LittleLena wrote: ↑
7 months ago
All I was saying was that bdsm can be both non sexual and sexual
LittleLena I would strongly, strongly encourage you to re-evaluate your understanding of BDSM, as it is clear to me that you do not have a solid grasp on the concept and taking the idea of flexibility to extremes in your logic.
BDSM does have sexual roots
Having a relationship where one partner takes control of one part of a situation is not true BDSM. It isn't. It is just a relationship dynamic that works for that coupling. That's just the structure of that relationship. I'm sorry that you've been fed incorrect information.
Just because a person in a relationship is more confident, more guiding or leading, or even more demanding does not make the relationship BDSM related.
Just like just because someone is a dominant person by personality it doesn't mean they are a Dom.
Just because the other partner is more passive and goes along with the demands, requests, guidance, leadership, or advice of their partner does not mean it has anything to do with BDSM.
Just like just because someone is a submissive person by personality it doesn't mean they are a sub.
There COULD be underlying sexual payoff for taking on either of these roles in a relationship where intimacy does happen, regardless of if any partners involved are entirely aware of that. Psychologically, our sexual actions can be motivated by many things. Back in the 1950s men were seen as strong, reliable, confident, and providing. Behind closed doors in the bedroom, the women were to continue to "submit" to the sexual gratification needs of their husband. In exchange for submitting, they would receive financial support from the husband and could bear children to raise--being viewed by society as being a good housewife and mother. The man received incentive to maintain "dominance" in the bedroom then since his wife could bear his offspring in exchange for social acceptance. He also may have had "freedom" to perform acts with or on his wife that even she was not pleased to do but was willing to do anyway since the payoff was high for her. There is a deep psychology because everything we do like that is what I'm saying. These married couples were not performing acts of BDSM. They were just performing as typical, socially accepted married couples in that era. That was all. That was social standard.
So, just because they don't think it's sexual doesn't necessarily mean it is not sexually motivated.
I once had a friend years ago who was very "vanilla". We had a conversation about BDSM and, specifically, D/s relationships compared to that of traditional "vanilla" relationships. He shared his experiences with me and basically said that he felt strongly that in all relationships "one partner is given more authority or more ability to lead the relationship." He didn't mean that there is always a dom and sub in every relationship, but he meant that humans naturally have a hierarchy to social groups and pairings, and that one person will take the reigns and be the one that presents ideas or makes final, difficult choices when it comes down to someone needing to do that. Someone will always "rise up" and take the lead if no leader exists. That's proven in many psychological studies, even. We are basically pack animals and ranking, hierarchy, is important to our mental states.
My vanilla friend is right though. Psychological findings suggest that humans are pack animals very similar to that of dogs. We like having leaders. We like having authority figures. We like knowing our place. We like this so much it exists in almost every part of our lives. Relationships included. Sometimes one person is the leader while the other person trusts their partner's lead and follows.
Please take for example a workplace structure.
There is, let's say, a manager. The manager's duty is to manage the situation, to take control of the atmosphere and work ethics, and to ensure the employees stay on task and productive. He is viewed as the leader over the group of employees. He issues rules, enforces rules, and checks up to make sure that all are complying with standards. He is the one people report to, and the one that issues things like warnings and terminations.
The workers that are placed under the authority of the manager are generally viewed as inferior to his superiority in that structure. They follow his orders. They adhere to his rules. They come to him to ask for help, more time, or structural changes while he still makes the determination of that is truly necessary. They perform the tasks he assigns them.
This is not BDSM. There are no sexual undertones to it. No eroticism. No sexual motivation. It's just human social structure.
How about a police officer. They hold high authority and enforce societal laws. You must generally obey the demands of a police officer, such as pulling over your car even when you don't know why the police officer is flashing his lights and siren behind you. He comes to scold you at your window for doing something against the law. Against the "rules". He issues you a ticket as punishment, making you pay a fine. Obviously, he is acting in a much more dominant position than the driver, the citizen who must legally submit to these enforcements by him. But...is that BDSM? Absolutely not! There are no sexual undertones to it. No eroticism. No sexual motivation.
Inherently, these are not a BDSM relationship but it is a power-dynamic. There is not "Domination" going on though, and there are not "submissives". There is no sexual tension. There is no sexual motivation. Not BDSM. That's just social structure.
Your "friends" who claim to be in D/s relationships without ANY BDSM whatsoever, supposedly, are not in a "true" D/s relationship then. They just have a different (potentially not actually different) structure for their relationship if the roles are not sexually driven. They are using incorrect terminology. Perhaps there is just not better wording or it and they've taken up the BDSM labeling or perhaps they just don't know better and identify their relationship as atypically structured when it might actually be quite normal.
Also, humans like to know their "place." Because of this reason we take on labels and join groups for that sense of belonging, acceptance, and social validation. It is VERY possible that your friends are finding a comfortable area in the BDSM community and want to belong, regardless of actually being a part of that group, so are tying themselves to it through very small, meaningless actions and justifying it with broad labeling and flexibility the BDSM labeling allows. In short, perhaps they are a pretty normal couple who just does a few small things atypically but it doesn't actually mean they belong into any other grouping than that of a happy, functioning couple. Psychologically they wouldn't even recognize then because our drive to "know where we belong" and get validation of that is pretty intense.
It's also like people who practice erotic tantra saying it isn't sexual because they don't actually have physical adult relations. Uh. It is erotic. There is a sexual gratification received. That is sexual, regardless of action. It is driven by sexual motivation. A body part doesn't have to go inside of another body for it to be erotic. Arousal is arousal. Sexual motivation is still sexual. Eroticism is for sexual purpose. adult relations doesn't have to be traditional piv (body part going inside body part)
If there is no sexual motivation then it isn't BDSM.
I have a cousin who is a very dominant by personality woman. She married a man who is naturally pretty meek and quiet. He obviously caters to her (nonsexual at least) desires and pretty much waits on her hand and foot. Our family teases them about it but she says hey it just works, they are both happy with her taking leadership position in the relationship and he is happy making her happy. That itself is not BDSM. Now, I don't know what happens behind closed doors but I know her pretty well because we grew up being really close. My guess is she isn't very "twisty" in the bedroom and wouldn't want to be in something considered BDSM. So, really, their relationship just has a different type of structure than most other couples seem to have--where the woman in this case is the "leader" and is a bit overly so. Perhaps she is just a selfish person and he is more happily giving and it just works. If it works it works. But that's still not BDSM, no matter how greedy she is and how providing to her he is.
I did a search on Google for the idea of "is BDSM sexual?" Do you know what came up? A resounding YES. Yes, BDSM is sexual at core, at base level just like this post says.
Now, sure, I could type into Google, "nonsexual BDSM," and find results. I'm sure something will come up too. Probably fewer pages but sure. But, do you know why? Because, well, it's the internet. I can post that on the internet myself and in a few days Google will pick it up and put it on search results pages. Does that make it true and factual?
There have been many "cults" that have existed now who claimed insane things like an alien mothership was going to come and whisk away the congregation on a specific night. People literally killed themselves so they could be whisked away to this other planet they basically assumed was Heaven. Just because one dude thought that up at the time and made such claims in a way that people believed him, regardless of it having any actual hard evidence or backing. Anybody, anywhere can say anything. Anything. And somebody, somewhere will believe them just because it was said.
See, you can cater to almost any information you want to read and believe it as true. There will be people who agree with even the dumbest, most nonsense ideas online because they saw it online.
It's like the old saying, "I saw it on tv so it must be true!" They said that for a reason, you know? It's a joke now for a reason. Back when tv came out A LOT of people believed that to be true. They did not understand first that commercials pay to say the things they want to say. There are actors, actively acting. Getting paid to say whatever it is that the director wants them to say. They are not real consumers giving feedback, even if they are one or two people saying something doesn't mean majority find it to be accurate. Anyway.
Please consider where you are getting your information. These people you are "learning" from have no special authority, no special psychological studying, no special education outside of their own little bubble just like you. They are not all-knowing. A lot of the things they say are said to be the least offensive and the easiest to cater to the masses and encompass all versus actually educate structure, definition, and formation of a group or subgroup.
A lot of your posts have had flat out incorrect information. Citing a Youtuber as your source is not a reliable resource. Citing a free website that was made up from a very small, close-minded group of people who cater to political correctness in extremes is not citing an unbiased resource that has studies backing it.
Youtubers get paid to have their videos viewed. What does that mean?
That means they want the most views to gain the most money. They aren't paid if their videos don't get viewed. That also goes for people who have yet to earn their monetizing capability because you have to earn so many views and so many subscribers before Youtube will allow ads to run on the videos.
So, that ultimately means that it is rewarding and most beneficial to say the most "everyone encompassing" things, even if untrue, to cater to majority versus minority. People who are positive and upbeat will always be viewed as more enjoyable to watch and interact with than people who sit and recite fact and definition with little personality. Just because a Youtuber says it, doesn't make it true. It doesn't it fact or definition. They are being motivated to say some things so that they are least offensive, most agreeable. Just let that sink into your head. They aren't making Youtube videos for free.
So, okay, Youtube is not actually a reliable resource. "...but I saw it on Youtube! It must be true." is the same as saying, "...but it was on the TV, it must be true!" Haha, right?
Websites put up ads on their sites and the more page views they get the more money they make. Again, revert back to motivation by money when publishing things online. It's in the site's best interest to make things easy to swallow and most acceptable, most accepting if they want to draw in the big money.
The news stations, online and on tv? They broadcast and post the most craziest new stories as they can because it attracts the attention of a high percentage of the population. It's why people say the news is always focusing on bad things. They want to grab and hold your attention because the longer you watch the tv station the more they can sell you on ads and get paid by investors. The more they can get you to click on more and more news articles online the more they can get that page view money from the ads they show. There is incentive to focus on the bad outlandish things and that's why those are news articles more often than positive happy things. Humans like to find and fight the "bad guys" and so they play and prey on that psychology.
So...let's define BDSM based on a few actual resources?
But...wait...reliable resources have scientific evidence or multiple psychological social studies for their strong backing, right? For BDSM, you're looking for psychological social studies based from large populations, and many of them to gain a wide locational range (even if it's just across the country). So, you need, at minimum, a few thousand people per study plus multiple studies to have fact.
There are, unfortunately, very few actual studies completed on BDSM to such a standard, but do you know that everything professionally reviewed (see that? not just a group of friends handing out survey sheets) has been with sexual-basis? Hmm... yeah...
So okay. Let's do a quick internet search and see what we can grasp at and nitpick through to cater to what we want to hear, okay? Okay!
Wikipedia, while not most reliable, is generally pretty correct, right? Can we agree on that much? Okay. Let's just take the first few, brief lines:
""BDSM" is an umbrella term for certain kinds of erotic behavior between consenting adults. "
Erotic has come up, right? That's interesting. Let's define what "erotic" means because it sounds like maybe that is very important to the definition.
The dictionary says
erotic: relating to or tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement.
synonyms: sexy, sexually arousing, sexually stimulating, titillating, suggestive;
Arouse sexual desire. Sexual. adult relations. Huh. So, the term erotic basically means sexual. Hmm.
Well, we don't have to believe Wikipedia! Again, there is no hard evidence with it anyway. You can't even cite them in university papers so it's trash garbage anyway if you get down to definite reliability, accuracy, and truth. Let's go elsewhere in our search results. Oh, look, BDSMwiki! It MUST be authoritative, right?! I mean they spend money on the domain? Well, unless that was free. But hosting, right? They pay something for hosting. Even if it's $2.00/month? Uh... right...
"BDSM is a variety of erotic practices that in short, involve power exchange, role-playing, restraints, and other interpersonal dynamics."
Well, dang, that silly "erotic" word has come up yet AGAIN. Huh. Well, obviously this must not be correct either. Just another junky nonsense site nobody could really rely on as being able to cite in psychology. Let's go to another search result!
Here's something! The third result. "RationalWiki". Right, yes, rational! Duh, that's what we've needed all along...
"It is the giving and receiving of sexual pleasure through the above practices (which can be exceptionally varied and beyond the scope of this article) [above practices: restraints and Discipline (B&D)
Dominance and submission (D&S)
Sadism and Masochism (S&M)], engaged in voluntarily and with predetermined limits and safety rules set and agreed to in advance by all participants (this is sometimes referred to as "safe, sane, and consensual": SSC for short. "
...sexual pleasure...okay, this site must not be right either! Junk! Who cares that it's the top search results of Google either. Okay, we'll just keep moving on!
Oh, yes! There we go! Psychology Today! This HAS to know more about BDSM then.
Oh, but that article only talks about adult relations. Hmm, let's just do a generic search for BDSM on their site, okay? I mean, surely they'll uncover that it doesn't HAVE to be sexual at all! Duh... okay...
So. Everything we've found all talk about adult relations using the terms sexual practices, sexual experiences, sexual compensations, sexual experimentation, sexual behavior, adult relations research. Let's just take this clip where they're actually making a citation about an actual survey (albeit very small and hardly enough to be recognized as valuable without follow-ups on larger populations) completed:
"...the Australian survey mentioned earlier found that people who participated in BDSM had experienced a wider range of sexual practices, and had a greater number of lifetime sexual partners compared to non-participants. In fact, BDSM participants were significantly more likely to claim to have had 50 or more adult relations partners in their lives, and to have participated in group adult relations. This would indicate that people into BDSM tend to be very open to sexual experimentation generally (or perhaps that they are prone to wild exaggeration!)."
(That survey, FYI, is extremely small in itself so take that as you will anyway.)
That's weird. They didn't meant anything about NONSEXUAL BDSM. Huh.
Moving on then! How about "The Science of BDSM" that claims to have multiple journal articles published? Okay...
Just look at that page. "adult relations" is definitely a keyword just glancing at that. But, ah, 5 publications is nothing in the whole scheme of psychology. Why is everything they have about BDSM referencing sexual practice... ?
So, another site... hmm... Second Life is a game but, hey, look at that!
"restraints & Discipline/Dominance & Submission/Sadism & Masochism (BDSM) in the context of Second Life means restraint of an avatar by some means, generally in the context of sexual roleplay."
There. GENERALLY in the context of sexual roleplay. Not ALWAYS! Ah-hah, Second Life has got it! A game. Uh...
Remember: to become a Youtuber it costs NO money. To run a website, it costs as little as $2.50 a month or less on cheap hosting (after being given a FREE domain name coupled with that hosting package).
It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that you remember that at all times. Because what you take in needs to be from a VARIETY of resources so that YOU can piece together what is true and real. YOU have to be the scientific researcher here. YOU have to do the "studies." Even further, YOU have to use logic and what is hard, actually studied, factual evidence and move forward slowly with pieces these puzzle pieces together.
Free domain. First month is $0.01 and then $2.50 a month after that:
For under $3 a month I can host ANYTHING I want to (you know it isn't outright illegal haha but even then it has to be pretty bad to get taken down permanently) and say whatever I want and claim it as fact.
For every "source" you can cite that says it doesn't have to be sexual I can easily Google up and cite 10 more random websites, some pretty sketchy or that have NOTHING to do with BDSM, that says otherwise.
Ever read 1984? 2+2=5 even though it doesn't make any logical sense at all but they are taught that it's the answer and pressured to confirm even when they count it out on their fingers and it makes no sense? You can say anything you want and someone out there will be convinced it must be true just because they saw it once and it sounded probably right.
So, what do you do?
Read actual studies that have been published in the psychological world. Review them and consider their population sizes in determining true validity of their "findings". Gather as many hard facts that have been studied and deemed accurate and slowly piece this stuff together as best as you can.
Review a very wide selection of what exists online and through interpersonal relationships. "Common" is probably--probably, but not always--accurate. Commonly, BDSM is sexual at core. That's "common knowledge" even. But, again, like the 1984 novel, just because people recite 2+2=5 doesn't necessarily make it true. So, you still have to question peoples' motives for saying or believing some of the things they claim, and try to find some scientific evidence to back up these claims.
I'm not saying that all people posting online or making Youtube videos are just trying to make money but I am saying that you have to think of the logic and if the person making the videos is probably motivated to make that money, how much they are probably making, and how much they are investing in what they're doing (and why they are investing that money... is it to ultimately get a higher payoff). It's so much to think of really and sometimes... many times... you will never really know.
Hierarchy and structure existing does not mean there is BDSM existing. If there is not a sexual message attached to the hierarchy then it definitely is not BDSM. Otherwise the D/s in BDSM would just mean "structure" or just mean "hierarchy". That isn't true. It tags along with adult relations.
Please stop spreading misinformation so much like you are doing. Please think for yourself. Please. Please. Please!
Power exchanges do not have to be sexual. Take workplace example.
Power exchanges do not have to be BDSM.
D/s IS a power exchange dynamic but IS ALSO a part of the BDSM power exchange option. Which means that THIS type of power exchange (D/s) IS inherently sexual.
There is a massive, massive difference in talking about "power exchange" (nonsexual or sexual) in society versus "D/s" in society (sexual and directly BDSM).