BDSM and Evolution

“BDSM and Evolution” is part of the series on BDSM and philosophy

Introduction

Imagine two chimps playing a BDSM scene; vines all around, plenty of shrieking and no intimate shaving of course. Yucky, where did that banana go? And did that chimp just pull that female from the tree and had uncontrolled and unashamed public monkey sex?

Fun aside … this is no recommendation for a special ‘Planet of the Apes’ edition, nor a plea for bestiality. Rather in this blog entry on BDSM and evolution we shall – partly - look at what evolution theory has to say with regard to sexuality and in particular the kinky versions of it that we all like so much. As there are no textbooks here, it’s a jungle to discover. Follow me into the wild ...

Is BDSM offering evolutionary benefits?

Yes, a challenging question indeed and I honestly admit that it took me a while to come up with this one. On top of that, answering it will take some time - as an explanation will be notoriously difficult. Perhaps you better think about it for yourself first and see where your conclusions lead you. It will be interesting to watch how you will answer the question and how others will.

In the previous blog we have seen that inside of the leather scene we meet with people that carry around very different kinds of worldview. Their answers may vary from religiously coloured gloom to strict Darwinian atheism and everything in between; together reflecting the multi-faceted richness of diversity that is to be found in our sub-culture and which we see mirrored in our collective behaviour and attitudes.

In the previous post, I deliberately withheld from judging these mentioned worldviews, all may it be obvious that The Clothed Lie does not advocate any of the sex-negative versions. Nevertheless, whatever stance you might take on BDSM, the underlying principles of your worldview will have a profound effect on how you regard it; this not only concerns how you rationally understand BDSM, but particularly on how you emotionally experience BDSM activities. As it seems, worldviews are not mere conceptual regulations, but also denote for many of our actual limits.

The original man

As any theory about evolutionary beliefs in some way or another has to deal with religious beliefs, the view on science and the effects thereof on our worldview, it will be good to consider that when trying to answer our question, it is not a matter of proof for one theory or the other, but rather about finding a comprehensible explanation for facts, sexual behaviour and natural reproduction in our history.

Imagine that it is only about 5000 years ago that humanity – in Sumer, Egypt and China - started to write down history or that what they believed in to be history. Coming from a culture of story telling, it was of course known that every one told the same story in its own individual way and even when people were trained in memorizing what they had learned, the traditions that early writings refer to may or may not be accurate; but it is all we have. In such cases it of course comes in handy if you have a deity at hand to back up your side of the story.

Anyway, what can we expect from ancient writings with regard to people whose sexual orientation is not mainstream? Particularly when we take into account that such persons could easily have been exposed to risks to their physical, emotional, economical and social health, mainly because of (religious) stigmatization.

Precisely from such condemning, we find evidence that alternate sexuality seemed to have been a part of human sexual behaviour for a long period of time now. Self-awareness of sexual orientation commonly occurs during adolescence. This is not a position in which one has the guts to swim against the stream and it is therefore likely that the whole practise of alternate sexuality like fetish, BDSM or LGBTQ occurred underground, as our sexual urges always seeks a way to get manifested or converted. In view of that, experts claim that according to available documents, alternative sexuality has always been part of human culture¹ and is not a mental disorder, but a genuine expression of sexual need.^2,3

But this beside – let’s get back to the original question regarding evolutionary benefits; even when sexual alternative behaviour has been part of humanity for as long as we can trace it; why is it like that?

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. It is unlikely to find an answer on the why question, as we shall hardly find a common ground on what explanation is true, and to avoid philosophical and theological arguments regarding the why, we simply accept that obviously alternative sexual activity is a part of human behaviour, a component of our cultural development and perhaps even of our gene-pool – irrespective of how we personally - or as a group - value such behaviour.

Power exchange

Perhaps we take a few steps together to see if we can discover traces of ‘natural behaviour’ in our kink. One typical BDSM characteristic – and the one that is often mentioned in literature - is the so called ‘power exchange’, in which two or more people accept to change the power dynamics that are inherent to their relation. The top ‘gains’ (functional) power, the bottom ‘looses’ (e.g. refrains from) power, but all by an act of choice. Particularly this choice sets it apart from normal power struggles.

And at least following the lead of someone else – or being followed - seems a natural thing to happen, in a way it almost represents a natural order; following the strong protector, leading the less knowledgeable, so no harm comes to them. Exchange of power comes with benefits within a genetic group, even when the survival of the fittest often shows real brutality between rivals for the same resources.

From this point of view we might not see the behaviour of groups as representative for humanity as a whole or even all of nature, despite having overlaps.

Many Lovers

In nature polyamory relationships seem to be a very common thing (with the monoga-mouse being the notorious exception); the alpha male and -female lead the pack animals and the alpha male does all the ‘pleasant work’ like mating all his mates and consuming the prey. Consequently, in order to be able to mate with any female at all, younger males must stand up to the alphas and (figuratively) risk their ass.

Luckily humanity has evolved for the most of it – however, dumb animals still rape women in busses (India) or on public squares (Egypt), while celebrating their ‘freedoms’ or ‘superiority’. Homo Homini Lupis.

Natural domination?

Funnily enough, some social Darwinists regard the ‘survival of the strongest’ as the most significant trait of evolvement. Such theories appear to justify what we in the BDSM scene reject as non-consensual actions. This side or interpretation of Darwinism is particularly emphasised by religious opponents as it seems to promote the primitive ‘animal’ inside of us. Sexual promiscuity is then seen as non-natural and idolatrous, egoistically directed at oneself, derived from love. The sophisticated view is then of course that vision that is founded on religious belief and not primarily on scientific evidence which we find in evolutionary biology.

Fact is however that - just as biological development - ethical development is typical for our species as well. The protection of the weak in our kin is natural behaviour in order to protect the preciously selected gene-pool. More and more the non-physical, mental properties are displaying dominance. This seems to correlate with our increasing intelligence.

Nonetheless, one could argue, that at least on a subconscious level, the need to dominate or being submitted can reflect the wish to mate. In order to distinguish between plain sex and BDSM we should acknowledge that hard, raw or even violent sex can indeed express the primal need for reproduction, yet, the jungle of mating rituals makes clear that natural selection is not the same as sexual selection.

The choice of whom we mate with, make love to, have sex with is based on criteria that help us select the sexually most attractive person. The longer we live, the less prominent the need for simple reproduction will be and – in case of human sexuality – the more prominent will the rituals get; as females have more parental investment, they factually make the choice while males compete more intensely for access to women.

For vanilla relations I regard the ritual of romantic courtship by the (dominant?) male as the attempt to convince the (submissive?) female that he is the best choice for her. BDSM is of course also very ritualistic, but the courting part is reduced to negotiation of already available wishes. Often power exchange is the only goal, not reproduction, even when a good scene can make us really hot and a sexual encounter becomes the natural next step.

As such, BDSM is part of our sexual road map on which matters of sexual selection may play a role, but where its role play, rituals and praxis are not necessarily in line with (romantic) courtship, but rather express functionality that is higher as the mere biological exchange of genes. And - as we are on the explanatory line anyway - let’s just assume for a while that BDSM is an expression of mating behaviour; what does this mean? It seems to suggest that dominant females/submissive males reflect the natural power of females in choosing mates; where as the aggressive male topping rituals seem to reflect the wish to take the females away from the competition and to claim them for individual use.

It will not be hard to understand that seeing domination in this light lets it also apply to non-kink mating. It is the consensual play with power in a sexual context that sets BDSM apart, the evolutionary impulses from our genes we all have in common.

Sexual behaviour for what?

As indicated above, natural selection is something else as sexual selection. There is research indicating that sexual behaviour as such, was not necessarily a development triggered by the need for reproduction.^4,5 In other words; sex (as activity) did not evolve because of reproduction – as there are many other ways to reproduce – but for the re-combining of our DNA. As with the mating rituals, humanity seeks many forms of sexual activity that are not about reproduction. E.g. love making in same-sex relations or masturbation as sex-on-one, come to mind. Sexuality became associated with more socializing goals, such as increasing the bond between partners or as genuine expression of emotions of love and fondness or the need for intimacy. Very typical in this way is postponing the orgasm in order to share a common one – or a few ones.

Perhaps it is also in this more social area of human sexual behaviour that the differences between sex and gender evolved, as when reproduction is not the only driving force behind sexuality, the actual sex does no longer play a primary role. In this light it may also be striking that in many BDSM scenes, we remain from sexual intercourse, as our goal is not to reproduce, but to enjoy other alternate forms of sexually charged behaviour.

With regard to role definition, body size and other characteristics, there would be much more to say, but currently I see no specific indicator for their relevance to our BDSM quest. The blog is getting too long anyway …

Conclusion

Well, as with many topics we sometimes wish to write about or try out in our dungeon, we run the risk of getting into area’s that are new. This is a normal and good thing; as from the new we can learn and adapt. We can also err and perhaps in this blog I actually did make proposals that will later on turn out to be misplaced; well, that is the nature of exploration and I simply took the liberty to think loud and share this with you. Not in order to give you all the answers - but perhaps some – or to proof something, but to investigate a topic in order to find out in what way evolutionary evolvement can be relevant to our kinky disposition and our understanding thereof.

Sir Cameron thus hopes that this current blog will encourage you to do some google-ing yourself and to give you something to think about.

Enjoy – Sir Cameron

__________

1. Friedman RC, Downey JI. Homosexuality. N Engl J Med. 1994; 33: 923– 930.

2. Rowlett JD, Patel D, Greydanus DE. Homosexuality. In: Greydanus DE, Wolraich ML, eds., Behavioral Pediatrics. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag;1992:37–54.

3. Savin-Williams RC. Theoretical perspectives accounting for adolescent homosexuality. J Adolesc Health Care.1988;9 :95– 104.

4. Gregory G. Dimijian. Evolution of sexuality: biology and behaviour. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2005 July; 18(3): 244–258.

5.  Schuiling GA. On sexual behavior and sex-role reversal. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Sep;26(3):217-23.