= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
clarissethorn comments on Is masochism necessary? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (143)
Hi. I'm Clarisse Thorn, a BDSM educator and activist. I blog at [ http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/ ]. Props to Michael Bishop for directing me to your post.
Wow, where to begin. I'll try not to get too upset, but for me, this was a really bad start to your post:
::::::::::: Many people think of masochism as a sexual perversion :::::::::::
Why did you start right out by referring to BDSM as a "sexual perversion"? Couldn't you have chosen some less judgmental words? Seriously, it would have been so easy. You could have just said "sexual preference". Instead, you chose to use language loaded with stigma.
::::::::::: When we find ourselves acting masochistically, should we try to "correct" it? :::::::::::
Amazingly, people are different and do things for different reasons. I assume you agree. Perhaps this means that if people find themselves acting masochistically, they should take different actions depending on their individual personalities.
I don't have much to say about non-sexual masochism, but I have a lot to say about sexual masochism ....
Many people see BDSM as an inbuilt sexual identity or "orientation". In that case, "correcting masochism" would be like trying to "pray away the gay" -- it ain't gonna happen, and you're just going to damage people if you assert that it should. I absolutely, definitely consider myself to have BDSM "built in", and I resent any implication that it would ever be reasonable to tell me that I "shouldn't" do BDSM.
I do think that some people use masochism for self-harm that may be bad for them. And yes, sometimes even BDSM-masochism can be a self-harming mechanism ... but before someone goes there -- no, that is not an argument against BDSM in itself. If you think that BDSM-type masochism should be argued against because it can be a form of self-harm, then I request that you read this excellent post: [ http://sm-feminist.blogspot.com/2008/11/finer-point-on-it.html ]
::::::::::: If so, what's the evolutionary-psych explanation? :::::::::::
Well, I am of the camp that thinks evolutionary psychology almost always ends up being an excuse to create legit-sounding theories that back up what we think we already know. In other words, I think it's usually used as an instrument to reinforce current social norms.
But since I know you will discuss it anyway, I request that you examine your assumptions very thoroughly as you do so. You might consider being particularly critical of evol-psych theories that imply that:
1) masochism is always maladaptive,
2) sexual masochism is a particularly "bad" form of masochism,
3) women are more likely to be masochistic than men.
::::::::::: Is masochism more prevalent now than in the bad old days? :::::::::::
I doubt it. If you start seriously investigating the history of BDSM, for instance, you find examples that show how it's been around since the beginning of time. If you are interested in BDSM history, I recommend this excellent blog: [ http://beautyindarkness.blog.ca/ ]
::::::::::: I was surprised not to find any evo-psych explanations for masochism on the web; or even any general theory of masochism that tried to unite two different behaviors :::::::::::
Really? Where are you reading? Check out my blogroll for any number of excellent BDSM blogs that will provide any number of excellent BDSM theories from any number of angles.
I very often read things in this community that suggests that sexuality is very much not one of the matters on which they have succeeded in being rational.
For the record, I'm a practicing sadomasochist; I enjoy both sadism and masochism, and have a large range of paraphenalia to that end. I'm having an absolutely fantastic time with it, and though I know tastes differ, from where I'm sitting if you're not a sadomasochist then you're missing out on the great fun we're having.
How can you tell, or what makes you say so? (It's an honest, non-rhetorical question.)
Not sure I can fit that into a comment - I might try and make a top-level post about it. Sorry! In the mean time I'll do what I've done before when asked to say more on a sexuality issue, which is to recommend the blog of Greta Christina.
Please, do.
If it's possible for non-sadomasochists to fail to appreciate the fun sadomasochists have, surely it's also possible for sadomasochists to fail to appreciate the fun some other people have; unless you've somehow ruled out the possibility that you might be doing that, I don't see how you can be justified in assuming that others are missing out.
For instance, consider the following hypothesis (which, for the record, I think is extremely unlikely to be right): that what distinguishes sadomasochists isn't the ability to have a kind of fun that non-sadomasochists don't get, but the inability to get so much fun from "ordinary" sex without sadomasochistic accoutrements. If anything like that were true, then there'd be plenty of non-sadomasochists having just as much fun as the sadomasochists; do you know that no such thing is true?
I seem to recall Robin asking whether learning about wine increased your ability to take pleasure in good wine, or just spoiled your enjoyment of cheap wine.
That remark wasn't meant very seriously, sorry. When I say "from where I'm sitting" I mean to communicate the sense anyone who really likes X has, that if you don't really like X like they do then you're just missing out. It isn't true at all of course.
The hypothesis doesn't fit the data I have, in case you're curious.
OK; sorry for misreading your tone. (And thanks for the extra data point about that hypothesis.)
You say it's extremely unlikely to be right. How do you know?
The "very unlikely" theory is the model by which an awful lot of people interpret the existence of sexual variation. See for example this dictionary definition of the word fetish against which I'm not a fetishist, which would seem like a rather counterintuitive conclusion. Or consider the standard diagnostic manual for mental illness in the United States, the DSM, which AFAICT uses the same model to discuss my "disorder".
I could've sworn there were some fairly recent studies on brain activity in BDSM practitioners, but my Google-Fu is failing me.
No, I say I think it's extremely unlikely to be right, and I wouldn't use the word "know" to describe my epistemic situation about this. (Else I wouldn't have brought it up even as a hypothesis worth considering.)
Whether you say "think" or "know" doesn't matter; if your probability estimate is tilted one way, then you must think you have some kind of evidence already in hand which tilts it that way. What is it?
Oh, sorry -- I didn't actually answer your question because I thought its point was not "I doubt that you have evidence to justify that opinion of yours" but "Since you presumably have evidence to justify that opinion of yours, what makes you think ciphergoth doesn't?", and since (1) what it takes to make my point is only that it be some way from certainty, and (2) ciphergoth has said he didn't mean what he said as literally as I took it, it seemed like the question was moot. But, since it turns out that you actually want an answer:
1. What (relatively little) I've read that's written by sadomasochists and that seems pertinent seems to point the other way. (For instance, I'm pretty sure I've read things by sadomasochists that seem to indicate that at least some of them have plenty of fun sometimes having non-sadomasochistic sex.)
2. Notice that for that hypothesis to be right, it's necessary that (at least for sadomasochists) sadomasochistic practices do in fact add something extra that enhances sex. So either (a) just about everyone finds, or would find if they tried it, that S&M makes sex better -- which doesn't appear to me to be likely -- or (b) the hypothesis in it's "what distinguishes sadomasochists is not X but Y" form is wrong, because in fact sadomasochists distinctively have property X too even if they also have Y.
3. There are rather a lot of sadomasochists. So, if the hypothesis is correct, either (a) there are an awful lot of people who lack the ability to enjoy sex "normally" (I hope it's clear that I have no normative intentions here), or (b) almost everyone finds, or would find, that S&M makes sex better, or (c) there's a substantial correlation between lacking the ability to enjoy sex "normally" and finding that S&M makes sex better. All three options seem improbable.
4. Gut feeling. (Which I shouldn't, and don't, trust very much; but I don't mind deferring some of my probability estimation to my gut in cases where the probabilities don't actually make much difference to my life. See also: jimrandomh's post "How much thought". If I were required to quantify "extremely unlikely" and then make a large bet at the resulting odds, I would give the question more thought and more research, and my estimate might well change in the process.)
Oh, and
5. I confess that I slightly overstated how unlikely I find the hypothesis, for the same reason as I emphasized that I don't think it likely: I am quite sure that sadomasochists are generally and rightly fed up of having such hypotheses thrown at them by people who do find them likely (or, worse, just assume they're right) and I wanted to minimize the risk of causing offence (both because I prefer not to offend people, and because when you offend someone you make it harder for them to respond rationally to what you say).
Fair enough! I wasn't quite asking for an answer of that length - rather I thought you might be holding ciphergoth to a higher standard of evidence than you were yourself, which is what struck me as unfair. (Especially since you seemed to have the same opinion!) My apologies for calling forth such a long comment. Incidentally your opinion and the given evidence seems to coincide pretty much with my own epistemic state as well.
This is really well thought out, thanks. Comments like this (including part 5) make me optimistic that we are succeeding in creating a more rational community.
Because it's making an interesting point; and because it's true. Many people do think of BDSM as a sexual perversion. I didn't invent this reality; I just live here. And the interesting point is that they might find it acceptable to do something similar in other areas of their life, perhaps just because sex isn't involved.
I didn't call it a sexual perversion. I said that "many people think of it as a sexual perversion." My post says that engaging in SM may be a lot like eating spicy food or watching horror movies. That's probably more sympathetic to your view than anything you'll find in mainstream media, or even in psychology journals.
If that means that you resent discussion of the idea, this website isn't right for you. We discuss things that make us uncomfortable, because we want to know the answer. (And the more uncomfortable the answer, the more interesting we find it. Perhaps it's our own special style of masochism. :)
It's almost impossible by definition for an evol-psych theory to imply that masochism is always maladaptive.
Could you post some links to specific pages discussing theories?
:::::::::: Many people do think of BDSM as a sexual perversion. I didn't invent this reality; I just live here. ::::::::::
This answer strikes me as a bit facile. Sure, lots of people think of BDSM as a sexual perversion. Lots of people also consider it a sexual preference. You chose to use words that stigmatize BDSM, and you chose not to present words that don't stigmatize BDSM. You could have made the same point without using stigmatizing words. Stating that you have no opinion after the fact is an attempt to dodge responsibility for that.
The way we frame these things matters. I wouldn't have such a problem with what you said if you had at least noted the judgment inherent in the terms you used -- but you didn't. For instance, if you really have no negative judgments around BDSM, then you might have said something like: "Many people think of masochism as a sexual perversion, while others see it as a harmless sexual preference."
:::::::::: That's probably more sympathetic to your view than anything you'll find in mainstream media, or even in psychology journals. ::::::::::
Like those of people, the opinions presented in mainstream media and psychology journals vary. As it happens, I will be speaking at a psychology conference in May that's specifically intended to train psychology professionals in being more sensitive to BDSM-identified patients. (The conference will take place at Chicago's Center on Halsted.)
And again, by claiming that you've been more sympathetic to my opinions than "other" forms of media, you're trying to dodge responsibility for the fact that you presented a plainly judgmental viewpoint.
:::::::::: If that means that you resent discussion of the idea, this website isn't right for you. We discuss things that make us uncomfortable, because we want to know the answer. ::::::::::
Discuss the idea all you want. Just know, while you're "examining", that there are real people who have real masochistic needs whom you may really be stigmatizing with what you say. And the idea that you must "examine" this need in itself can be stigmatizing.
Perhaps I can illustrate this with an example: Would you even consider "examining" why gay people are gay? Why straight people are straight? I don't know this site very well. Maybe you would discuss those questions. But if you wouldn't, then perhaps it might be worth asking yourself why you think it's worth examining masochism and wondering what "causes" it, when you don't ask similar questions about straightness or LGBTQ or what have you.
For more on this, I recommend this post: [ http://sm-feminist.blogspot.com/2009/03/examination-burnout.html ]
:::::::::: Could you post some links to specific pages discussing theories? ::::::::::
I can try; I don't have a lot of time to hunt down specific posts, but I've read a lot on this topic and I might be able to come up with something. It would be helpful if you could ask a more specific question, though.
It's probably obvious that my personal favorite BDSM theory blog is SM-Feminist: [ http://sm-feminist.blogspot.com/ ]
But I don't think she has much truck with evol-psych, either, though I could be wrong.
That's an issue to take up with Socrates. We examine stuff.
You don't know this site very well. We would discuss those questions if they seemed relevant. An important category of discourse here is "examining what makes X people do Y" when Y runs counter to their other goals, as some of the masochism examples seem to do.
Did you even click the "Followup to" link to see what the original context was for this discussion? People intentionally losing, people intentionally seeking "negative" emotional stimuli. Can you see how this might reasonably connect to masochism in particular, and not sexuality in general?
I do know this site very well, and I have to say the way the article refers to masochism got up my nose too. I think if we were going to discuss stuff like why straight people are straight, we'd take care that our audience didn't misunderstand our intent.
Seconded.
How would you rephrase it?
Good question. Here's a few thoughts - let me know if these are useful or whether you think I'm barking up the wrong tree.
As you say, the first thing people think of when you say "masochism" is sexual masochism; it's the root of the word and its primary meaning. I'd prefer to keep it that way than to extend it to cover self-defeating behaviour, which falls about as well on my ears as extending "gay" to mean "lame".
"Perversion" is judgemental in every other context and has been used to be judgemental about sexuality for years. A neutral word like "behaviour" or "activity" would serve just as well here.
This is harder to pin down, but I just don't get a feeling from the way you talk about us that you think of us as having a really good time. I promise you, in our own curious way we really are having a lot of fun.
Okay, sorry, I didn't see this before.
Hmm. I see your point. What Bruce has is called "masochistic personality disorder", but it could also be called "self-defeating personality disorder."
I wanted to convey that many people have a judgmental attitude towards masochism, and yet don't have a judgemental attitude towards the other things on the list. If they truly are related, then that's a very interesting mental disconnect.
Thanks for making the changes you have to the article - they are big improvements from my point of view. It might be good to note in the article that it's been edited following this discussion, otherwise someone reading the comments might wonder what all the fuss is about!
Yeah, seriously ... I only just came back to this, and I'm rather surprised that a community like LessWrong will countenance editing posts without noting the edits.
It's not that surprising - sex is always treated as an exception
So are people who eat food so spicy that many countries would classify it as a chemical weapon (please note that this is not an exaggeration for humorous effect).
The pleasure-pain connection is an interesting subject in multiple domains, even if Phil's phrasing was unfortunate.
I'd hope we can spare some benefit of the doubt as whether or not someone's intent is bigoted and judgmental, rather than just slightly influenced in its phrasing by cultural norms (however unfair or misguided those happen to be), but I can see how it could be annoying.
I've got to say, I was reading the original post and rolling my eyes, but it looked more like "Someone so naively square as to compare sexual masochism to eating spicy food" than "Someone actively bigoted".
Note that one doesn't need to be actively bigoted in order to do harm. The vast majority of those who are slowing down the spread of rational thought aren't religious fundamentalists out to stop rationality; no, they're the completely innocent ones who unthinkingly pass on cached thoughts.
It's no different when it comes to attitudes concerning, say, BDSM. I don't for a moment think that Goetz was actively bigoted when he wrote that. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't have worded it differently. More generally... it's often dangerous to think "but (he isn't / I am not) bigoted", as if only active bigots could say harmful things. Once the harmfulness of what they're saying is pointed out to them, they automatically go on the defensive - after all, only bigots say bad things, and they're not a bigot, so the other person must simply be oversensitive.
This probably deserves a top-level post.
Yes. Exactly. This comment says everything I would have said, and probably more eloquently.
What exactly do you mean by 'saying harmful things'? How are they harmful? If I firmly believe that someone should be allowed to pursue any activity they wish to as long as it doesn't cause injury to any non-consenting individuals, how is it harmful if I continue to consider that behaviour unusual, or even continue to view it negatively?
I believe there's are implicit assumptions underlying the claim that speech is 'harmful' that you need to make more explicit if you are going to expand this into a top level post. You may find that not everyone shares your assumptions.
Well, the "Indeed, it's often dangerous..." wasn't referring to Goetz anymore, but was on a more general level (edited to make that clearer).
But anyway, by 'saying harmful things' I refer to saying things which propagate potentially close-minded attitudes which can do real harm to people. I'm by no means saying such speech should be banned - I am quite a strong advocate of freedom of speech, myself - but that doesn't mean it should be socially accepted, either.
For instance, if I read the comments below correctly, the original version of this post apparently said "socially acceptable behaviors" instead of "socially accepted behaviors". Saying that something "isn't socially acceptable" sounds pretty condemning. clarissethorn's criticism also has some merit. I don't really think that Goetz's post was very bad, but it did bring to mind the general phenomenon.
But yes, I will make the related assumptions more explicit if I get around expanding this. It's getting rather late here now, so I'm too tired to type up a much longer explanation right now.
How would you rewrite the second sentence?
Combining the second and third sentences:
"Many associate the term masochism with sexuality, but there are plenty of masochistic, non-sexual behaviors:"
Is that really naively square? Yes it seems obvious that sexual masochism is much more psychologically complex than that, but I'd be surprised if whatever it is that makes spicy food enjoyable weren't usually a factor as well.
Well, simple way to test it. Just check out the prevalence of spicy food enjoyment among Ms versus the general population.
I agree that spicy food and some others (fiction? really?) don't seem to fit. I'm objecting to Clarisse characterizing it as "presenting a judgmental viewpoint".
It is a judgmental viewpoint. Maybe he didn't mean it that way, but that doesn't mean it's not a judgmental viewpoint.
:::::::::: You don't know this site very well. We would discuss those questions if they seemed relevant. ::::::::::
Good!
I just think it's important for people who have these conversations to consider the point that "what's relevant" or "what's worthy of examination" is often, itself, socially constructed.
:::::::::: Can you see how this might reasonably connect to masochism in particular, and not sexuality in general? ::::::::::
Yes. But my concern is not masochism in general. I am responding to the ways in which sexual masochism has been framed in this discussion.
Sexual masochism is relevant -- it was brought up in the original post. I recognize that my comments may not directly address the main questions of the original post. But what I am hoping is that my comments shed some light on some aspects of the post, and encourage the writers here to consider what biases they are bringing to those aspects.
By the way, if you want to quote stuff, you can do it with a > at the beginning of the line.
Thanks!
Point taken. In this case, I thought the relevance was pretty clearly motivated by earlier discussion.
It was "framed" by one pretty neutral statement, making the true observation that many people consider it a "sexual perversion". I object to your taking a statement like that as a cue to come "educate" the speaker on how judgmental he's being. He quite simply did not present a judgmental viewpoint. He made reference to a judgmental viewpoint. You're the one inferring some kind of endorsement from it.
Presentation is endorsement, unless it's framed with disclaimers.
Let's return to the LGBTQ example. Consider the following potential sentences:
"Many people think of homosexuality as a sexual perversion. But there are ordinary, socially-accepted behaviors that seem partly homoerotic to me:"
Would you call that a neutral statement? Would you claim so passionately that it revealed no bias on the part of the person who said it?
Many people thought Hitler was a great leader.
Yes.
I think you intended it to look like some sort of anti-gay rhetoric (didn't you?) so it's odd that it could be read as a pro-homosexual statement, i.e.:
"Many think homosexuality is a sexual perversion, but as I shall show, homoeroticism is perfectly ordinary and socially accepted in many arenas."
It's odd that nobody has defended Phil with the observation that the description of masochism as a possible sexual perversion was immediately followed by the word "but".
Update: This post no longer makes sense because the top-level post has been edited. :)
I want to get across the point that, if it's true that sexual masochism and other behaviors have some underlying pleasure mechanism in common, then it's remarkable that people demonize sexual masochism yet have no guilt about riding rollercoasters. I can't do that without saying something like "Many people think masochism is evil." There's no way to get my idea across without using negative terms.
(The thought just occurred to me as I wrote this: Maybe the puritans (the stereotypical puritans, as opposed to the real ones, whom I am less familiar with) were just being consistent! Seeing sexual pleasure as immoral should lead to seeing dancing, card-playing, and many other things as immoral.)
If I had just written
"There are ordinary, socially-accepted behaviors that seem partly masochistic to me",
that would be less neutral, as it would imply that I myself believed masochism was wrong.
I changed it. I think it's weaker and less interesting this way, but it's not in my advantage to repell people who have the expertise necessary for this conversation.
I don't think it reveals bias, so much as a lack of diplomacy.
Hmm. I would object, but empirical evidence from other threads is compatible with the "lack of diplomacy" theory.
Sometimes rationalism is a bitch.
(Wait, am I doing it again?)
Some are Against Disclaimers: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html
If you jump into discussions of BDSM with moral accusations, and threaten people with social rejection unless they discuss it the way you want them to, you discourage people from talking about it at all. That's not to your advantage.
Thanks for the links - I'll look into them. I appreciate your sharing your knowledge.
I made no moral accusations and I threatened no social rejection. I pointed out your bias. I did it with strong words; maybe I should apologize for that; I'm an orator, I don't usually run in specifically "rationalist" circles, and I'm used to a different kind of conversation.
In terms of discouraging discussion, here's what I think discourages discussion:
1) Any request for ideas that implies that people who have some experience with the matter at hand are "perverts" -- this insults and scares off people who could contribute to your discussion.
2) The implication that telling people they're being judgmental is the same as "threatening people with social rejection" or "making moral accusations" -- this tells potential commenters that if they call you out on your bias, you'll refuse to listen because you feel so hurt that someone called you biased.
I think people here are used to being more "clinically detached" than you're used to. It's a bit of a clash of styles. You see PG above as judgmental, but I read him as trying to suggest a way of talking that would gain you better results.
I didn't mean to imply that. I meant to say it clearly and unambiguously. It's the same to me.
How would you engage in discussion with someone who hates BDSM, if you don't want them to say anything negative about it?
And, yes, as long as you keep accusing me of bias, I'm not in the mood to talk about the actual content with you. I care more about defending my reputation than I do about the philosophy and psychology of masochism. Notice that we're not talking about content? That your participation is now impeding the conversation instead of facilitating it? The conversation should not be about my bias. People's opinion of my bias is important to me, so it's rational for me to spend all my time in this thread defending myself instead of addressing the issues I originally wanted to address. It isn't very important to anyone else, so I don't understand why you want to keep at it.
I suppose because you feel like I am accusing you of a moral lapse. The way for you to defend yourself against the charge of having made a gratuitous accusation of bias is to show that I'm biased; then the way for me to defend myself is to show that you made a gratuitous accusation.
Can we just call a truce?
Why?