RE: Nature vs nurture

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Nature vs nurture

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Nature vs nurture

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/10/2006 5:11:33 AM

stardancer00

Posts: 60
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline

"So there tends to be a very bold and inexorable exploration of the slave by the Master (and it goes the other way too,of course)....And in the long run-with the right match-you find a wonderful intimacy in the investment and acceptance you have in each other. Now this is not to say you can't do this in other relationhips-but individuality, and accepting that is stressed in the vanilla-encouraging the keeping of boundaries.
In D/s,M/s we don't want those- we want blending, and assimilation. You still very much exist as individuals-but the dynamic itself blurs the lines in charming ways." - Caretakr

Caretakr, yes, i agree with the blending and assimilation. slave places her self at the Master's feet, so to speak, in all ways. We bring our most authentic selves to this process. The Master uncovers slave and in doing so, he uncovers himself, and as you say, it leads to a blending over time. It is that authenticity which is the elixir for me, that true nakedness. We can learn to play the part, but the truth that lies within is far more powerful stuff.
respectfully,
star

(in reply to irishbynature)

Post #: 21

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/10/2006 6:25:49 AM

zumala

Posts: 1121
Joined: 6/16/2005
Status: offline

Very interesting thread, I must say. Having a somewhat scientific background, my thought on the matter is that it is likely both 'nature' and 'nurture' acting in conjuction that bring about the behaviors and desires seen in the D/s world. I think it is unlikely to be strictly one or the other.

I appreciated the links put up and also a lot of what Padriag had to say. I do suspect that some (not all, by any means) of those who claim it is strictly 'nature' may do so because they want (if even on a subconscious level) it to be that way. Perhaps it is 'romantic' to be a born slave. Or maybe they wish to be that way so they don't have to take responsibility for some aspect of their lives. Who am I to say? This is all speculation. Truth is that we may never know the answer to this particular question.

I still think that it is both nature AND nurture that determine a person's personality, quirks, beliefs, and behaviors.

zuma

(in reply to Padriag)

Post #: 22

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/10/2006 7:10:33 AM

Caretakr

Posts: 1221
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stardancer00

"So there tends to be a very bold and inexorable exploration of the slave by the Master (and it goes the other way too,of course)....And in the long run-with the right match-you find a wonderful intimacy in the investment and acceptance you have in each other. Now this is not to say you can't do this in other relationhips-but individuality, and accepting that is stressed in the vanilla-encouraging the keeping of boundaries.
In D/s,M/s we don't want those- we want blending, and assimilation. You still very much exist as individuals-but the dynamic itself blurs the lines in charming ways." - Caretakr

Caretakr, yes, i agree with the blending and assimilation. slave places her self at the Master's feet, so to speak, in all ways. We bring our most authentic selves to this process. The Master uncovers slave and in doing so, he uncovers himself, and as you say, it leads to a blending over time. It is that authenticity which is the elixir for me, that true nakedness. We can learn to play the part, but the truth that lies within is far more powerful stuff.
respectfully,
star

To live without masks, is the ultimate freedom.

(in reply to stardancer00)

Post #: 23

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/10/2006 10:59:52 AM

stardancer00

Posts: 60
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline

"To live without masks, is the ultimate freedom." - Caretakr

Amen, Sir!

(in reply to Caretakr)

Post #: 24

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/10/2006 11:01:30 PM

Vendaval

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

On the nature vrs nuture argument, I would say that a person
can be taught to be more dominant than is normal for their
personality. A good example of this would be military or police
training. A good example of forced submission would be the
breaking of a person's ego, as exemplified by imprisionment and torture.

As a general rule though, following one's natural inclinations
is a much smoother transition into either submission or
dominance than working against the innate personality qualities.

Regards,

Vendaval

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

The mentioning of 'natural' dominants / submissives led me to wonder -
1. Can you be taught / learn to be submissive / dominant?
2. If so can you live the 'lifestyle' as completely and fulfillingly as a 'natural' submissive / dominant?

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to missturbation)

Post #: 25

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/11/2006 3:41:38 AM

SusanofO

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

I don't think anybody truly knows, so I am not saying either (but am tempted, for what reason I don't know ) to say it's a combination of environment and pre-disposition.

In my own case, the more I think about it the more I think environment did have a lot to do with it, but it was not overt or abusive- my parents just had overwhelmingly extroverted and strong personalities (which is weird because on a Myers-Briggs I am an INFJ - I've taken that test three times and always come up as INFJ - so I am an introverted, intuitive, feeling, judger (which has nothing to do w/being judgmental, just a need to be organized).

I guess it was just easier, ultimately, to listen vs. talk (ironically, I talk plenty as an adult - but always intuitively know when I am around an extroverted and Dominant personality in person, and then I will just listen, mostly - and I think that is partly "self-defense" from years ago, maybe). It also seemed easier to more or less stay out of the way, and do mostly whatever other people wanted of me (arguments at our house could go on for days in the form of verbal battles - harmless, but annoying, and I hated it, so tried to short-circuit that I guess - much of the time, anyway. Debate was considered fun, it seems by most of the people in my family - except me. I can do it, but don't always appreciate it when other people "have to be right" (except, perhaps, a Dominant, he). INFJs are basically "shy" (but nobody ever seems to believe that about me, but it is true).

On the other hand, my own mother said I was a very "placid" baby and child. She said my middle sister (who I'd swear is a Domme if she wasn't so ultra-conservative) was, from day one, very aggressive, loud and intent on getting her way (but she is a nice person, but still today pretty "assertive"). So I just don't know. I know I am looking at only my own experience here, but it's really all I've got to go on.

- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 7/11/2006 4:11:40 AM >

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to Vendaval)

Post #: 26

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/11/2006 2:16:50 PM

Padriag

Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline

First off, thank you Ownedgirlie for taking the time to find, read and post those links. That took some effort and I always appreciate that.

Now on to the meat of it.

I’m not saying genetics has nothing to do with it. Would be more accurate to say that is has a very limited influence that in some cases is completely surpassed by the influence of environment (nurture). What influence genetics does have I think is largely misunderstood, not only by the D/s community at large, but even by many researchers themselves (who seem so bent on proving their theories right, they sometimes seem blind to other explanations, but then a lot of research is driven by grants that encourage them to prove something or other right, not to consider if it might be wrong).

Taking for example the very first link you posted. This links to an article on a gene sequence found in chromosome 11 which regulates the levels of dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter (among other roles) that affects our memory, problem solving ability, and also how we process pleasure (it is linked with endorphins in how some are able to process pain into pleasure). The article postulates that those with this particular gene sequence are more prone to novelty seeking behavior. To quote Dr John Gunderson…

quote:

"I think the finding is less specific than it is general, in that it initiates a conceptualization of personality that has generally been reserved for symptom disorders," said John Gunderson, M.D., director of psychosocial and personality research at McLean Hospital. "That is, there may be some kinds of specific genes that may be accountable for personality traits, and while it has been thought for many years that personality is composed in part of genetically determined temperament, this is a much more specific kind of finding than has been expected."

While agree with the first part of Dr Gunderson’s statement, that specific gene sequences or specific hormone levels may initiate a conceptualization of personality, or in simpler terms, they trigger a pattern of behavior, I disagree with the rest of his statement which implies that these gene’s actually control the behaviors. There is a huge difference between triggering a pattern of behavior, and being the governing factor in a pattern of behavior. And Dr Kenneth Kendler, in that same article seems to share my concern when he said, "I think it appropriate to view these results as quite preliminary, pending additional replication."

Not only does it need more repetition, it needs challenging. For example. Its one thing to say that specific levels of dopamine (which are regulated by a specific gene) can initiate novelty seeking behavior. But its quite another to say that that gene controls novelty seeking behavior or "hardwires" someone towards novelty seeking behavior. Questions these researchers need to ask include the following. Are there cases of individuals with this gene who do NOT exhibit novelty seeking behavior, if so, why? Are there cases of individuals who do not have this gene but do exhibit novelty seeking behavior, if so, why? If either or both those questions has a positive answer, then at that point all we can say is what Dr Gunderson originally stated… that this gene sequence can initiate novelty seeking behavior, but, and I add this, it neither controls it or guarantees it. And this is what I’m saying about genetics in relation to dominance and submission. Yes, there may very well be various genetic traits that my initiate dominant or submissive behavior, but they neither guarantee it or control it… in short, nobody is hardwired this way.

At best, genetics give people an advantage in various areas, sometimes a significant one. They can initiate behaviors, but beyond that point its up to the environment as to how things develop. But people will still seek genetic or chemical causes for dominance and submission anyway. I remember a group I encountered a few years back that had the notion that serotonin was THE dominant chemical. The fools were taking mass doses of 5PHT, an artificial form of 5HT, in the belief that it would make them "uberdoms". What these idiots didn’t know is that highly elevated levels of 5HT has been linked to schizophrenia, psychosis, mania, mood disorders (depression and anxiety), paranoia, as well as increased aggression. It’s a wonder none of these "megadoms in a pill" didn’t end up committing violent crimes.

I’m also reminded of a 5’4" basketball player who could slam dunk with the best of him. Nature (genetics) hadn’t given him the height of other players, but that didn’t stop him, he learned to be a great player anyway. That's an example of nurture (environment and personal choice) trumping nature. And to my mind that’s a good thing. Because not only is it a very human quality, its also liberating. None of us is trapped by our genetics, if we apply ourselves, we can go beyond those genetics to do all kinds of things.

I’d also put this out for consideration on the whole topic, and most especially for those who believe dominance cannot be taught. Consider the Leathermen, who I am given to understand, have the tradition of beginning as submissives and learning to become dominants. Their belief is that one has to "come up through the ranks" and that this also produces better dominants. Regardless of whether you believe it produces better dominants or that such "progression through the ranks" is necessary, one thing is undeniably true… for them it works and has been for over a half century. That simple reality is hard to argue with and it gives us an example of dominants who learned to become what they are.

So while yes, genetics may play a role, I think it is a very minor role compared to the influence of the environment and learned behaviors. I think dominance and submission certainly can be taught and learned, and that neither requires extreme measures.

Food for thought.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to ownedgirlie)

Post #: 27

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/11/2006 2:30:41 PM

SusanofO

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

Wonderful post, Padriag. It takes a lot of experiences along the same general (or specific) vein to hardwire a behavior, doesn't it? That is what I've read, even if a pre-disposition to a behavior exists. If there is a pre-disposition toward a particular behavior, maybe it would take fewer experiences to hard-wire it into someone's behavioral repertoire, but it would still take some experiences, nonetheless. I could be wrong (of course) but it makes sense to me.

- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 7/11/2006 2:31:23 PM >

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to Padriag)

Post #: 28

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/11/2006 5:49:01 PM

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

On reccomendation from a thread here on CM i have bought and started to read 'Screw the roses, Send me the thorns.' I'm only 12 pages in but as is in my nature, curiosity and forever questioning (good or bad i don't know) i find myself here asking for your opinion on a couple of things.

"Having the submissive set her own limits leads one to wonder who is really running the show. Where people are doing a now and again role play, this is a valid question. With a 'natural' submissive, however, an innate craving to please her dominant is strong and unquestionable. A 'natural' dominant also feels an instinctive need to feel in charge, yet neither can realise these parts of themselves without the other."

The mentioning of 'natural' dominants / submissives led me to wonder -
1. Can you be taught / learn to be submissive / dominant?
2. If so can you live the 'lifestyle' as completely and fulfillingly as a 'natural' submissive / dominant?

Interesting topic, missturbation.

When I was going to chiropractic college, the question of 'nature vs. nurture' was being discussed just as heatedly as it is today.

As someone else noted, the military can take certain traits in your behavior and turn you into a soldier. When you take a raw recruit, recognize whether or not there is potential in the recruit and how much, then take it and refine it into a soldier that Unk is proud of, then the teacher has done a good job. How good he does depends on his abilities to do the above (nurture) and on the abilities and traits that are present in the individual ( a combination of genetic factors and...here is where it gets a bit tricky...internalized external factors [nature because they've become internalized? nature because they came from outside but interacted with pre-existing factors without further refinement? nurture because some of these external factors were used to refine what was there already?). As Padriag noted in his post, the Leatherman have done this through the years...teaching someone to 'be' submissive first and then training them to 'be' dominant.

I suppose the success of each venture could be analyzed as to whether or not the teacher/teaching was any good, the necessary characteristics were present within the individual, etc.

Personally, I think the hardest route would be to take someone whose character is more submissive in nature, their external influences have all guided them towards a submissive way, and then try to damp those factors down and bring out the necessary dominant factors (and vice-versa).

I think that while most of us have an inborn tendency towards dominance or submission or a variety of other behaviors (nurture), how much this tendency comes forth depends on a variety of factors: recognition within ourselves of the type of person we are, educating ourselves about what we find within ourselves, our home life, our job, our friends, our exposure to others like/opposite us, etc. (nurture).

I would like to answer the second question but I will have to come back to it. Duty calls...

(in reply to missturbation)

Post #: 29

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/11/2006 6:15:07 PM

Vancouver_cinful

Posts: 1911
Joined: 2/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation
The mentioning of 'natural' dominants / submissives led me to wonder -
1. Can you be taught / learn to be submissive / dominant?
2. If so can you live the 'lifestyle' as completely and fulfillingly as a 'natural' submissive / dominant?

Before I read the rest of this thread I'm going to respond with my beliefs at the moment...

1. Yes, absolutely. Through abuse or just the desire not to lose someone we make all kinds of behavioural changes. Some good, some bad, some temporary, some permanent.

2. No, I can't imagine anyone being happy and fulfilled if they have taken on these orientations. To me, being a submissive is my sexual and emotional orientation. I am being ME. I would think anyone learning this without that feeling of deep orientation would have to be less comfortable, as though they were wearing a costume.

This is how I see it, anyway.

_____________________________

Cin

quote:

My Karma Account is huge, but I just can't seem to make a withdrawal!!

http://cinful.wordpress.com

(in reply to missturbation)

Post #: 30

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/11/2006 6:21:26 PM

Vancouver_cinful

Posts: 1911
Joined: 2/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag
None of us is born dominant, submissive, friendly, rude, gentle, mean, rational or homicidal... we learn it. But most of that learning isn't conscious and we don't know ourselves how we learned it or when. So, not understanding that we call those aspects of our personality "natural" because we have no other explanation.

Padriag, I think this is the first time I have ever disagreed with one of your posts. LOL

I do feel it's something I was born with, not a learned behaviour. I know I could be taught not to act in a submissive manner, because I spent most of my adult life acting as though I was not submissive.

But the key word is acting. I was acting in a socially expected manner and not behaving naturally in the submissive manner I wanted to.

_____________________________

Cin

quote:

My Karma Account is huge, but I just can't seem to make a withdrawal!!

http://cinful.wordpress.com

(in reply to Padriag)

Post #: 31

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/11/2006 6:30:04 PM

Padriag

Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Personally, I think the hardest route would be to take someone whose character is more submissive in nature, their external influences have all guided them towards a submissive way, and then try to damp those factors down and bring out the necessary dominant factors (and vice-versa).

Which begs the question, why would anybody bother? I mean within the lifestyle anyway. From studying behaviorism and behavioral psychology I know that it is theoretically possible to elicit just about any behavior you want, even possible to have them desiring it on their own (which is called transfer of stimulus control if you want to get all techical or look it up). But other than that these debates (which are mostly just academic) or using some part of the info to improve the behavior of a submissive (or possibly a dominant), don't have much point to them.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Post #: 32

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/11/2006 6:42:01 PM

Caretakr

Posts: 1221
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Personally, I think the hardest route would be to take someone whose character is more submissive in nature, their external influences have all guided them towards a submissive way, and then try to damp those factors down and bring out the necessary dominant factors (and vice-versa).

Which begs the question, why would anybody bother? I mean within the lifestyle anyway. From studying behaviorism and behavioral psychology I know that it is theoretically possible to elicit just about any behavior you want, even possible to have them desiring it on their own (which is called transfer of stimulus control if you want to get all techical or look it up). But other than that these debates (which are mostly just academic) or using some part of the info to improve the behavior of a submissive (or possibly a dominant), don't have much point to them.

Scholarly debates never helped me to find Dominance, submissives did. Trial ,error, and practical experience.

One can blather on incessantly-but until you are hands on-it's not going to happen.

(in reply to Padriag)

Post #: 33

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/11/2006 11:14:27 PM

ownedgirlie

Posts: 9184
Joined: 2/5/2006
Status: offline

Padriag, I think we are in agreement....sort of. :)

Yes, genetic testing is very new. Yes, anyone can prove their theory, just as anyone else can disprove it. It happens all the time in medicine. I think where we have different opinions is in the degree of influence genetic coding may have. You seem to speak with authority that the degree of influence is minor. Unless either of us are genetic scientists (and I am not), I think it is important to speak with opinion, rather than statements of fact. To do otherwise could be misleading.

I will say it is my belief that people have predispositions to.......(fill in any subject matter here) which can be nurtured further (hence the title of this thread) or conditioned out, to a certain degree. I, for example, have certain diagnosed thought processing maladies, but rather than give into them, I spent a lot of effort conditioning and training my mind to function "normally" despite the "handicap" as it were.

So yes, I agree people can be taught or trained anything. But I believe to perform such taught functions with intense passion requires said person to be born with that predisposition. It must first reside in one's heart.

In turn, I appreciate your taking the time to read my post and the links provided, and to comment in return.

(in reply to Padriag)

Post #: 34

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/12/2006 12:55:04 AM

BitaTruble

Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

When my daughter was 11 (she's almost 28 now) she decided she wanted to learn to play the violin. When she brought the instrument home, I had never held a violin in my hand. I don't recall ever seeing a violin except on television. I picked it up and I could play it. Just like that.

I can only assume I was born with the talent play it. (It's a shame I didn't like it!) It's not a huge leap for me to assume that I was also born with the talent to submit. The first time I engaged in BDSM with a Master, he accused me of lying to him when I said I had no experience because everything came so naturally to me ... just like playing the violin.

I believe I am hard-wired, that I was born this way. I don't know why I was born this way ... yet. That's an answer I still seek, but there is no doubt to me that it's true.

Celeste

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."

(in reply to ownedgirlie)

Post #: 35

RE: Nature vs nurture - 7/12/2006 6:47:06 AM

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Personally, I think the hardest route would be to take someone whose character is more submissive in nature, their external influences have all guided them towards a submissive way, and then try to damp those factors down and bring out the necessary dominant factors (and vice-versa).

Which begs the question, why would anybody bother? I mean within the lifestyle anyway. From studying behaviorism and behavioral psychology I know that it is theoretically possible to elicit just about any behavior you want, even possible to have them desiring it on their own (which is called transfer of stimulus control if you want to get all techical or look it up). But other than that these debates (which are mostly just academic) or using some part of the info to improve the behavior of a submissive (or possibly a dominant), don't have much point to them.

Exactly. Why would anyone bother? This is why the military weeds out those who just don't have the characteristics to be good soldiers. This is why I would not take a dominant woman and try to turn her into a submissive woman when the inclination isn't there.

Which leads to me answering the second question: It's MOO that while someone can be taught to be dominant or submissive, the success of said teaching will depend to a great extent on the level of inclination towards that behavior anyway. If the inclination is not much, then I don't believe that these people will ever be as comfortable as someone whose submissive/dominant characteristics have been nurtured to further refinement.

As stated, MOO and YMMV.

(in reply to Padriag)

Post #: 36

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Nature vs nurture

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.100