) and don't believe I ultimately must answer to anyone (actually, in point of fact, not even to myself) (and I don't see where I've implied otherwise).

I think the things people are saying are fine and interesting, but inasmuch as while saying them, people are sometimes directing advice towards me, and inasmuch as I assume that when directing advice towards me, they would prefer the advice to be based on accurate suppositions about me, I think its in everyone's interest to clear up the kinds of misunderstandings I've been highlighting.

But as I said in my original post, my point is actually not to seek advice, but rather, just to hear what people think about the topic. Advice is fine and welcome, as well. But when offered, I'll say something about how well it applies to my situation. An offerer of advice would value such information.

Thanks again for the replies!

mumei

[Mumei]

Thanks for your comments, TomOfSweden. I also don't think the idea of "man as boss, woman as servant" is particularly "natural" or necessitated by any real "need." Your observations seemed to me to be on the mark.

(I mean, how could we make sense of the widespread (one might even say "normal") existence of fantasies by men of being dominated by females? Why isn't this this just as natural or instinctive?)

Regarding something else you said, though, I'm not sure I'd say most people have a purely submissive nature. In my experience, everybody's got both, and everybody's got different attitudes towards their posession of each. Different outlets for the expression of each. We try to be masters in some contexts, slaves in others, and we do a weird sort of jumble of both in a lot of contexts. Well, anyway, I've discovered this is true of myself, and it makes sense of a lot of things I see.

Thanks again

(Lest others accuse me of "debating" in this post, to be clear, my intention here is simply to articulate my view. If it issues in a disagreement, discussion can ensue, or it can be forestalled. I'm happy either way. Articulation is what I'm after. It helps (me) work through perplexity.

mumei

[Mumei]

i see that psy...soooooooo not going there..*chuckles* perhaps a specific question would be more in order since her rather ambiguous monologue is leaving us all answering 'wrong'

I hope my previous-but-one post has clarified how it is that I don't mean to say people are simply "answering wrong."

As to a specific question, maybe this from my OP can suffice:

I'm starting this thread to open up discussion of theories of the psychology and psychological origin of this kind of thing. Is it just that "there are different kind of people in the world?" Or are there particular kinds of events or childhoods or whatever that are particularly likely to produce a, shall we say, "BDSM friendly" sort of person? Are there particular personality types drawn to BDSM activities?

I don't mean to limit the thread to the questions quoted here, but they can serve as a nice specific starting place if the need arises.

mumei

[Qmoq]

I hate to generalise, but there does seem to be a higher proportion of female submissives than guy submissives.

And... this is where it gets very scary... the female submissives tend to have a high proportion (though the proportion may be well less than 50%) of gals who had a traumatic incident in their past. At that point it becomes kinda scary and I go off and have a nap.

Qmoq xx

[Mumei]

I will say something scary in turn:

Say someone is traumatized through physical or sexual abuse.

Say this person relives that abuse in his/her relationships as an adult.

Say, though, that the "relived" experience is (or strives to be) in a context of trust and love, as opposed to the original experience which was in a context of pure fear and alienation?

Say, even, that there is an unmistakable psychological connection between the original experience and the relived experiences.

Then my question is: Is it necessarily bad to pursue such relived experiences? Mightn't such relationships be just as "healthy" as any other? (I.e., as "healthy" as non-bdsm-y relationships, and as "healthy" as bdsm-y relationships not rooted in past abuse?)

I mean, when you put it this way, it doesn't sound so bad: "I've found a way to experience what once was a source of suffering and trauma for me, in a new way, a way genuinely formed out of love, respect and trust."

Can there be other, non-controversial examples of something like this being regarded as healthy and good? Are there any cases where we tend to "naturally, normally" think of reliving something in a new and better context as something worth pursuing?

mumei

[moptop]

It is not bad to pursue any relationship where you and your partner or partners are carrying out your activities in an atmosphere "genuinely formed out of love, respect and trust"

I did actually write you a huge great long philosphical musing about the question you first posted - what makes us psychologically be D/s or into BDSM. You have since posted this, which is a whole new kettle of fish - so I didn't post it.

Certainly: if someone has gone through a traumatic or unhealthy experience, and they sublimate it and then become turned on by it, but consciously, carefully, with consent from others if others are involved, then it is healthy. Why not? You could also look at it as being the best way to learn from a bad experience: to re-live it, and turn it into something good. From that, one would become, I think, a better and stronger person. Perhaps one would also learn to forgive the people involved in the previous events.

What I suppose could be considered unhealthy is if re-playing the previous events was the only way that person could get pleasure: I would not consider that healthy, because it sounds to me to be incomplete. However, again, if they are happy (i.e. feel completed) with that, and if they find a partner/partners who are equally fulfilled by it, then just because it doesn't sound healthy to me doesn't mean it's not. I would hope, for that person's sake, however, that they would with time come out of the trauma-fetish cycle (if fetish is the right term), so that they can learn to enjoy more.

I can't think of any other examples off hand.

[Mumei]

I did actually write you a huge great long philosphical musing about the question you first posted - what makes us psychologically be D/s or into BDSM. You have since posted this, which is a whole new kettle of fish - so I didn't post it.

Do you still have a copy of that other post? (As I'd be interested in seeing it as well.)

mumei

[StillBehindBlueEyes]

Karin this is what I so love about this stuff. All us Subbies are so damn strong and opinionated. I'm serious I just love that it's ok for me to be who I am but still be in need of a master and some pain. (Sorry if this isn't directily related to the thread Mumei)

[arwcuw]

*comes back from unexpected sabbatical*

Mumei, you seem to be in a similar situation to the one I've been in for the past year. I've had bondage fantasies since early childhood, since before I knew what sex was, and was in total denial about it even after I started masturbating in adolescence. It was only in the past two years (since my 17th birthday) that I've been able to admit to myself and a few friends that I have a fetish. One of my biggest projects after this voyage of self-acceptance has been a quest to discover WHY?!

I knew that a lot of people seem to develop fetishes due to sexual repression in childhood, but my parents weren't uptight at all, so it couldn't have been that. I also knew that a lot of people seem to develop an interest in BDSM after sexual abuse, but that's also impossible- I've never been abused. My search for a concrete reason has even branched into past lives, for lack of anywhere else to look.

But more and more, I'm realizing that there's no single concrete explanation for why I'm aroused by (and only by) bondage. I'm still interested in finding an explanation, but I'm not so worried about it anymore. I'm more open to the idea that there are multiple factors at work.

If you're just burning with curiosity about where your desires originated, you could consider seeing a therapist or councilor of some kind. There are some who specialize in sexual deviance. That would cost money, though.

One more comment: the BDSM community isn't in the business of excluding people. Nobody should tell you that you're not "into BDSM" simply because of something you haven't done or something you wouldn't enjoy or a fantasy you haven't had. Anyone with any interest in any aspect of BDSM can claim to be "into BDSM" without being hounded out of the forum.

*slinks back into the shadows*

[TomOfSweden]

I hate to generalise, but there does seem to be a higher proportion of female submissives than guy submissives.

And... this is where it gets very scary... the female submissives tend to have a high proportion (though the proportion may be well less than 50%) of gals who had a traumatic incident in their past. At that point it becomes kinda scary and I go off and have a nap.

Qmoq xx

Well everybody has had something traumatic in their past. It doesn't explain anything. It's not even the severity of the trauma that's important. I've got a close friend who had the most horiffic and degrading childhood imaginable. He's not into BDSM at all. Sure, he's got issues but nothing serious. I think dwelling on childhood trauma, is mostly just about trying to justify "abnormal" behaviour. If we discard "normalcy" as a concept then it all becomes a whole lot simpler. We just are.

There are other much simpler explanations why some people end up enjoying submissivness, which I find a lot more compelling which are logical.

[moral-man]

soft touches, tickling or the infliction of pain are all sensual expereiences alike and the brain can circumstancually interpret each of them as pleasure. Similarly ceratin people will experience a high from beeing in a dominant or a submissive position. Its natural, and you don't need Nietzsche to explain such sexual fancies.

However, when it comes to the point that your whole life evolves around your sexual fanatsies (i.e. the stage when partners start to introduce one another other as master and pet and sleep in each others cages) then I'd say that you have reached a stage of perversion and thats just not healthy. Nietsche might not agree, but then maybe there is a reason why he had a mental break down.

[fantassy]

you do realize this is a bdsm forum, right?

[moral-man]

you do realize this is a bdsm forum, right?

well, I would have felt kinda weird posting such remarks in a cooking forum.

Why are asking anyway?

[moptop]

Mumei, I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the post I didn't post - I was writing it direct, and then saw you'd put in your new post as I previewed, and just zapped it. Not at this moment, but at some point I may try to put my thoughts down again - but it's not easy! I would fundamentally agree with Tom again - 'We just are'. But I can certainly argue with myself about it!