Spywriter

Hi Everybody! I am new to this forum, and I was fascinated by this thread, which came up when I googled "Masochism". I would also say that although I am a professional, this is not my area of expertise, so I would absolutely appreciate anyone correcting ideas I advance here. Also, any references re published work in this area would be appreciated. This is the first time I have written down this idea, which is a conception of S&M that I have held for a couple of years. I believe that it is possible to find an evolutionary justification for both S and M. My argument is as follows: An aggressive male has more chance of transmitting his genes. (he copulates more) A submissive female has similarly a better chance of transmitting her genes. (she copulates more) Sadism is the maximal way-out-on-a-limb expression of aggression Masochism is the way-out-of-the-bell-shaped-curve expression of submissiveness Why is it therefore that you can have submissive males and aggressive females? One mechanism would be to posit that aggression/submission is transmitted in a gender neutral manner. (BTW, not the same as saying it isn't "sex linked") An aggressive male will then be able to transmit his aggression genes to both his male and female offspring. Any aggressive female offspring he has, will have somewhat less chance of transmitting genes, because males prefer to deal with submissive females (it's less work) A submissive male, to the extent that he is able to mate, will transmit submission to male and female offspring (However a submissive male and an aggressive female might be quite successful reproductively, and this doesn't really affect my argument) similarly, a female can transmit both submission and aggression, depending on her own stock of these characteristics. This has the following effect on the gene pool: Aggression genes will continue to flourish in and through males. Submission genes will continue to flourish in and through females. The genetic material of inappropriately endowed individuals (submissive males and aggressive females will have a tendency to NOT to be transmitted, unless, as mentioned they happen to get together. At equilibrium, at any point in time, the population will contain individuals who can be placed at any point in a two dimensional spectrum of aggressiveness versus gender. ie, the population can be said to have reached a Harvey-Weinberg equilibrium. Since it is an equilibrium, you will always have submissive males, whose submission is transmitted to them through the successful mating strategies of their mothers, and aggressive females, whose aggression is transmitted to them by the equally successful strategies of their fathers. So ends the first part of the argument. (Bear with me) We have talked about things from the point of view of the genotype. What about the phenotype? Why do humans (and other organisms) reproduce at all? The pleasure principle. Copulating is pleasurable. It seems obvious to me (and I stand to be corrected) that it has to be intensely SEXUALLY pleasurable for an aggressive male to be aggressive, and for a submissive female to be submissive. Even though it is inappropriate and reproductively disadvantageous, submissive males can experience pleasure through submission, and aggressive females obtain pleasure from aggression. Another way to look at this is to say that sexual pleasure and aggressiveness are linked because this is the mechanism of successful mating strategies, but even though there are individuals who do NOT transmit their genes for the reasons given above, their aggressiveness and their access to sexual pleasure are still linked. The inevitable consequence of this is that the phenotypic variety is infinite! Isn't this what we see? So what is the connection to S&M? The mechanism by which the genes are transmitted is always PLEASURE. A disconnect between pleasure and reproductive success can exist because it's "in the genes". For much the same reason, humans retain the appendix, which serves no useful function. Let's look at some examples: A maximally aggressive male may fantasise about and even commit rape. He does this because it is pleasurable for him. He is "hard-wired" to be this way. (His progeny will have a tendency to be similarly hard-wired.) Rape is the ultimate aggression. A maximally submissive female may fantasise and even go out of her way to submit to, rape. Being raped is the ultimate submission. submission in her case is also pleasurable, because it too is "hard-wired" (Before I am accused of saying that women like being raped, I am not saying that. I am saying that there exist women who are way out on the edge of the bell-shaped curve for submission, as their rapists are way out on the other end) This post would be way too long if I tried to discuss the various ways in which I think humans obtain sexual pleasure but the main point is that pleasure is the principle that connects aggression/submission and reproductive success. I was interested by Vader's post above. Vader is right to be incensed by people who say his lifestyle is sick. His sexual orientation/proclivities and how he obtains pleasure through submission seems to me to be absolutely in accordance with my theory. He is totally normal. He may be out on the edge of that bell, but his responses are simply a hard-wired result of his genetic endowment. His pleasure in submission has no further reproductive value, BUT it was a reproductive advantage to FEMALES in his ancestry. (I am not saying you are a sissy, by the way, Vader.) I really think that there are very few sexual activities which are "abnormal." Even the most distressing and reprehensible sexual proclivities, like rape, are determined genetically, and can only be classified as "abnormal" by social convention. (BTW, I heartily approve of condemning rape. It may be his genes, but maybe we have a right to restrict his ability to transmit those genes to posterity.) Krafft-Ebing was a German psychiatrist who published a descriptive text on sexual psychology called Psychopathia Sexualis in 1886. His classification was that any activity which increased reproductive success (like the rape of a young girl) was "normal", and only activities which do not enhance reproduction are "abnormal". By these criteria, homosexuality and anal sex could be classified as perversions, but Krafft-Ebing himself studied homosexuals in his own practice and concluded that homosexuals were genetically determined, and that homosexuality was NOT a mental illness or a perversion, -- quite a modern idea. In 1886, Darwin's brilliant insight on Natural Selection was almost 30 years old, but It would have been another brilliant insight if K-E had connected sexual responses with Natural Selection. I don't think he quite got there! I think this is a fascinating thread, and I hope I can engage in a further discussion of it either in the forum or by personal email. My email is spywriter@me.com