The origin of masochism

[jinxed]

A few weeks ago, I was lying next to a vanilla man and he tried to get me aroused by caressing me, giving me little pecks on my forehead and using light and gentle touch. Not only did it do nothing for me, it was like I didn't feel anything. So I took his hand and showed him how I need to be touched to feel something and asked him to hurt me. In less than 30 seconds my whole body was ready for more. 

Since then I have wondered about my need for p@in to get aroused. Is it down to my physical make-up as in more enduring p@in receptors or touch receptors in general? Or is it because I am emotionally so detached that only intense sensations can get through the walls? I don't have the answer, I just know that in tantric sessions with my ex husband there were moments when I really opened up to him and let go, but when he then started to touch me gently on body parts as inconspicuous as the upper arm, it felt like he was about to r@pe me, meaning that such loving touch was very much felt by my body, but in the worst way possible. 

Are there any masochists out there who have had similar experiences or are there even some experts who have looked into this topic? I'd be very curious and would love to understand this a bit better. 

[Sn****]

You're not alone. I've been looking for someone who wants to find their limits, with a person they trust. Bring held down if a gift, letting go to another.

[ba****]

The book “Hurts so Good” is helpful in trying to understand why we like *** more than others.

[To****]

I wouldn’t assume it’s simply about having more or fewer *** receptors. ***, touch and arousal are processed through a much more complicated interaction of sensory input, attention, expectation and context. The same physical sensation can feel completely different depending on what the brain associates with it.

There is also a psychological side to it. Intensity can sometimes cut through the background noise and create a much stronger sense of presence. Over time, the brain can also learn to associate certain sensations, anticipation or power dynamics with arousal.

That’s why I don’t think “I need ***” necessarily tells us what the origin is. It could be sensory, psychological, learned, or a combination of all 3.

As a Dom, I’ve learned not to assume that gentle automatically means comforting, or that *** automatically means something is wrong. What matters is understanding what that sensation actually means to the person experiencing it.

And honestly, that’s what makes masochism so interesting to me. The sensation is only one part of it. The meaning the brain gives that sensation may be the much bigger part

Hopefully I haven’t made that sound too scientific though 😄 I’m just sharing how I’ve come to understand it through experience… probably what you should do as well.

[to****]

For me I'm not really turned on until the man as long as we know and trust each other is pulling my hair and sla...ng my behind a bit to let me know he's the man and in charge of his bottom gurl!

[jinxed]

2 hours ago, barrie50380 said:

The book “Hurts so Good” is helpful in trying to understand why we like *** more than others.

Thank you for the recommendation. I read some reviews and found this quote from the book: "I have come to think of my experiences with masochism as a kind of biohacking: a way to use the electrochemistry of my body in a deliberate way for the purpose of curating a specific experience. Something about my response to *** is different, be it inborn or learned (or both, I suspect). It’s something that allows me to craft a little pocket of joy for myself, an engineered release [...]."

This still doesn't answer the question what causes anyone's need/wish for ***, but it's a very pragmatic way of looking at it. I also like the aspect of learned association as @TomWhttt has mentioned. Because if done with presence and reflection instead of the simple 'well it feels good' reasoning, I can see it as a part of a repertoire rather than a necessity. This would leave room open for more gentle touch becoming nurturing or even arousing as well which would be so amazing for some parts within! It would be a more holistic approach to intimacy. And this way, it doesn't feel anymore like an either / or situation, but an 'all the colours of the rainbow are welcome' one. Thank you for your comments! 🫶

[an****]

You're talking about conditioning and extinction protection of the familiar process.

Think of arousal as a key that fits into a lock.

The way that you get to arousal is by using whatever key works. Maybe it's a kink, maybe it's certain touch, maybe it's words, but once you repeat those patterns over and over again it becomes familiar and trusted.

Because we tend to repeat what works people are always relating kink to early trauma. However, just because it's early doesn't mean it's trauma, and just because you don't have a kink doesn't mean you didn't have trauma.

It just means that the first instance your sexual process was unlocked XYZ was present and then repeated until a habit formed.

There's so much rein***ment to that lock and key mechanism now that deviations to that setup feel unfamiliar, with uncertain outcomes or results and can create anxiety and unwant even though those actions may be more 'socially acceptable' or however you want to describe that, 'vanilla'.

Food for thought: try relearning how to ride a bike or relearning how to run or how to do a task that you have done repeatedly throughout your life.

The difficulty in trying to relearn a functional behavior for no real reason or benefit is the entire dilemma here your body doesn't know why you would need to forget this functional and efficient process. Might explain your reaction, your body was aci appalled by the idea 🤣

Similar to why addiction and repeat behaviors are so hard to break, your body just gets used to easy efficient familiar cause and effect, and a repeatable carrot and stick reward cycle.

Depending on the intensity level I would imagine it would be like trying to convince a junkie who's going through withdrawals that this hug from a family member is what they should be seeking 'now doesn't this feel nice' 😵‍💫 and the junkie just would rather be left alone and not touched if they can't get the fix that they are pre-wired to crave.

The familiar 'hurt me' is safer (in the certainty sense) than the unfamiliar 'hold me'. It's also not about 'hurt', that is just the key.

There is also nothing wrong about any of this it's merely the body gravitated towards the quickest most efficient way you found to unlock the lock, it's really that simple.

[Jester3]

Following. Would love any good book or psych reading recommendations on the topic bcs it hits home for me too.

[jinxed]

@anotherusername I love the analogy you gave. It made me laugh out loud because it's so ridiculously spot on. Thank you for this post! 

[an****]

3 hours ago, Jester3 said:

Following. Would love any good book or psych reading recommendations on the topic bcs it hits home for me too.

Start with Behave (Sapolsky) and then the Power of Habit (Duhigg). Behave has a nice Dom title for the shelf, but neither are BDSM reads, these are psyc focused.

[Sv****]

12 hours ago, anotherusername said:

Start with Behave (Sapolsky) and then the Power of Habit (Duhigg). Behave has a nice Dom title for the shelf, but neither are BDSM reads, these are psyc focused.

There are also lectures of Sapolsky on youtube from Stanford uni, where he covers big part of what’s in the book, for those who prefer listening. He’s an amazing teacher, very engaging

[Ha****]

the easiest answer is *** triggers an endorphin rush along with the release of adrenaline and dopamine you add into that that the *** and the sexual pleasure part basically sit as neighbors in your brain sometimes the signals get crossed or sometimes they just sit really close together there's many reasons why it crosses over from the two parts but what you get and is " O baby it hearts so good" then to land the whole thing *** brings you into the moment completely where your mind's not drifting and thinking of other things highly intelligent people and people with ADHD often have a hard time shutting off inner thoughts this is a way of drowning out the noise and bringing you into the present moment it could also be a learned thing when you have experienced light amount of *** along with sexual pleasure for long enough your brain interprets the two together that's the simplest version I can give you

[jinxed]

2 hours ago, Happy0ne said:

the easiest answer is *** triggers an endorphin rush along with the release of adrenaline and dopamine you add into that that the *** and the sexual pleasure part basically sit as neighbors in your brain sometimes the signals get crossed or sometimes they just sit really close together there's many reasons why it crosses over from the two parts but what you get and is " O baby it hearts so good" then to land the whole thing *** brings you into the moment completely where your mind's not drifting and thinking of other things highly intelligent people and people with ADHD often have a hard time shutting off inner thoughts this is a way of drowning out the noise and bringing you into the present moment it could also be a learned thing when you have experienced light amount of *** along with sexual pleasure for long enough your brain interprets the two together that's the simplest version I can give you

I've thought a bit about the learned behaviour / reaction idea. And I tried to remember when I first could have associated it which was when I was discovering sexual urges and went at masturbating in .. let's say interesting ways. So of course, I would have trained it right from the start. Which I just hadn't thought about for some reason. I always thought it started only once I was with another person but that's rubbish. 
However, that leaves the question why I would have gone to this behaviour straight away and I think the ADHD theory could come into play. I don't think I have ADHD but I've always been high-strung and so that would explain why I would have needed more intense impulses to get into the zone just to get through all the other neuronal activity going on at the same time. 

Thank you. It somehow helps me to understand this. So that would mean I'd have to go into ultra-relaxed states to feel light touch more intensely. Interesting. And I actually like that it has a lot to do with biology and is not only a case of "well she's f.. up in the head". 

[Jester3]

2 hours ago, jinxed said:

I've thought a bit about the learned behaviour / reaction idea. And I tried to remember when I first could have associated it which was when I was discovering sexual urges and went at masturbating in .. let's say interesting ways. So of course, I would have trained it right from the start. Which I just hadn't thought about for some reason. I always thought it started only once I was with another person but that's rubbish. 
However, that leaves the question why I would have gone to this behaviour straight away and I think the ADHD theory could come into play. I don't think I have ADHD but I've always been high-strung and so that would explain why I would have needed more intense impulses to get into the zone just to get through all the other neuronal activity going on at the same time. 

Thank you. It somehow helps me to understand this. So that would mean I'd have to go into ultra-relaxed states to feel light touch more intensely. Interesting. And I actually like that it has a lot to do with biology and is not only a case of "well she's f.. up in the head". 

Love the “high strung” analogy. Makes me curious if people often have told you that you overthink?

[jinxed]

14 minutes ago, Jester3 said:

Love the “high strung” analogy. Makes me curious if people often have told you that you overthink?

What I get a lot is being told to stop thinking so "negatively" all the time by (play) partners. Which I hate to be told  even though I understand what makes them say it. But trying to make sure you wont hurt is not negative, just perhaps overly cautious in my books and telling someone to simply stop doing something.. welll, that's just idiotic. Sorry, mini rant.

So if that counts as overthinking then yes. 

[Jester3]

I was thinking more in general, but Sounds on par and I’d say still counts

[Ha****]

I'd say that you probably went to those first experiences because you were inexperienced all you had to go off of was either porn or some kind of crazy book lol early experiences could have turned you into a premature adrenaline junkie it's sort of like me but I bet your skilled practiced and aware of risks you just think the risks are acceptable once you've trained yourself to an action you basically made yourself your own drug dealer 😂🤘 I used to be into downhill skating and skydiving a couple other dangerous activities but I was never one to take an action without thinking of the consequences and how to minimize them that states a structured mind somebody willing to practice and work out stretch all the things you need to perform that action I think you're interesting person I think it'd be nice to meet you but you're like 5000 miles away or something

[an****]

Yesterday at 09:51 AM, jinxed said:

What I get a lot is being told to stop thinking so "negatively" all the time by (play) partners. Which I hate to be told  even though I understand what makes them say it. But trying to make sure you wont hurt is not negative, just perhaps overly cautious in my books and telling someone to simply stop doing something.. welll, that's just idiotic. Sorry, mini rant.

So if that counts as overthinking then yes. 

This 'being told' happening more than once makes me think there is something worth reflecting on.

There is zero, I repeat zero, things that you have presented here in this space that resembles negativity. So, it's not your default (at least here). Your whole package projects a lot of positivity, and growing, and seeking. This comment is very much the opposite of who you are here.

It's also almost poetic because this is in reference to masochism 🤣 and adjacent would be deprecation so it should be really understandable during play or with play partners to say negative things or want to say negative things.🤦🏽‍♂️These boys need education. Be mean to this girl 🙄 she likes it. Then be nice after, know your role.

[jinxed]

As much as I'd love to fully agree with you and blame it on the play partners, I can't, because the perception of a certain (communicative) behaviour depends on the life experiences someone has had. So what I see as cautiousness in respect to trustworthiness and potential longevity of a connection can easily and understandably be seen as constant catastrophising by someone who is confronted with it.  

Plus, theoretical deliberation in a forum and actual realisation in real life can be two very different things. Unfortunately. 

[an****]

1 hour ago, jinxed said:

As much as I'd love to fully agree with you and blame it on the play partners, I can't, because the perception of a certain (communicative) behaviour depends on the life experiences someone has had. So what I see as cautiousness in respect to trustworthiness and potential longevity of a connection can easily and understandably be seen as constant catastrophising by someone who is confronted with it.  

Plus, theoretical deliberation in a forum and actual realisation in real life can be two very different things. Unfortunately. 

J, my first sentence was to self reflect, that you may not be sending mixed signals so much as realizing two different datasets.

I was not blaming anyone, simply mentioning difference in levels of language/expression. Although I do concede my finish was messy.

Then you (in the most beautiful use of language ever 🥵) detailed exactly that.

Further, curation and control are sometimes so engrained in our way of being, it becomes autonomous. That is the reflection to observe, you see it here, you detail it, it's intentional, structured, and committed. I invite you to observe your play partners experience as them.

Making an absolute assumption: I am guessing that when discussing a future or connection or what could be a possibility with a partner you may be very grounded and honest and realistic about obstacles, differences, and stats.

Also, interacting with you, I can't but imagine how crushed your play partners would be to get a good dose of reality that 'this really has no future' 🤣🤣🤣

If that's the case it's less 'catastrophizing' and more 'but hope' 🥺

[jinxed]

"I invite you to observe your play partners experience as them."

Could you please explain this a bit more? 

In respect to your assumptions, you know the saying, right? Honest and potentially realistic, yes. Grounded.. mhh not sooo much at times, I'm afraid. When you're a 'pocket rocket' as a friend called me the other day, groundedness doesn't come natural. 

Edited August 19 by jinxed

[an****]

How dare you make my hypothetical less hypothetical 🤣

I specifically gave you the benefit of the doubt, that maybe what your partners call catastrophizing is actually you being grounded, realistic, and willing to articulate unpleasant conclusions, and them not being able to handle the 'pending doom' of losing you. Basically being an a-hole because you say it's not going to work long term.

But you say this is not the case, I will move on.

"Please explain", this ties to my assumption, but I will explain. I was inviting you to temporarily stop concluding that your interpretation is correct and to 'blank slate' what interacting with you feels like from the other person's position. Basically how else could what I say or do be taken, how might that be affecting return reactions/actions.

Also, rude 🤣 I'm not bashing you, no need for personal attacks. Yes, I know the saying.

Furthermore, the assumption is a common thing for intelligent and honest people. I am talking about the possibility, that your honesty could come across as an attack and create unintentional hurt egos, resulting in partner defense, such as, you being a/the problem or somehow discounting you as a person or diminishing yor worth to correct some sort of presumed attack. Then the follow on of you potentially believing their words as guidance and growth. Then you have more ammunition for why it won't work 🤣 and they potentially create the spiral you never started yet blame you for it and you are like "well damn, maybe I am the problem".

'Pocket Rocket' I am going to err on this being a joke or some poke you enjoy, but it immediately ***ed me off (based on who you present here), maybe your IRL is a lot more callous and rude, here you present very soft even your profile picture welcomes care and nurturing and wholesomeness, but again this is the internet and I'm just another user name.

[jinxed]

17 hours ago, anotherusername said:

How dare you make my hypothetical less hypothetical 🤣

I specifically gave you the benefit of the doubt, that maybe what your partners call catastrophizing is actually you being grounded, realistic, and willing to articulate unpleasant conclusions, and them not being able to handle the 'pending doom' of losing you. Basically being an a-hole because you say it's not going to work long term.

But you say this is not the case, I will move on.

"Please explain", this ties to my assumption, but I will explain. I was inviting you to temporarily stop concluding that your interpretation is correct and to 'blank slate' what interacting with you feels like from the other person's position. Basically how else could what I say or do be taken, how might that be affecting return reactions/actions.

Also, rude 🤣 I'm not bashing you, no need for personal attacks. Yes, I know the saying.

Furthermore, the assumption is a common thing for intelligent and honest people. I am talking about the possibility, that your honesty could come across as an attack and create unintentional hurt egos, resulting in partner defense, such as, you being a/the problem or somehow discounting you as a person or diminishing yor worth to correct some sort of presumed attack. Then the follow on of you potentially believing their words as guidance and growth. Then you have more ammunition for why it won't work 🤣 and they potentially create the spiral you never started yet blame you for it and you are like "well damn, maybe I am the problem".

'Pocket Rocket' I am going to err on this being a joke or some poke you enjoy, but it immediately ***ed me off (based on who you present here), maybe your IRL is a lot more callous and rude, here you present very soft even your profile picture welcomes care and nurturing and wholesomeness, but again this is the internet and I'm just another user name.

You bring up two aspects that would be worth their own thread, albeit not necessarily in a kink forum. For one, there is the tendency of some people to develop a self-image in which they are incompatible with just about anyone because of their issues. I believe it is easy to fall into such self-blame if at some point in your life you struggle with trusting/opening up etc. and lack strategies to regulate consequential emotional upheaval. If overreacting repeatedly leads to others (understandably) calling you on it and blaming you for a connection not being able to thrive, this might become part of your internal dialogue even once regulatory techniques have been acquired. However, by now I am of the opinion that it ALWAYS takes two to tango. Yes, working on your issues is highly recommendable, but no, you don't need to be able to accommodate absolutely everyone. 

Secondly, the difference between presenting yourself on here vs. IRL has several layers to it. Many times I have read people on here saying how they are for example very dominant in their real lives but on here can show their more *** subservient side. And we all know about the many different masks we wear during any given day when interacting with colleagues, friends, strangers, ... Almost all of my (play) partners have told me that when we met, I 'pretended' to be this tough cookie when 'in fact' I was so delicate and sensitive. I use quotation marks because I don't believe that people are either / or but both, depending on the situation. 

Finally, no attack was intended.  I appreciate your input far too much to react to it with rudeness. Just a bit of teasing, but I apologise if it felt anything but. 

[an****]

Fair. Your points are solid, particularly that it always takes two and that none of us present exactly the same across every environment or relationship. The 'it depends' also cleanly ties into the original topic questions.

Interestingly, I’m rereading Behave, and Chapter 9 is just getting into how the same genetic variants in people can push behavior one direction in one environment, have essentially no effect in another, or even push it the opposite direction depending on the other variables at play. Makes the whole 'it depends' feel remarkably precise rather than being vague at all. 🤣 Also, ties to the topic.

As a 'loop closer', the 'it depends' you and Sapolsky are detailing here and in his book is wildly interesting and simultaneously terrifying. It adds so many more layers to understanding the flow in and out of the depending factors, but also adds so much more significance and weight to recognizing individual experience differences, because the differences are happening starting at the molecular level and flowing into a Plinko board of life experience.

I agree with what you said. We are not just different, we are different in every situation.

And no apology needed, I took it as teasing. 😝 I appreciate the sentiment.

[Al****]

Oh gosh babe ur sooo gorgeous I would loooove meet XXX