Blog Comments

To be fair, there is a lot I admire about 50 Shades. The franchise singlehandedly kept the publishing industry going. In part it was the novelty factor, but EL James touched a nerve (so to speak). I know people whose eyes were opened to new things by the books -- and some of them have even found their way onto this site. And let's not forget that she wrote the novels for fun, as fanfic, never expecting to make any money off of them. Who among us who have posted stories on this site don't harbor dreams of our work being discovered and then becoming filthy rich off of them?

I should also say that I have always loved the LOTR books and I am also a huge fan of Peter Jackson's LOTR movies (although not The Hobbit trilogy, which was a travesty).

It sounds more fun if it's two. Just think of the adventure that lies ahead.

Personally, though, i think it's three. i could imagine the conversation, "You wouldn't believe what happened at work today, Master! The nicest looking gentleman remarked on my collar ... and he called it a COLLAR! Do you think he knew???? I just panicked, and called it my necklace. Then i babbled for a while. I'm not even sure what i said. Do you think he knew????" By that time, her master was likely rolling on the floor laughing.

*grin* I vote for two, I like the visual of his hands around her neck...that should have given her a slight clue......but it sounds like she has much untold surprise fun in her future....

Delusional? As in:

she, seemingly off-balance: "Did you call it a 'paddle'? It not a paddle. Umm ... it's a blood-flow stimulator and muscle toner! My boyfriend promised to help tone me up tonight ... as well as I'm polite and remember to thank him!"

2 as well, in for a surprise

Oh, I vote 2. I think she is in for a surprise :do
*grins*

I shared a few research citations by private message. I'd be happy to post them here, but I suspect that the desire to page through the Journal of Sexual Medicine is a bit circumscribed.

You're certainly right about editors' bias against null findings. My recollection is that the original of some of the open online journals was that very factor; scholars felt that "there isn't anything observable here" was a finding that was as important as an "oooo! Look what I found!" The question becomes "what's the direction of the original hypothesis?" If the direction changes, the null changes and so does your prospects for publication. My favorite example is in the struggle to prove that having an active academic research program is good for your teaching (it isn't, particularly); there's a forty year record of scholars trying to find a way of phrasing hypotheses so as to validate their life choices and keep them from appearing to be shams in the classroom. In general, the more carefully you control for exogenous variables, the worst your prospects for validating yourself. As a result, scholars have designed (and editors have published) some awfully shaky studies that simultaneously "prove" they're good teachers and raise the prospect that they're incompetent researchers.

Sorry. Side rant.

Très nuanced name, child. Would that be from the the worshipfully speculative Honoring Sigyn end of things or the more ... uhh, visually exuberant Marvel Comics version?

And "a rebel"? How so? Anyone who has attended more than one faculty meeting recognizes how deeply committed academe is to the practices of S&m (though, admittedly, I have seen more ecstatic expressions on those strapped to a St. Andrew's Cross than on those holding the floor in a full-faculty meeting).

All the best,

S.

Hi,

I just wanted to pass along my appreciation for the level of discourse on your blog post. Nicely done and a great topic to think about!

I will admit to being a bit curious about your references (the only one I saw was the Rubin from '93), were there other peer-reviewed articles you surveyed regarding the skewed view? The one's cited in the Psychology Today piece seemed to be largely demographic in scope or focused more on psychometrics.

Also I had a couple of thoughts on your main point; one of the struggles of research in my experience is that null findings rarely get published. A journal doesn't want to print something that says "it didn't work," "no different from the general population" "no significant findings" even though these findings (in my opinion at least) are just as important. It has gotten slightly better with medical research since failed clinical trails are a rather big deal, but in the social science not so much. There are of course exceptions. Anyhow, with that in mind, I can see why there is little research contradicting some of the long held erroneous biases (considering that some of them from a medical stand point date back to the 19th century), since it would likely fall into that null box.
Should it change? Hell yeah. Will it? Gosh I hope so.

Just some thoughts from a (biased) rebel from within the ivory towers.

Originally Posted by pgaurelius

The conclusions seem a little too flattering.
Alas, I don't consider myself a high-quality, high-function male. I'm rather flawed and hopeless at many things including vanilla sexual relationships.

I do believe however that BDSM-types tend to have more creative, inquisitive and open-minded outlooks. That's the upside of being non-vanilla I guess.

It is pretty cheerful, isn't it? Two things to consider: (1) many of the positive differences are small but pretty consistent; that is, we're not vastly better communicators in our relationships, but most of us, most of the time, are somewhat better communicators than others. And (2) saying that we are, on average, "better" doesn't deny the fact that some of us are disastrously worse, some are luminously superior while most of us are just a bit ahead.

It turns out that Psychology Today is surprisingly BDSM-friendly. Several articles in recent years have looked through the available research and talked through its implications. If you've interested in looking a bit more closely, you might enjoy "BDSM, Personality and Mental Health" (2013).

With respect,

S.

The conclusions seem a little too flattering.
Alas, I don't consider myself a high-quality, high-function male. I'm rather flawed and hopeless at many things including vanilla sexual relationships.

I do believe however that BDSM-types tend to have more creative, inquisitive and open-minded outlooks. That's the upside of being non-vanilla I guess.

I am struck by the number of people in the community who view their "normal" neighbors with great sadness. I'm struck by a sense of pity for the lack of any emotional intensity, indeed of any intense experiences at all, in their lives.

There's an interesting essay (dense but thought provoking) by an American sociologist, T. J. Jackson Lears, who argues that much of the behavior by consumers in the 20th century - and many of the advertising appeals aimed at them - is therapeutic. People want to believe they're "really alive" and advertisers want them to suspect that maybe they're not, the better to sell them things.

Which is to say, there's a bigger concern that many of our "vanilla" friends might truly be trapped, aware of it but unable to imagine an escape.

Cheerily, S.

I enjoyed reading something that I believe, but have only been able to substantiate through what BDSM and especially D/s has done for me.
Of course I am privileged in having 'high-quality Males' in my life.

I often look at the people around me and think they are the strange ones, and those who are true to themselves and express that freedom in whatever way they choose, they are the 'normal' ones.

Balance, I believe is at the heart of it all. Pursuing the counterpoint is a lofty goal and one to be encouraged and applauded.

Thank you for sharing, Solis.

Master,
A friend of mine recently said something along the lines of "in order to fully give myself, I need to learn my own self-worth." I think that ties in very nicely with what you're saying here, and what i'm learning from my time with you. Again, I'll say that I'm so happy to be yours.
Love,
chipmunk

You're quite welcome, em. I'm glad you enjoyed it and appreciate your thoughtful note.

S.

thought provoking blog.. thank you solis.1
and i love the poem
em
xx

"chipmunk me?" Hmmm....

Master,
i'm so happy to see you writing in your blog, again. We'll work together to keep this love strong and thriving. Happy Valentine's Day!
i love you,
chipmunk