= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ciphergoth 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.