Are nerds/geeks/gamers/whateverweare more kinky?

Recommended Videos

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
Pete Oddly said:
Weaver said:
Pete Oddly said:
Weaver said:
A fellow Ontario guy! We should be friends.
Woo! Ontario! Land of few jobs and excellent breweries.
I know, right? I'm having trouble finding work in my apparently booming industry. Thank god I have great beer to drown my troubles in :p
That Black Creek brewery is something else, I tell you what.
Yes! Their stout is good (I like dark beers).
Have you had their seasonal pumpkin ale? I haven't picked any up and I feel like I better hurry if there's even any left anywhere haha.
 

Pete Oddly

New member
Nov 19, 2009
224
0
0
Weaver said:
Pete Oddly said:
Weaver said:
Pete Oddly said:
Weaver said:
A fellow Ontario guy! We should be friends.
Woo! Ontario! Land of few jobs and excellent breweries.
I know, right? I'm having trouble finding work in my apparently booming industry. Thank god I have great beer to drown my troubles in :p
That Black Creek brewery is something else, I tell you what.
Yes! Their stout is good (I like dark beers).
Have you had their seasonal pumpkin ale? I haven't picked any up and I feel like I better hurry if there's even any left anywhere haha.
I have tried it, and I love it. Though pricey, it's totally worth it.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
kurokotetsu said:
[
Fetishes usually develop at a young age. It's when a young mind associates a non sexual thing with love or sex. Emo's, who date other emo's, often grow up and become sexual sadists or masochists. People who grow up in strict homes sometimes have a fetish for being controlled. If your female siblings hide their feet like they hide their privates, you may grow up perceiving feet as something sexually intimidating.

increased media exposure increases the amount of exposure to everything, and therefore an increased chance of alternative sexual perception than just two parents and wherever they take you.
Source? I'm from a liberal family, that didn't expose me to that much media at a young age, and I'm kinky as hell (even by BDSM standards the amount of practices I do is pretty large and varied). I wasn't emo, nor my salve was emo, nor was she form a strict family (nor I) nor any other of the reasons you give. So I doubt that reasoning, unless proven otherwise. What would explain early sadist, masochists, like Sade or Sacher-Masoch? What media? is the community larger these days or is ti more open only (that would negate the conclusion you are espousing)? Are some of those people really BDSM (for example, a fair amount of Fifty Shades aren't really BDSM practitioners, nor masochists, nor sadists, nor fetishists, nor any thing that resembles BDSM) or just curious and pretty tame?[/quote]


Hopefully I did the double quote right.

What Duster is talking about is behaviorism, it's a school of psychology that largely deals with the idea of people being blank slates being entirely created in terms of interests and personality by their environment. It differs a bit from humanism and Freudian/Jungian psychology, most people involved in the field nowadays use a combination of approaches. It's been a looong time since I had to take classes (I had to take some psyche stuff when trying to get my Forensics degree, the focus mostly on criminal and abnormal psychology though) but it should be pretty easy to find. Truthfully I'm kind of surprised you haven't heard of it before.

That said while environment can influence people's sexual development, I don't think it's the only factor. Too much of our sexual system is hardwired to work on chemicals to totally be a matter of environment. Basically if your system doesn't react to get you aroused to a guy or whatever, no amount of exposure to gay sex is going to turn you gay. Ditto for say turning someone straight through exposure to heterosexuality. Now it is true that with extreme deprogramming methods you can change someone's sexual orientation as the brain can eventually force the body to change for reasons of survival and such. So in theory you can take someone and with the right techniques turn them into a sex slave, change their sexual orientation, or whatever... but at the same time you could also turn them into a dog. Unlike TV though this isn't an easy thing to do, and not many people can do it, it's not like Bob the sadist can brainwash people in a tiny room off his basement reliably after reading a few books. Good material for a thriller on TV, not relevant to real life or how this kind of thing works. I had to read up on some cases of brainwashing (this was a long time ago) tied to criminal justice, cases like that old "White Lotus" thing and a few cults like Jonestown (where it was partially effective as some people apparently had to be forced to drink the Kool Aid).
 

kurokotetsu

Proud Master
Sep 17, 2008
428
0
0
Therumancer said:
kurokotetsu said:
]Source? I'm from a liberal family, that didn't expose me to that much media at a young age, and I'm kinky as hell (even by BDSM standards the amount of practices I do is pretty large and varied). I wasn't emo, nor my salve was emo, nor was she form a strict family (nor I) nor any other of the reasons you give. So I doubt that reasoning, unless proven otherwise. What would explain early sadist, masochists, like Sade or Sacher-Masoch? What media? is the community larger these days or is ti more open only (that would negate the conclusion you are espousing)? Are some of those people really BDSM (for example, a fair amount of Fifty Shades aren't really BDSM practitioners, nor masochists, nor sadists, nor fetishists, nor any thing that resembles BDSM) or just curious and pretty tame?

Hopefully I did the double quote right.

What Duster is talking about is behaviorism, it's a school of psychology that largely deals with the idea of people being blank slates being entirely created in terms of interests and personality by their environment. It differs a bit from humanism and Freudian/Jungian psychology, most people involved in the field nowadays use a combination of approaches. It's been a looong time since I had to take classes (I had to take some psyche stuff when trying to get my Forensics degree, the focus mostly on criminal and abnormal psychology though) but it should be pretty easy to find. Truthfully I'm kind of surprised you haven't heard of it before.

That said while environment can influence people's sexual development, I don't think it's the only factor. Too much of our sexual system is hardwired to work on chemicals to totally be a matter of environment. Basically if your system doesn't react to get you aroused to a guy or whatever, no amount of exposure to gay sex is going to turn you gay. Ditto for say turning someone straight through exposure to heterosexuality. Now it is true that with extreme deprogramming methods you can change someone's sexual orientation as the brain can eventually force the body to change for reasons of survival and such. So in theory you can take someone and with the right techniques turn them into a sex slave, change their sexual orientation, or whatever... but at the same time you could also turn them into a dog. Unlike TV though this isn't an easy thing to do, and not many people can do it, it's not like Bob the sadist can brainwash people in a tiny room off his basement reliably after reading a few books. Good material for a thriller on TV, not relevant to real life or how this kind of thing works. I had to read up on some cases of brainwashing (this was a long time ago) tied to criminal justice, cases like that old "White Lotus" thing and a few cults like Jonestown (where it was partially effective as some people apparently had to be forced to drink the Kool Aid).
While the tabula rasa assumption is known to me, a statement made about my sexual identity (I am part of the BDSM community after all) I would like sources. Especially as such direct links as he claims. The Nature vs. Nurture is also quite well known. But specifically also linking media to fetishism and other BDSM practices and that exposure to media causes this kinky behavior, well that is quite a strong claim to do and definitely it should be backed up, considering I have at least myself and another (which could be used as counter examples or statistical anomalies depending on the sources presented) about those claims. Claiming a direct link between a sexual identity and a simple stimulus is, quite frankly, oversimplifying a complex thing.

In Nature vs, Nurture, well, that is complex and daring a guess would be too much for me. From my perspective, very subjective, it feels like nature to be what I am. Since quite early childhood (far before my sexual development) I had an interest in this. Has my environment help me form my fetishism? Could be, but what stimuli or other are part of that formation is almost futile, since I've been how I am for a long time. Can it be reprogrammed? Not really, I think. It can be suppressed, but "brainwashing" is something I'm not entirely sure exist to such a degree (and proving ti does is quite difficult) so I'm not a believer in that.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
kurokotetsu said:
[]While the tabula rasa assumption is known to me, a statement made about my sexual identity (I am part of the BDSM community after all) I would like sources. Especially as such direct links as he claims. The Nature vs. Nurture is also quite well known. But specifically also linking media to fetishism and other BDSM practices and that exposure to media causes this kinky behavior, well that is quite a strong claim to do and definitely it should be backed up, considering I have at least myself and another (which could be used as counter examples or statistical anomalies depending on the sources presented) about those claims. Claiming a direct link between a sexual identity and a simple stimulus is, quite frankly, oversimplifying a complex thing.

In Nature vs, Nurture, well, that is complex and daring a guess would be too much for me. From my perspective, very subjective, it feels like nature to be what I am. Since quite early childhood (far before my sexual development) I had an interest in this. Has my environment help me form my fetishism? Could be, but what stimuli or other are part of that formation is almost futile, since I've been how I am for a long time. Can it be reprogrammed? Not really, I think. It can be suppressed, but "brainwashing" is something I'm not entirely sure exist to such a degree (and proving ti does is quite difficult) so I'm not a believer in that.
Not really, the basic theory covers what's being said here as the entire school of thought involves media influence and the like being a big part of determining all forms of behavior and identity, not just sexual orientation. This is common knowledge as I point out all the time (albeit this isn't my argument). Calling for sources, citations, proof, etc... in this kind of a case does nothing but make you look kind of foolish, which is why I dismiss such things in the course of making my own statements and tell people to do their own research. In this case theoretically I'd have to basically teach an Intro To Psyche course to fully educate someone who was genuinely ignorant. That said at least in the US they pretty much make this required in college and even in a lot of high schools now so it can be assumed knowledge. It and remembering things like sociology (assuming it was taught properly) are key elements to any kind of discussion on social or behavioral issues, and frankly if you don't have that knowledge and education I'd argue you shouldn't be entering into a discussion on things like this with people that do not have it.

It seems to me that you understand the theory, but are pretty much resentful of the point being made that you could very well have been programmed like a computer by your environment. People as a general rule tend to dislike the point that they are predictable and not some kind of unique, magical, individuals like they want to believe, which is why things like sociology and psychology have remained controversial for a long time, and also part of why people don't like them being applied to social issues or interpersonal discussions. At the end of the day everyone needs to understand that with the right knowledge someone can pretty much program you like a computer, and it's particularly easy early on in life.

That said behaviorism is only a part of things, which is the mistake Dusty is making. Freud, Skinner, and Rogers are all considered the founding fathers of psychology and all of their principles have been proven true to an extent, despite their somewhat different theories. Jungian psychology is oftentimes added in there, but it's largely a school of thought coming from a student of Freud that expands upon, and sometimes contradicts, his work.

The point I'm getting at here is that you can't fairly say he's wrong, you could argue there is probably more to it than that, but like it or not your environment had a huge effect on your development. Of course standard causes for someone to wind up a specific way don't apply to all cases, the road from point A (a newly formed human) to point B (a fully developed human) is not straightforward. This is why psychoanalysis is important in many cases. If you were to say sit down with a decent head shrinker and talk to him honestly about your background and stuff he could probably tell you how you formed into the person you are today. More so if extreme methods like hypnosis were used.

Of course at the same time biology does play a factor, sexual arousal is based around chemical reactions, and simply put unless you use extreme methods to force the brain to adapt your biology, no environmental stimulus is going to make you sexually aroused if your not predisposed. So basically if you get off on inflicting or receiving pain, that's not something that is going to come from environment. What's more there are certain types of personalities and hardwired basic instincts which is what the whole "Anal Retentive" and "Anal Expulsive" personalities come from, which goes back to Freud pointing out that the first time your average human is going to show their inherent instincts is during toilet training, and depending on how the child reacts (resistance, or willing compliance) is going to set the tone and point of view for the rest of their life experiences and how they go about learning and reacting to an environment. Today this has been modified into the less controversial sounding "Type A and Type B" personalities that are described with more positive attributes, as opposed to telling someone who is friendly, outgoing, and seeks approval as a big part of their underlying personality that they are "anally expulsive" which sounds kind of nasty.

Overall your kinky habits are in part inherent (and arguably not all that uncommon) but the way you've embraced them is heavily going to have come from environment, as opposed to you say being ashamed by them. Other inherent traits of course come down to things like personal charisma and/or attractiveness to be able to indulge them, as opposed to say someone who lacks such things and has the desires but is unable to indulge them leading to massive resentment which of course taints other parts of a developing personality, etc...

Of course then again, as I've said before, people tend to dislike psychology. For example Freud kind of predicted all the feminist garbage we're seeing now pretty accurately when he started talking about "Penis Envy". Which is a typically offensive Freud-born term for simply say that women are inherently jealous of the physical superiority and societal dominance of men, and develop complexes based on seeking an even playing field that is biologically impossible due to when everything else is made even women will always be less physically capable on average (to a noticible degree throughout society) and will always have to grapple with biological needs such as their cycles/periods, pregnancy, and other things that men do not have to deal with equivilents to and will also likely never fully understand. Of course the flip side of this is "Womb Envy" which I believe was Jungian and largely comes from men who resent women being able to take a more passive role in society, and how much attractive ones are taken care of. In general in society the biological abilities of men mean they do all the grunt work, and are expected to fight, die, and risk injury on behalf of women, culture, and country. Even when women do similar things there is less of an expectation. Womb envy kind of predicted things like man to woman transgenderism, cross dressing, and similar things, with the root (perhaps unrealized) being that a lot of guys would like to be beautiful women so they can be taken care of and have less expectations. Of course such men tend to have ideal fantasies as opposed to wanting to be an average girl (they want to feel pretty and such) and with it also comes an inherent misunderstanding of the role of women in society and a lot of what they go through biologically and such. Of course there is not one group out there that wants to be told "your predictable, and the big heads of the human mind identified you long before you were personally born". Such a resistance to psychology and it's cousin sociology is also why people are so vulnerable to it when it's exploited for things like interrogation, psychological warfare, and most commonly advertising. Everyone thinks themselves a totally unique thing who can "resist manipulation" and the ironic thing is, most such manipulations actually bank on this attitude.

At any rate I'm getting increasingly off subject. The point is that it goes beyond "Nature Vs. Nurture", that's actually a modern, reactionary, statement that tries to get around the simple fact that both play a role, and people can be both predicted, and under the right circumstances controlled, or even changed entirely. Everyone is a stereotype (when it's properly applied) including the guy who intentionally resists stereotypes who simply becomes another one by joining others who do the same. :)

Of course understand I studied Forensics (though couldn't complete the long degree for financial reasons) who was later trained by other sources like the casinos I worked for. At the end of the day what I've done professionally and been trained for heavily comes down to the predictability of people, pattern recognition, and putting things into a larger context, in order to bring things back to an individual. Usually it's more simplistic than that sounds, but that's how I've applied such knowledge, and it's also the approach my education took towards such things. Since I've seen it work, and have studied countless examples of how it all works, I'm not likely to be convinced otherwise.

I'm mostly just saying that Dusty is right in principle, if not in the specifics. It's not something that has to be proven at this point, and counts as commonly available knowledge even if it's something that people choose to ignore. Go to college and start taking psyche classes and they will likely wind up telling you the same stuff I am, especially if you start attending from a Criminal Justice perspective. TV exaggerates it for points of drama, but understand if psychology didn't work this well, profilers and the like (people who basically conduct psychoanalysis from second hand information basically) would be out of business.
 

Angelous Wang

Lord of I Don't Care
Oct 18, 2011
575
0
0
I would say yes as generalization, however it would depend to the persons personal views.

It's just a matter of exposure (more viewing exposure in this case, rather than experience exposure).

nerds/geeks/gamers/whateverweare tend to use more pornography than the "Normal" people (because they are off in the real world actually boning other people more), which tends to lead to "normal" pornography getting boring a lot quicker. Which then leads to finding different kinky pornography.

Which leads to nerds/geeks/gamers/whateverweare gaining more fetishes and kinks.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,526
4,295
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
In general people are kinky as hell, we are just told to keep it quiet and that we should be ashamed of it since our urges are different than other peoples. When it comes to sex, we are very very dumb.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32374911/ns/health-sexual_health/t/unraveling-mystery-female-desire/#.VFO8uvmtFlo
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Most people are nerdy about something. When you broaden the category that much
some kind of geek. Games, music, movies, photography, role-playing, both live and pen and paper
you're going to include the vast majority of the populace, if not straight up everyone. That's like saying that everyone you've met in the BDSM community is a human. I would expect that.

That's my 0.02 anyone. Everyone is a nerd about something. Everyone.
 

Yakostovian

New member
Jul 26, 2010
28
0
0
The Venn diagram for kinky folks and nerdy folks are very nearly mutually exclusive (as far as my experience has taught me.)

But, there are still plenty of geeks/nerds that are only into vanilla intimacy (I can safely count myself among them,) and I am sure (though, I have yet to meet one) there are plenty of BDSM folks that are not into the typically "nerd culture" fringe interests.
 

kurokotetsu

Proud Master
Sep 17, 2008
428
0
0
Therumancer said:
kurokotetsu said:
While the tabula rasa assumption is known to me, a statement made about my sexual identity (I am part of the BDSM community after all) I would like sources. Especially as such direct links as he claims. The Nature vs. Nurture is also quite well known. But specifically also linking media to fetishism and other BDSM practices and that exposure to media causes this kinky behavior, well that is quite a strong claim to do and definitely it should be backed up, considering I have at least myself and another (which could be used as counter examples or statistical anomalies depending on the sources presented) about those claims. Claiming a direct link between a sexual identity and a simple stimulus is, quite frankly, oversimplifying a complex thing.

In Nature vs, Nurture, well, that is complex and daring a guess would be too much for me. From my perspective, very subjective, it feels like nature to be what I am. Since quite early childhood (far before my sexual development) I had an interest in this. Has my environment help me form my fetishism? Could be, but what stimuli or other are part of that formation is almost futile, since I've been how I am for a long time. Can it be reprogrammed? Not really, I think. It can be suppressed, but "brainwashing" is something I'm not entirely sure exist to such a degree (and proving ti does is quite difficult) so I'm not a believer in that.
Not really, the basic theory covers what's being said here as the entire school of thought involves media influence and the like being a big part of determining all forms of behavior and identity, not just sexual orientation. This is common knowledge as I point out all the time (albeit this isn't my argument). Calling for sources, citations, proof, etc... in this kind of a case does nothing but make you look kind of foolish, which is why I dismiss such things in the course of making my own statements and tell people to do their own research. In this case theoretically I'd have to basically teach an Intro To Psyche course to fully educate someone who was genuinely ignorant. That said at least in the US they pretty much make this required in college and even in a lot of high schools now so it can be assumed knowledge. It and remembering things like sociology (assuming it was taught properly) are key elements to any kind of discussion on social or behavioral issues, and frankly if you don't have that knowledge and education I'd argue you shouldn't be entering into a discussion on things like this with people that do not have it.
So being ti a basic theory means it shouldn't be challenged? Or be it asked for citations about specific claims made by the poster? Duster made some very specific claims about paraphilias, that as far as I'm aware is are not that obviously cut out as he made them be. Calling for sources on that seem natural. And even if it is "basic theory" the environmental effect on people's psyche is and still is discussed (the works of Skinner, Freud, Lacan, Jung and even "commonly known" experiments like the Milgram one are still on the table for researchers, for example see here in the section critical evaluation [http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html]) so arguing against it is perfectly vlaid. That you see it as basic and not question it, well that is how you see things.

It seems to me that you understand the theory, but are pretty much resentful of the point being made that you could very well have been programmed like a computer by your environment. People as a general rule tend to dislike the point that they are predictable and not some kind of unique, magical, individuals like they want to believe, which is why things like sociology and psychology have remained controversial for a long time, and also part of why people don't like them being applied to social issues or interpersonal discussions. At the end of the day everyone needs to understand that with the right knowledge someone can pretty much program you like a computer, and it's particularly easy early on in life.
yeah, no. I'm not resentful. People aren't computers thet can be programmed. Even standardization procedures like military boot camp, produce varying results depending on the individual (and one could argue that the socioeconomic factors and environment that most service man is similar). I know I'm in a most thing pretty run of the mill. I don't care about that. I'm also aware that my upbringing has a fair amount of influence on my perceptions. I only like to point that saying that, is unfounded and should be backed up by something, like linking to a study showing that "kinky", BDSM or fetishist community has grown actually and not just in visibility due to that larger media exposure in early life.

The point I'm getting at here is that you can't fairly say he's wrong, you could argue there is probably more to it than that, but like it or not your environment had a huge effect on your development. Of course standard causes for someone to wind up a specific way don't apply to all cases, the road from point A (a newly formed human) to point B (a fully developed human) is not straightforward. This is why psychoanalysis is important in many cases. If you were to say sit down with a decent head shrinker and talk to him honestly about your background and stuff he could probably tell you how you formed into the person you are today. More so if extreme methods like hypnosis were used.
Yeah, I haven't seen a "shrink" either claim that he can do that nor do that. Also it would be an post facto explanation (hindsight is 20/20 after all) which diminishes any kind of actual value of the judgement. For establishing a link, it should be done prior to the effect manifesting itself. "Extreme methods" liek hypnosis also are problematic, as a suggestive state can be used to alter recollections, even unintentionally, changing the "facts" to the "theory" (the guiding done by the psychoanalyst can alter how you perceive the event to match their explanation).

Of course at the same time biology does play a factor, sexual arousal is based around chemical reactions, and simply put unless you use extreme methods to force the brain to adapt your biology, no environmental stimulus is going to make you sexually aroused if your not predisposed. So basically if you get off on inflicting or receiving pain, that's not something that is going to come from environment. What's more there are certain types of personalities and hardwired basic instincts which is what the whole "Anal Retentive" and "Anal Expulsive" personalities come from, which goes back to Freud pointing out that the first time your average human is going to show their inherent instincts is during toilet training, and depending on how the child reacts (resistance, or willing compliance) is going to set the tone and point of view for the rest of their life experiences and how they go about learning and reacting to an environment. Today this has been modified into the less controversial sounding "Type A and Type B" personalities that are described with more positive attributes, as opposed to telling someone who is friendly, outgoing, and seeks approval as a big part of their underlying personality that they are "anally expulsive" which sounds kind of nasty.

Overall your kinky habits are in part inherent (and arguably not all that uncommon) but the way you've embraced them is heavily going to have come from environment, as opposed to you say being ashamed by them. Other inherent traits of course come down to things like personal charisma and/or attractiveness to be able to indulge them, as opposed to say someone who lacks such things and has the desires but is unable to indulge them leading to massive resentment which of course taints other parts of a developing personality, etc...
And why would you say that embracing it would be environmental? According to your "anal retentive" and "anal expulsive" theory you exposed before, it is more about your inherently being able to be more outgoing or no. I don't spouse that theory but you here are saying that while sexual paraphilias are inherent the ability to express them is not while a paragraph before you are talking how Freud (terrible scientist even if good philosopher and thinker) say that such attribute are mostly inherent.

Of course then again, as I've said before, people tend to dislike psychology. For example Freud kind of predicted all the feminist garbage we're seeing now pretty accurately when he started talking about "Penis Envy". Which is a typically offensive Freud-born term for simply say that women are inherently jealous of the physical superiority and societal dominance of men, and develop complexes based on seeking an even playing field that is biologically impossible due to when everything else is made even women will always be less physically capable on average (to a noticible degree throughout society) and will always have to grapple with biological needs such as their cycles/periods, pregnancy, and other things that men do not have to deal with equivilents to and will also likely never fully understand. Of course the flip side of this is "Womb Envy" which I believe was Jungian and largely comes from men who resent women being able to take a more passive role in society, and how much attractive ones are taken care of. In general in society the biological abilities of men mean they do all the grunt work, and are expected to fight, die, and risk injury on behalf of women, culture, and country. Even when women do similar things there is less of an expectation. Womb envy kind of predicted things like man to woman transgenderism, cross dressing, and similar things, with the root (perhaps unrealized) being that a lot of guys would like to be beautiful women so they can be taken care of and have less expectations. Of course such men tend to have ideal fantasies as opposed to wanting to be an average girl (they want to feel pretty and such) and with it also comes an inherent misunderstanding of the role of women in society and a lot of what they go through biologically and such. Of course there is not one group out there that wants to be told "your predictable, and the big heads of the human mind identified you long before you were personally born". Such a resistance to psychology and it's cousin sociology is also why people are so vulnerable to it when it's exploited for things like interrogation, psychological warfare, and most commonly advertising. Everyone thinks themselves a totally unique thing who can "resist manipulation" and the ironic thing is, most such manipulations actually bank on this attitude.
Not my reason to dislike (I don't even dislike it that much) psychology. I don't like it's conclusions (as most social studies) based on no strong empirical basis (biased groups, no random sampling, small sample size, single case study for Freud, other things on the lines) which makes it's conclusions iffy at best from a scientific point of view. As such, and having "seen" a lot of variability in the applications of such conclusions to "real" life (and different societies) I don't take the word of psychologist (or any other field of study of the psyche) as a golden standard.

At any rate I'm getting increasingly off subject. The point is that it goes beyond "Nature Vs. Nurture", that's actually a modern, reactionary, statement that tries to get around the simple fact that both play a role, and people can be both predicted, and under the right circumstances controlled, or even changed entirely. Everyone is a stereotype (when it's properly applied) including the guy who intentionally resists stereotypes who simply becomes another one by joining others who do the same. :)
Stereotypes don't work that way. Yes, "Nature vs. Nurture" is an oversimplification, and is seems that both play a role, but the degree in which they do is still very much in the air.

I'm mostly just saying that Dusty is right in principle, if not in the specifics. It's not something that has to be proven at this point, and counts as commonly available knowledge even if it's something that people choose to ignore. Go to college and start taking psyche classes and they will likely wind up telling you the same stuff I am, especially if you start attending from a Criminal Justice perspective. TV exaggerates it for points of drama, but understand if psychology didn't work this well, profilers and the like (people who basically conduct psychoanalysis from second hand information basically) would be out of business.
yeah, college doesn't work that way here. It is very specialized to your field of study (Mathematics in my case). And "profilers" (a position not actually in the FBI, according to the book I read written by Robert Ressler, who was an agent in the Behavioral Science Unit) are after all a highly discussed and controversial profession (even when I love the crime procedural Criminal Minds) and while it has been useful some cases, it's been detrimental in others and there is no clear evidence that it is that accurate (or wrong) so I would stay cautiously of saying that it works that fine.

My point was actaull, to clse this. That things are more compex that appear. Just saying something is like that is not good and that OT there is no source or anything telling that geeks/nerds/gamers are more into BDSM or other kinks as far as I know and that OP could jsut be biased because he needed up speaking with the people he relates.

Edit: Also I wnated to address this:
Therumancer said:
Also remember that "Gor" which is a massive fantasy series, alongside things like "Marketplace" have contributed heavily to the BDSM subculture, to the point where people even lead "Gorean lifestyles" and you see women being branded with the symbol(s) from the book, enduring ear notching (more rare), and similar things as signs of submission. So even going back decades now you can find connections between geekdom and kink communities.
Certain things. Most of the people I've interacted in the BDSM community aren't into Gor, and some people I've interacted in the Gorean chats aren't into BDSM. Considering Gor a contribution to BDSM at large is unfounded and maybe even a reverse cause and effect, being maybe that John Norman (I don't recall his real name) is into BDSM and he borrowed the elements of real life practices into his world, bot that Gor influence the BDSM practices. Also, in Gor the slaves aren't usually branded or subjected to body modifications that much aside from a single letter regarding them as salves (any further branding comes from a crime not for pleasure). Someone leading a Gorean lifestyle wouldn't brand their property.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
kurokotetsu said:
[Edit: Also I wnated to address this:
Therumancer said:
Also remember that "Gor" which is a massive fantasy series, alongside things like "Marketplace" have contributed heavily to the BDSM subculture, to the point where people even lead "Gorean lifestyles" and you see women being branded with the symbol(s) from the book, enduring ear notching (more rare), and similar things as signs of submission. So even going back decades now you can find connections between geekdom and kink communities.
Certain things. Most of the people I've interacted in the BDSM community aren't into Gor, and some people I've interacted in the Gorean chats aren't into BDSM. Considering Gor a contribution to BDSM at large is unfounded and maybe even a reverse cause and effect, being maybe that John Norman (I don't recall his real name) is into BDSM and he borrowed the elements of real life practices into his world, bot that Gor influence the BDSM practices. Also, in Gor the slaves aren't usually branded or subjected to body modifications that much aside from a single letter regarding them as salves (any further branding comes from a crime not for pleasure). Someone leading a Gorean lifestyle wouldn't brand their property.
You don't know much about Gor or the Gorean subculture. Got you. Actually, yes, Gor was into various forms of marking and mutilation depending on the region. Indeed one of the very first things they get into when Tarl is broken as a slave (leading to him renaming himself as Bosk) is how one of the first things male women who own the rare male slave do is shred their lips in a specific way to mark them as having been taken for example. Slaves are indeed branded, and some of the various dances can potentially be mutilating or lethal apparently if not performed perfectly as well. The ear notching usually takes place with criminals and after so many notches someone becomes a slave, but as I recall some slave masters also utilize ear notching as a way of keeping track of their slave's infractions. There are a ton of books, and it's been a while since I read them (and I will confess I didn't read them all, because I got kind of bored with them as they gradually moved too far away from what I saw as the central plotline of the series, though I have heard they do eventually get things back on track). That said I've dealt with people who claim to follow a "Gorean Lifestyle" and yes, marking of slaves comes into play, usually with a tattoo or brand, ear notching can also take place but they generally don't go further than that as far as anything I've seen which is why it's all that I've mentioned.

As far as the rest goes, at the end of the day your basically denying an entire branch of science. Like it or not, even with other experiments that have taken place, Freud, Skinner, and Rogers form the foundation of modern psychology which is a science. It's not something that can really be refuted or challenged at this point as it's been accepted, and put to practical use, whether you happen to like it or not. While attempts to challenge the foundation of the fathers of Psychology have happened with some interesting results, at the end of the day it still all comes back to them representing the truth of the human condition.

As far as what can be done with mental programming, there are entertainers who do hypnosis shows that can do a lot of what your claiming is impossible to begin with (I've seen it). When it comes to deprogramming, that is a little more than just hypnosis, and your typical shrink isn't in a position to attempt to do it, nor would they generally talk about things like that as shrinks have trouble freaking people out to begin with. Boot Camp which you mention does involve some psychological elements, to break people down and then rebuild them as something better, but that's not full on deprogramming, which for the most part is pretty much illegal. The only time you officially see deprogramming being used is to say overcome the brainwashing certain people conditioned into cults and the like have undergone, which is not all that common (Hollywood aside). That said yes, someone with enough of a background in psychology, the time, and the opportunity, can pretty much change everything about you, and there really isn't much that can be done about it.

We apparently aren't going to agree though, and just keep talking circles around each other, so there is little point in continueing. The bottom line is you are saying you don't believe in psychology, by denying one of the central foundations it all springs from. You are entitled to that opinion (and any opinion for that matter). I on the other hand do agree with it based on my own education and things I've seen. The central point here is that Dusty wasn't being unfair or unrealistic when you omit the bad attempt to blindly project specifics. Dusty also has very little to prove, vet, or provide citations or whatever for (nor do I) because we're again, talking common knowledge stuff here, the very foundation of an entire branch of medical science that has been around and put to use for so long that it's become pretty much indisputable, and really as time goes on, psychology is just going to find new and better ways to manipulate people and show how predictable we are. The usual reason why people deny psychology is because of some innate belief in the unique and mystical nature of humanity and the individual, call it the soul. The argument being that the existence of that special trait invalidates any effort to predict, categorize, or control human behavior and sense of self, despite all evidence and demonstration to the contrary. I on the other hand personally believe in the existence of a soul (being a Christian, albeit not a deeply spiritual one) and the validity of psychology, but that gets into an entirely different discussion which would turn philosophical and go well beyond the context of this discussion which was simply me explaining, and defending, someone else's point which I believe you were dismissing unfairly.
 

kurokotetsu

Proud Master
Sep 17, 2008
428
0
0
Therumancer said:
kurokotetsu said:
[Edit: Also I wnated to address this:
Therumancer said:
Also remember that "Gor" which is a massive fantasy series, alongside things like "Marketplace" have contributed heavily to the BDSM subculture, to the point where people even lead "Gorean lifestyles" and you see women being branded with the symbol(s) from the book, enduring ear notching (more rare), and similar things as signs of submission. So even going back decades now you can find connections between geekdom and kink communities.
Certain things. Most of the people I've interacted in the BDSM community aren't into Gor, and some people I've interacted in the Gorean chats aren't into BDSM. Considering Gor a contribution to BDSM at large is unfounded and maybe even a reverse cause and effect, being maybe that John Norman (I don't recall his real name) is into BDSM and he borrowed the elements of real life practices into his world, bot that Gor influence the BDSM practices. Also, in Gor the slaves aren't usually branded or subjected to body modifications that much aside from a single letter regarding them as salves (any further branding comes from a crime not for pleasure). Someone leading a Gorean lifestyle wouldn't brand their property.
You don't know much about Gor or the Gorean subculture. Got you. Actually, yes, Gor was into various forms of marking and mutilation depending on the region. Indeed one of the very first things they get into when Tarl is broken as a slave (leading to him renaming himself as Bosk) is how one of the first things male women who own the rare male slave do is shred their lips in a specific way to mark them as having been taken for example. Slaves are indeed branded, and some of the various dances can potentially be mutilating or lethal apparently if not performed perfectly as well. The ear notching usually takes place with criminals and after so many notches someone becomes a slave, but as I recall some slave masters also utilize ear notching as a way of keeping track of their slave's infractions. There are a ton of books, and it's been a while since I read them (and I will confess I didn't read them all, because I got kind of bored with them as they gradually moved too far away from what I saw as the central plotline of the series, though I have heard they do eventually get things back on track). That said I've dealt with people who claim to follow a "Gorean Lifestyle" and yes, marking of slaves comes into play, usually with a tattoo or brand, ear notching can also take place but they generally don't go further than that as far as anything I've seen which is why it's all that I've mentioned.
I'm not an expert on Gorean cultuires, nor the books themselves. I haven't read Raiders yet (where the Bosk thing comes up in Kar) but in Outlaws, Tarl isn't marked in anyway while being a fighting kajiru isn't marked in any special way. dances can be lethal indeed, but it is not a form of branding. The people I've interacted that love Gor (even my own subnmissive partner loves Gor and she's read most of the books, among otehr things) have infromed me that branding isn't that common, that excessive marking of a slave in Gor is frowned upon (damaging goods). SOme do. I have no solid information of how usual is (neither do you probably) to brand but according to what I've learned and read, it is not a common practice in either the books nor the people that follow Gorean lifestyles, as far as my knowledge of the community goes however limited it may be. You might want to chek that tone too. Too condescending. You are no expert on Gor or Grean lifestyle either.

As far as the rest goes, at the end of the day your basically denying an entire branch of science. Like it or not, even with other experiments that have taken place, Freud, Skinner, and Rogers form the foundation of modern psychology which is a science. It's not something that can really be refuted or challenged at this point as it's been accepted, and put to practical use, whether you happen to like it or not. While attempts to challenge the foundation of the fathers of Psychology have happened with some interesting results, at the end of the day it still all comes back to them representing the truth of the human condition.
yeah, what are those experiments? I know you won't quote them (they are common knowledge after all, it seems) but saying they exist and utterly confirm, well might at least name drop one that is so common knowledge that I might see that there are absolutely no controversies and is accepted by everyone (every psychologist I've talked to, including an old family friend have told me Freud has been thoroughly debunked nad is most given like Aristotelian physics, a relic of the past nobody follows anymore and a basis in only that they opened the field of study not that their theories are seen as correct, so allow me to doubt that his specific views are "representing the truth of the human condition"). But Psychology isn't a science. It doesn't follow the scientific method. it is that easy. A fair amount or psychology isn't clinical psychology and isn't based in any knid of empirical data.

As far as what can be done with mental programming, there are entertainers who do hypnosis shows that can do a lot of what your claiming is impossible to begin with (I've seen it). When it comes to deprogramming, that is a little more than just hypnosis, and your typical shrink isn't in a position to attempt to do it, nor would they generally talk about things like that as shrinks have trouble freaking people out to begin with. Boot Camp which you mention does involve some psychological elements, to break people down and then rebuild them as something better, but that's not full on deprogramming, which for the most part is pretty much illegal. The only time you officially see deprogramming being used is to say overcome the brainwashing certain people conditioned into cults and the like have undergone, which is not all that common (Hollywood aside). That said yes, someone with enough of a background in psychology, the time, and the opportunity, can pretty much change everything about you, and there really isn't much that can be done about it.
Then why it isn't done? Why are there still prisoners, psychopaths, sociopaths, war prisoners that refuse to talk and all those other people that aren't "deprogrammed"? Why has the military and correctional systems in such a problem to crack those people open, seeing a lot of them are held indefinitely and they have access to people with "enough of a background in psychology" and plenty of opportunities. Why is that "deprogramming" limited to cult members? Are the methods too extreme (even when there are other evidences of torture to Guantanamo Bay prisoners) to be done and breaking the amendment of cruel and unusual punishment? Why do they seem to have little success with that? Why can't they make them allies? Why can't they be reprogrammed to upstanding citizens? Why such a useful skill seems to be used so little? If it where that possible, that infallible, then it should be a discussion about making a standard practice to hypnotize, to program or deprogram people that are considered extremely dangerous. A la Clockwork Orange one could say, at least for individuals with psychosis that make them a threat to everyone and other mental disorders which may end up with several deaths which, according to you can be changed. Shouldn't there be a discussion about that, since psychology is so powerful and can be done to anyone?

We apparently aren't going to agree though, and just keep talking circles around each other, so there is little point in continueing. The bottom line is you are saying you don't believe in psychology, by denying one of the central foundations it all springs from. You are entitled to that opinion (and any opinion for that matter). I on the other hand do agree with it based on my own education and things I've seen. The central point here is that Dusty wasn't being unfair or unrealistic when you omit the bad attempt to blindly project specifics. Dusty also has very little to prove, vet, or provide citations or whatever for (nor do I) because we're again, talking common knowledge stuff here, the very foundation of an entire branch of medical science that has been around and put to use for so long that it's become pretty much indisputable, and really as time goes on, psychology is just going to find new and better ways to manipulate people and show how predictable we are. The usual reason why people deny psychology is because of some innate belief in the unique and mystical nature of humanity and the individual, call it the soul. The argument being that the existence of that special trait invalidates any effort to predict, categorize, or control human behavior and sense of self, despite all evidence and demonstration to the contrary. I on the other hand personally believe in the existence of a soul (being a Christian, albeit not a deeply spiritual one) and the validity of psychology, but that gets into an entirely different discussion which would turn philosophical and go well beyond the context of this discussion which was simply me explaining, and defending, someone else's point which I believe you were dismissing unfairly.
Euclidean geometry went undisputed for almost two thousand years, well above what psychology has been around in its current form. It was common knowledge to anyone that went to college, it had been even cited in antiquity as the defining piece of knowledge you had to have (Plato's Academy is reputed to have had the inscription "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter) and was used as the most stable piece of knowledge a human may have. The foundations of that were challenged, and proven not to be as steady as they were thought to be. Just because something is "common knowledge" is not undisputable nor shouldn't be sustained when asked to. That is just not very critical way of seeing stuff. I would say that challenging the foundations requires even more sustenance and can have a lovely debate. You don't seem to agree to that. Things can be proven beyond doubt. Too bad.

OT: Maybe this thread could be seen as proof that there isn't much overlap as you thought? half of the posts are about living in Ontario or discussing psychology, few people have come forth as BDSM or kinky and geeks. So maybe there aren't that much in a predominantly geek site that classify themselves as kinky? That could be pondered on.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Is it a thing about people in a subculture being in other subcultures?
Particularly another subculture that is stigmatised.

I'm already considered a freak, what further negative association could admitting to my other interests have? Oh noes, will I be a DOUBLE devil worshiper now?

I'm pretty sure everyone's "kinky." I just imagine some are more open about it.
 

Drathnoxis

I love the smell of card games in the morning
Legacy
Sep 23, 2010
6,023
2,235
118
Just off-screen
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Take from it what you will, but there seems to be a quite high amount of people into BDSM on this site. I think the last poll I saw on the subject of fetishes had over 30% of the Escapist being into BDSM and a majority of the replies were admitting the same.

Whether that is because BDSM is just popular in general or the attraction to it is something exclusive to the Escapist, I couldn't say.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
kurokotetsu said:
[

As far as what can be done with mental programming, there are entertainers who do hypnosis shows that can do a lot of what your claiming is impossible to begin with (I've seen it). When it comes to deprogramming, that is a little more than just hypnosis, and your typical shrink isn't in a position to attempt to do it, nor would they generally talk about things like that as shrinks have trouble freaking people out to begin with. Boot Camp which you mention does involve some psychological elements, to break people down and then rebuild them as something better, but that's not full on deprogramming, which for the most part is pretty much illegal. The only time you officially see deprogramming being used is to say overcome the brainwashing certain people conditioned into cults and the like have undergone, which is not all that common (Hollywood aside). That said yes, someone with enough of a background in psychology, the time, and the opportunity, can pretty much change everything about you, and there really isn't much that can be done about it.
Then why it isn't done? Why are there still prisoners, psychopaths, sociopaths, war prisoners that refuse to talk and all those other people that aren't "deprogrammed"? Why has the military and correctional systems in such a problem to crack those people open, seeing a lot of them are held indefinitely and they have access to people with "enough of a background in psychology" and plenty of opportunities. Why is that "deprogramming" limited to cult members? Are the methods too extreme (even when there are other evidences of torture to Guantanamo Bay prisoners) to be done and breaking the amendment of cruel and unusual punishment? Why do they seem to have little success with that? Why can't they make them allies? Why can't they be reprogrammed to upstanding citizens? Why such a useful skill seems to be used so little? If it where that possible, that infallible, then it should be a discussion about making a standard practice to hypnotize, to program or deprogram people that are considered extremely dangerous. A la Clockwork Orange one could say, at least for individuals with psychosis that make them a threat to everyone and other mental disorders which may end up with several deaths which, according to you can be changed. Shouldn't there be a discussion about that, since psychology is so powerful and can be done to anyone?

We apparently aren't going to agree though, and just keep talking circles around each other, so there is little point in continueing. The bottom line is you are saying you don't believe in psychology, by denying one of the central foundations it all springs from. You are entitled to that opinion (and any opinion for that matter). I on the other hand do agree with it based on my own education and things I've seen. The central point here is that Dusty wasn't being unfair or unrealistic when you omit the bad attempt to blindly project specifics. Dusty also has very little to prove, vet, or provide citations or whatever for (nor do I) because we're again, talking common knowledge stuff here, the very foundation of an entire branch of medical science that has been around and put to use for so long that it's become pretty much indisputable, and really as time goes on, psychology is just going to find new and better ways to manipulate people and show how predictable we are. The usual reason why people deny psychology is because of some innate belief in the unique and mystical nature of humanity and the individual, call it the soul. The argument being that the existence of that special trait invalidates any effort to predict, categorize, or control human behavior and sense of self, despite all evidence and demonstration to the contrary. I on the other hand personally believe in the existence of a soul (being a Christian, albeit not a deeply spiritual one) and the validity of psychology, but that gets into an entirely different discussion which would turn philosophical and go well beyond the context of this discussion which was simply me explaining, and defending, someone else's point which I believe you were dismissing unfairly.
Euclidean geometry went undisputed for almost two thousand years, well above what psychology has been around in its current form. It was common knowledge to anyone that went to college, it had been even cited in antiquity as the defining piece of knowledge you had to have (Plato's Academy is reputed to have had the inscription "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter) and was used as the most stable piece of knowledge a human may have. The foundations of that were challenged, and proven not to be as steady as they were thought to be. Just because something is "common knowledge" is not undisputable nor shouldn't be sustained when asked to. That is just not very critical way of seeing stuff. I would say that challenging the foundations requires even more sustenance and can have a lovely debate. You don't seem to agree to that. Things can be proven beyond doubt. Too bad.

OT: Maybe this thread could be seen as proof that there isn't much overlap as you thought? half of the posts are about living in Ontario or discussing psychology, few people have come forth as BDSM or kinky and geeks. So maybe there aren't that much in a predominantly geek site that classify themselves as kinky? That could be pondered on.

It's one of those situations where I don't exactly have textbooks handy, and while I could find examples it would involve doing a lot more research than is practical for an internet debate. This is why I've referred you to read up on the fathers of psychology (Freud, Skinner, Rogers, and maybe Jung). Especially seeing as even if I *DID* start bringing up specific ways these things were proven, it wouldn't matter much unless you understand the subject enough to get all the ramifications.

As far as using Hypnosis and Deprogramming to condition criminals and such, it represents a moral issue in terms of making people into what you want them to be. Furthermore if you simply change someone, does that really punish them for their transactions? (which of course gets into the whole concept of crime an punishment which goes beyond this debate). It's not easy to do at the moment, taking a lot of time and effort, and not something that could be done on a massive scale. However if you read much sci-fi various authors have dealt with the moral and social ramifications that arise from doing exactly that, and as a result have sort of put the question out there. Things like "A Clockwork Orange" probably wind up on so many recommended/required reading lists due to touching on these kinds of subjects. While hardly an academic work, the movie "Demolition Man" featured a cryogenic prison where prisoners were re-conditioned while they were in a deep freeze, something which in part contributed to a utopian society that had become largely unable to defend itself (which was pushing it admittedly), and the plot also involved someone using the system for doing this to instead make an imprisoned criminal even worse before releasing them.... then of course you have issues about free will and the right of people to develop, and what would potentially be lost in curing all the problems if we say used technology to invariably turn everyone into a model citizen. After all, if your going to condition criminals, why not say condition everyone and turn them into model citizens much like vaccinations, when there is no crime everyone is happier, right?

That said there are those who have actually pushed for trying to do things exactly like you say.

As far as the Gorean subculture goes, my knowledge comes from dealing with people who have been involved in it, or claimed to be. For example, back when I was on the Palladiumbooks forum years ago there was a guy from DC who was into that and actually posted a couple of pics of his girlfriend/wife and the mark he gave her if I remember. I also had some conversations with "Rana Of Gor" who was involved in one of the east coast's bigger Gorean communes through something called LIC (Long Island connection) <I think I have the names right, it's been a long time and I wasn't exactly close to them>. One of the girls I hung out with in college had her ear notched by her boyfriend as a show of love/submission after she cheated on him, but the theater guild crowd was weird. I played Magic The Gathering with them in the cafeteria with some regularity (this was at Three Rivers Community College).

Perhaps most importantly however I'm a veteran of WOG (Warriors Of Gor) which years ago was a fairly big time, invitational GOR MUD. I got invited due to doing some kinky RP as a Forsaken (basically a weird combination of GM and IC ultra bad guy) on a Wheel Of Time MUD called "Moments In Tyme". I was assigned to play Graendal as she was the one who opened up (replacing the previous player in admin due to my RP ability). At any rate WOG had all the combat and stuff you'd expect from a MUD but also had an ERP community as it's foundation, and involved people who were absolutely obsessive/compulsive about GOR (for obvious reasons). I picked up a lot of stuff there, and I believe LIC was involved in the forums to help try and arrange people meeting up IRL, but the distances were too long and it pretty much didn't happen for anyone I know of, besides as you know from the RP scene what people are in RL is oftentimes a lot different from what they present as online, and face to face meetings can thus be awkward. I had of course read Gor a lot more recently (and brushed up on it constantly) not to mention having plenty of people who spelled out what was expected from various kinds of characters.

Now, one thing I will point out that was big on WOG is that when you play "Gorean" the thing to remember is your not Tarl, Jason, or Elizabeth. Those characters were from earth, and have a somewhat alien perspective to Gor, which comes through even when Tarl is acting as Bosk and goes through his irredeemable emo phase (doing things like abandoning Elizabeth as a slave). While in a position of authority most of the time, your largely dealing with nice guys by the standards of Gor even when they seem to be brutal. Your also generally dealing with slave merchants and trainers rather than the end consumers.

One key element of Gorean slavery (which of course can't come up in RL versions) is that properly training a slave involves in part a sort of bondage/seduction thing to get them to fall in love with/need their master. The final aspect of slave trading is to basically shatter them, because basically when the slave loves you, that's when you sell them to someone else. After all as a slave owning Gorean man, a slave girl is beneath you, or anyone else, and this reaffirms it. The slave trainers won't generally abuse or mark slaves physically, but that's because they want to sell them, the end consumers on the other hand are oftentime vicious pieces of work, and in many cases will ruin and go through slaves rapidly which ensures there is always a demand. Indeed one of the reasons why Goreans travel through space to capture earth women is not just because it's so wonderful to break their spirit, but because at the rate Gor depletes it's hot babes it literally needs a steady supply from elsewhere. See, in the course of the books, if your say reading about Tarl becoming Bosk, you'll get a better picture of the big time Gorean slaver from his companion Samos (I think that was his name) who was pure Gorean.

Slaves being so worthless and disposable is also why Tarl becomes so shattered when he's taken as a slave even if he's never fully broken. That's something the sense of honor he's indoctrinated with cannot stand. What's more even after rescueing Marlaneus of Ar later on (saving his life) he's pretty much scored by perhaps his greatest friend because of what happened to him. Marlaneus also supports, but officially disowns, his own daughter when she was captured, because she was no longer a free woman and could never be again and thus even his daughter isn't worth a remote amount of respect, despite him being obligated to support her.

Some of the later books deal with a guy called Jason Marshall who is pretty much taken as a man slave by women which goes further into those aspects of things. But also gets into the concept that even dominant women are looked down on, at least in secret, and are among the favorite of men to make fall and break, as nature demands (well by Gorean standards).

The point is I know enough, and have RPed it from a number of perspectives, to put it bluntly while nobody does it "ideally" IRL, the Gorean culture is basically misogynism practiced by sadistic sociopaths. IRL people just play the role of course, but in going with the trappings it can get pretty hardcore, depending on how far you want to take it, and a lot of it comes down to how masochistic the person on the receiving end actually is of course. Chances are if your just into more general Dominant/Submissive stuff your not going to identify specifically as Gorean, which tends to imply a certain level of hardcore commitment and going a bit further than most of those casually into the movement, but that's not a definite.


One thing I will point out about the Gor books is that they start out as more or less straightforward heroic fantasy with some erotic trappings. Later they turn more into bondage books with some sword and sorcery trappings. If you haven't gotten as far as "Bosk" yet, then your really kind of missing the meat and potatoes of the whole bondage thing since that is when it takes off, and Tarl stops being as... noble and humanitarian. Arguably this was done to him on purpose to hamper those attitudes, The Priest Kings (for whom he was an agent) actually arranged for him to be taken as a slaver (by the rince fielders I believe). His buddy Samos was another agent of The Priest Kings sort of sent to keep an eye on him and ensure things went according to plan as I remember. It should also be noted part of this is also that some of the guys who enslave Tarl were former slaves themselves, which is where you start seeing more details on what people throughout Gor actually do to slaves. This is also touched upon later when they briefly introduce the "Panther Women" who are female slaves who escaped and became Amazons and have a definite vengeance vibe due to their treatment (including raping dudes before killing them). Prior to the Bosk thing and relocation to Port Karr, your actually dealing mostly with Ar which is a world power and one of the more enlightened nations in Gor overall, but understand even Ar's relatively progressive king shows himself to be kind of a jerk and how far the cultural conditioning here goes.

When it comes to the ear notching and stuff I believe the first time it winds up being mentioned is in regards to a thief girl who winds up being enslaved and winds up being part of one of Bosk's expeditions (the story where he meets The Panther Women and rescues Marlaneus if I remember, but it's been a while). However later you run into slaves who have their ears notched into rags by masters who get off on doing that to them for even minor infractions. I believe when Tarl is first captured one of the guys that did it was an "exotic" intentionally bred to have large ears, and much later you find out that particular breed of exotic was created specifically for consumers who wanted to torture/notch the ears of their playthings (more ear, means more you can cut away over a period of time).

The point here is that while my memory isn't perfect, yeah... I kind of know what I'm talking about.

It's also how I know I can be a passable writer of certain kinds of erotica and erotic horror (purely amateur of course though and I haven't stayed in practice since ERP really hasn't been my thing for a long time, I went through a phase though). :)
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Drathnoxis said:
Take from it what you will, but there seems to be a quite high amount of people into BDSM on this site. I think the last poll I saw on the subject of fetishes had over 30% of the Escapist being into BDSM and a majority of the replies were admitting the same.

Whether that is because BDSM is just popular in general or the attraction to it is something exclusive to the Escapist, I couldn't say.
While it got buried in discussions about psychology, I've mentioned before that I think we're simply in the midst of something of a sexual revolution and kinky subcultures are becoming more open and generally accepted. You see more fetish stuff in fiction and on TV, even if it's lightweight "Fifty Shades Of Gray" is a best seller, erotic fan fiction and rule 34 of everything (a lot of it quite kinky) is everywhere, and I've probably found more people in the last couple of years that have "discovered" Anne Rice's "Sleeping Beauty" series than any time since it's publican. Heck, I've even dropped a few obscure "Bondage Fairies" references in a couple of MMO groups and people knew exactly who and what I was talking about. :)

At the end of the day, I think not many people ever stuck to plain, vanilla, missionary position sex, it's just not something people talked about much. That's changing. What's more a lot of geek forums tend to be at least semi-anonymous. While my real name isn't hard to find out for example, simply casually posting here you just know me as "Therumancer" and would have no idea if you met me on the street, I'd just be another stereotypically fat gamer guy nowadays, the most distinctive thing about me is the dent in the top of my head that wound up ruining my life. My taste in porn and erotica is not something you'd pick up on, same with most people. While a lot of people like to quote Gabe's "greater internet fuckwad theory" the truth is semi-anonymity leads to much more free discussion on other topics as well.

... and before someone snipes, no, I do not express being right wing and socially conservative simply because I'm online and nobody knows who I am. I'm usually quite blunt IRL when politics come up, but at the same time I try to avoid political discussions since they tend to derail and taint everything.

The end result is that while people ARE pretty vocal on The Escapist, I think you see it everywhere. Also consider that as we're having this conversation Las Vegas (and Nevada in general) is in the middle of a growth spurt, and things like prostitution and the sex trade are becoming more open as well with pushes for wide-spread legalization (I actually expect some Indian reservations are going to want to push to start running brothels much like they did Casinos, not sure when, but when I worked for the casinos years ago there was discussion about it, part of the problem becomes implantation, especially in terms of employees who aren't tribal which is going to be most of them). On a lot of forums, not just here you see people pretty much saying there should be no laws against prostitution (my opinions aside).

I think it's the times, whether it's permanent, or a bubble that will burst is something that will come with time. Still I wouldn't be shocked if within my lifetime we start to see neighborhood bordellos and BDSM parlours operating far more publically. TV and the media will also likely tend to become more sexual rather than less.

It's also noteworthy that where they used to be obscure, a lot of porn stars have almost mainstream recognition and fame now. At the top end for example you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't know who Ron Jeremy or Jenna Jameson are (Jenna in particular is famous, not just for her own career, but also because of the way she went into production). I'd imagine 10-15 years ago pretty much the only porn stars most people could name were probably Traci Lords and Ginger Lynn Allen, and that was because of the underage scandal, and the two of them with friends with Traci apparently trying to get Ginger to back her on some stuff eventually which she didn't, but her name became associated with the case.
 

Nickolai77

New member
Apr 3, 2009
2,843
0
0
Here's my theory:

I think nerds and gamers are more likely to be open to new ideas and alternative ways of thinking. If we take Escapists to be a fairly typical nerdy community, I think most of us are quite liberal in our political views, many of us like unconventional, non-mainstream music (look at the frequent heavy metal threads) as well as watch forms of entertainment that are not understood and often stigmatised by the general population (ie, Japanese anime).

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that people of our disposition may also be inclined to unconventional sexual activities as well.
 

Quadocky

New member
Aug 30, 2012
383
0
0
All I know is that there tends to be a strong correlation for it.

I personally think it has to do more with having a privileged background, the nerdy stuff being tangential to that.