Wednesday, November 26, 2008

S&M as a genetic trait?

Greetings all,

I have stated many times that I believe that qualities of dominance or submissiveness are natural traits, which is to say they are based in our genetics. This is the only explanation which would seem to explain why so many females seem to be submissive in nature, while so many men seem to be dominant. Of course, social conditioning also plays an important role. These natural tendencies can be both surprised or encouraged depending on environment. But nature is nature.

Segue: Of course there are dominant females and submissive males. In a large enough population such things are bound to occur. But, imo, they are the exception, not the rule.

But what about sadism and masochism? Are they also genetic, or are they learned? Recently on a post on FetLife I suggested that unlike D/s these were not so much genetic traits as learned conditions. In response, a rather intelligent girl called me to task on the matter and suggested I reconsider.

So I have been reconsidering.

I think that the classical view is that most masochists developed this trait perhaps because of a traumatic sexual experience at a young age. Perhaps they were abused as children. Perhaps they were somehow forced to perform oral sex as a young teenager. Whatever. Of course on the surface this makes no real sense, since one would expect that the reaction to such an experience would be just the opposite, i.e. anyone who was abused as child would probably reject the notion of being masochistic. However, the reality is that I have met many incredibly deep and profound pain sluts who were never abused at all in their youth. Who were never forced. They just found that they loved pain, perhaps because of the endorphins released, or perhaps because of the notion of offering themselves.

Then of course, we have to wonder about sadists. Can we say that someone became a sadist because they were abused as a child? No that doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Can we say that they became a sadist because they were not abused as a child? That makes even less sense. How does the binding between inflicting pain on another and arousal occur? Again, having spoken to many sadists many of them admit to having developed feelings very early on. I was about 13 the first time I remember fantasizing about spanking a woman. And by the time I was 15 and reading “My life and my loves” by Frank Harris for the first time (and certainly not the last!) I was already well into acknowledging that I was having these sort of feelings. Of course, it would be about 10 years before I had an opportunity to do anything about them other than jerk off! FWIW – I was not abused as a child. My parents loved me in a perfectly wonderful and normal way.

Is it possible that there is an S&M gene somewhere in our DNA? That would be a pretty wild notion. I mean, I can understand nature selecting for someone being more or less dominant, or more or less submissive, but sadistic and masochistic? If that was the case, wouldn’t there be more sadists and masochists in the population at large?

Perhaps there are.

Many women (and not a few men) seem to enjoy a wee bit of spanking on the bum during sex. Of course they don’t consider themselves masochists, they just like their sex a bit rough. Too, many men (and more than a few women) seem to enjoy spanking their partner. Is there really any difference between this and flogging, except for degree? “Love bites” are a fairly normal part of the sexual experience - is there any real difference between this and the use of clamps or pins except in the amount of pain inflicted? Some like their sex gentle as a summer rain, other prefer it with the power of a downpour, while still others want to be caught up in a hurricane of lust. Some act, different degrees.

Hmmm…

This would tend to suggest that perhaps all of us have some amount of S or M inherent in our makeup. And if that is the case it might also explain the behaviour (or rather mal-adaptive behaviour) of so many people. For if many people in the population at large have S or M natures, and never get to express them, then certainly they will find another socially acceptable way to do it. The classical example (which I have never been fully happy with) is the sadist who becomes a surgeon. I would suggest that perhaps there are examples of sadists and masochists all around us, we just haven’t been seeing them as such.

Too, perhaps this would explain why time and time again, I have seen strong and powerful women suddenly become not only submissive, but also masochistic almost overnight as I provoke their response. Once they come to realize that it is perfectly acceptable and safe to reveal their inner nature, it is quite amazing to observe the transformation. I am sure their friends would be shocked to know that she who was just yesterday an ardent feminist, a dominant force in her place of business, and a virtual dynamo of controlling energy, now wants nothing more than to belly to a man’s feet, a whip held in their teeth, and whimper their dark cravings for pain and release.

So maybe I have been wrong all these years? Maybe, like D/s, S&M is also somehow embedded in our genes, just waiting an opportunity to come out? Maybe, like D/s, each of us have this quality but to a different extent? Maybe S&M is nothing more than nature’s way to allow us to vent stress and pressure. Lots of maybes.

But it would be interesting to do some detailed research, eh?

What do you think?

Be seeing you,

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Greetings Mr. Cross,
I think you are correct. Of course we agree on much, so that's not a great surprise, but i've thought this for some time.
Further I think that the greater the amount of responsibility a woman has in her life, the more she will crave the release of a strong controlling force. And once she tastes the beautiful relaxation that comes form submiting and accepting the pain, she'll want to do it again.
If accepting pain was a bad thing, why would we have endorphins?

Perhaps I should hunt down this discussion on Fetlife and join in.

thank you for the thoughts.

The Eroticist said...

I have several thoughts in regards to this post.

I wish to argue about the limited number of male submissives. "...they are the exception, not the rule." In my experience and from most educators I have interviewed, they make up the largest group within the kink population. Though on the issue of being genetic it is often the case within both sexes that a desire for submission can be a reaction to and a release from a demanding Dominant occupation or vanilla lifestyle.

That might also excuse your (pardon me, but rather self serving) comment, "time and time again, I have seen strong and powerful women suddenly become not only submissive, but also masochistic almost overnight as I provoke their response."

As for your comment "the classical view is that most masochists developed this trait perhaps because of a traumatic sexual experience at a young age" I refer you to a collection of studies (http://www.revisef65.org/psychopathology.html) on the lack of psychopathology among SM practitioners.

It is my opinion that SM interests, perhaps even more than D/s is hard wired. As to why there MAY be a prevalence of traumatic history, I offer this thought experiment. If you accept that a young girl (not all, just this one) IS masochistic and feels inside that for sexual satisfaction she needs rough painful stimulation, then she MAY, without accepting education enter into relationships with equally uneducated male violence prone male.

Another point is that we, in the kink community, and most particularly in the BDSM subgroup, deal with on an intimate and more public level our internal struggles within relationships, possibly putting ourselves in a situation where we more often HEAR about the trauma that may be far more prevalent in our society than most are willing to admit.

Is this the case? I truly do not know, but the argument seems to answer many questions in my mind.

I enjoyed and strongly agree with your comments on how many enjoy a bit of roughness (biting, spanking) in their lovemaking while being horrified (my word) at the thought of being a Sadist or Masochist.

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with several of your points. First, "nature is nature." Nature is never just nature. Humans live highly artificial and socially constructed lives; in fact, that is our nature.

Second, I think you are wrong to suggest that most women are submissive and most men are dominant. I don't have numbers to back this up, but I think the range is much wider than you suggest AND I think that social conditioning plays a huge role in the kinky identities people adopt.

Most strongly I object to your implicit claim that a woman cannot be both an "ardent feminist" and a masochist or submissive. Of course you are making the same mistake so many D/s players make and assuming that if a woman is a masochist she must have a submissive side as well (trust me when I say I have never whimpered my desires to be dominated!). Feminism is not about women becoming men or becoming dominant in the work force; it is about offering both men and women the freedom to choose whatever they wish, regardless of gender.

As far as I can see, SM is simply a sexual orientation, like being straight or gay. It's not a result of trauma or naturally connected to one gender over another.

Oh, and Felicia, I have to correct you as well. We don't have endorphins because pain is good; we have endorphins so if a wild animal rips up your arm you won't be so overwhelmed with pain that you can't run away. In other words, it's a very useful adaptation that allows people to function with wounds that otherwise would incapacitate them, leaving them vulnerable.

Mackenzie Cross said...

Greetings The Eroticist,

Thank you for your note.

With respect to the percentages of malesub:femsubs in the population, you may be correct. However, my experience suggests that I am right. I suppose we will have to wait for more research on the subject.

I also agree that many malesubs (and possibly some femsubs as well), seek "submission" as a way to escape from the stress of their normal life, including having to be in charge. But to my way of thinking, this is not a reflection of someone who has a submissive nature, but rather someone who is having problems coping with their life.

For myself, a Submissive is one whose nature finds satisfaction through service, not someone who needs a place to let go of their day to day domestic troubles.

So, while both groups (those seeking escape, and those seeking to satisfy their nature), might be labeled as "submissive" I really see them as two different groups.

I also agree that it is highly possible that what we hear about is the trauma that some feel, rather all of those who feel a deep sense of ongoing peace, balance, and fulfillment.

BTW - I like your blog. Very nice.

MC

Mackenzie Cross said...

Greetings Anonymous,

Thank you for your comments.

You are probably correct in saying that we humans live in ways that are far from natural, and that we frequently do things that are in direct opposition to the natural way of doing things.

However, that does not mean that we all have inner natures that motivate and direct us towards certain tendencies and behaviors. At issue is how we respond to these pressures.

As I mentioned in my previous reply to The Eroticist, I only have my own experiences to substantiate my feelings concerning the ratio of femsubs to malesubs. Much depends on how the word "submissive" is defined. Does social conditioning play a role? Of course it does, however I would suggest that too often, the role it plays is to suppress our natural tendencies in favor of behavior that is deemed the politically correct behavior de jour. IOW - that our society (and in particular our modern Western Civilization society) tends to push us away from men allowing their natural dominance to come out, and for women, their natural submission.

Not for everyone, but for the majority.

You state that you feel I have made an implicit conclusion that a feminist cannot be submissive and/or masochistic. I have never said such a thing, nor do I believe it. What I have said is that I believe that the early feminist movement created an environment where men became fearful of allowing their natural dominance to show, and women found themselves trapped between the hard rock of peer pressure, and the hard place of living with their own internal nature. These conflicts resulted in many people being sexually and emotionally dissatisfied with their relationships.

As far as "modern feminisim", well I really don't know a great deal about it. If the message is "Girl, you can be anything you want this time around", well and good. However, if the message is "This is the model to which you must conform or you are not one of us", then I do indeed have an objection.

I would agree that S&M is a sexual orientation, but it must come from somewhere, since clearly it is a trait not shared with the entire population.

MC

Cross Purposes via RSS. Subscribe now!

Lijit Search