1. The sunk cost fallacy: Meaning the more you “invest” in something (time, money etc) the more valuable you believe it is.
2. Our brain is our most important sexual organ: Meaning that the better you believe sex is the better it is.
So, because you went through pain/humiliation/etc to get that orgasm, you believe that orgasm will be better and because of how the brain works, the more enjoyable you think your orgasm is going to be the more enjoyable it will be.
Tops may enjoy it in part because A: they’re reflecting their partner’s heightened (sunk cost fallacy) based enjoyment, B: May be experiencing some sunk cost fallacy enjoyment of their own because BDSM is complicated and they had to learn skills, and quite possibly purchase equipment to do it properly, and go through the mental effort of planning the scene
Um, what?
A: You act like sex is just a build up to an orgasm. What about the large percentage of the population who rarely orgasm during sex yet still enjoy it? Or just people who do orgasm most of the time yet still enjoy the rest of it equally or more?
B: This is a really unnecessarily complicated explanation. I mean, it hinges on a comparison between bdsm and capitalism without any mention of why those two things are in any way similar. Wouldn’t it be much simpler to just accept that people like BDSM because we actually enjoy it? Or for the more nuanced explanation refer to people who can speak from personal experience?
If this was true, I wouldn’t get aroused while reading fucked up shit where other people are being humiliated. Like, I’ll read a news article about someone being publicly shamed and get horny.
1. The sunk cost fallacy: Meaning the more you “invest” in something (time, money etc) the more valuable you believe it is.
2. Our brain is our most important sexual organ: Meaning that the better you believe sex is the better it is.
So, because you went through pain/humiliation/etc to get that orgasm, you believe that orgasm will be better and because of how the brain works, the more enjoyable you think your orgasm is going to be the more enjoyable it will be.
Tops may enjoy it in part because A: they’re reflecting their partner’s heightened (sunk cost fallacy) based enjoyment, B: May be experiencing some sunk cost fallacy enjoyment of their own because BDSM is complicated and they had to learn skills, and quite possibly purchase equipment to do it properly, and go through the mental effort of planning the scene
Um, what?
A: You act like sex is just a build up to an orgasm. What about the large percentage of the population who rarely orgasm during sex yet still enjoy it? Or just people who do orgasm most of the time yet still enjoy the rest of it equally or more?
B: This is a really unnecessarily complicated explanation. I mean, it hinges on a comparison between bdsm and capitalism without any mention of why those two things are in any way similar. Wouldn’t it be much simpler to just accept that people like BDSM because we actually enjoy it? Or for the more nuanced explanation refer to people who can speak from personal experience?
If this was true, I wouldn’t get aroused while reading fucked up shit where other people are being humiliated. Like, I’ll read a news article about someone being publicly shamed and get horny.
The fact that people don’t know I’m a sub and are offended by this mostly for funsies little logic chain is weird, like I’m aware of the adrenaline/endorphin rush physiological shit, I’ve talked at length about it arguing with antikink feminists, and other more nuanced shit. I’ve talked at length about being a submissive, posts about which some of you have reblogged. Wtf?
. Also the sunk cost fallacy predates capitalism
I’m just saying I disagree with you?
I’m saying I don’t even agree with me but isn’t this explanation entertaining in its relating of three ideas that had previously been unconnected, just like when Chuck Klosterman relates football with technological innovation or soccer’s failure to become popular in America with American aversion to failure in aspects of its culture, it’s the chain of connecting A to B is the point, a sort of magic trick of conceptual association, accuracy isn’t the point, finding a way to connect unrelated ideas in an interesting way is
The pat tidiness of these unsupported loops of conceptual connection is something I find intensely personally satisfying. It’s like how reading Freudian analyses of art is really fun and interesting to think about but also in most cases almost certainly wrong.
Thoughts From The Peacock Angel 