BDSM changes your brain

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/hooked_up_and_tied_down_the_neurological_consequences_of_sadomasochism

….In The Brain That Changes Itself, psychiatrist Norman Doidge summarizes research on the neurobiological aspects of sexual development. He writes: “The human libido is not a hardwired, invariable biological urge but can be curiously fickle, easily altered by our psychology and the history of our sexual encounters,” and he goes on to conclude: “Sexual taste is obviously influenced by culture and experience and is often acquired and then wired into the brain.”

Examples of cultural pushes into fetish/unnatural sex: spanking from public schoolboys in the 19th century, oral during the 50/60s with the pressure to perform for a boyfriend before marriage, and most harmful of the three from an STD perspective, nature’s petri dish anal ‘sex’ since the 90s promotion of the ‘gay lifestyle’.

With BDSM, the story of the brain gets even more complicated. Here, a person is not just forming neural networks or brain maps in the areas of the brain responsible for sexual interest, sexual arousal, sexual climax, and so on. With BDSM, a person is fusing distinct neural networks that were meant to operate separately…..

I am awed and cowed by sublime perfection.

Whenever a feminist tries the “don’t knock it until you’ve tried it” lie/line of “pushing boundaries”, “exploring oneself” and “there are no limits, it’s harmless”, bear this type of research in mind. You know, science. Medicine.

Human beings have neural networks related to sexual behavior, and these are shaped in subtle ways by our sexual experiences. We have separate neural networks related to anger and aggression, and these are shaped and strengthened when people engage in violent or domineering behaviors. We have still more separate brain maps for fear and anxiety, which are shaped and reinforced by frightening or anxiety-provoking experiences.

If you think about these three emotional experiences—sexual arousal, aggression, and fear—they are typically quite distinct emotional experiences. There is some overlap between them in terms of physical or bodily response: all three, for example, involve increases in heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure, because all three involve activation of the sympathetic nervous system. And yet, for most healthy individuals, sexual arousal, aggression, and fear remain distinct emotional, cognitive, and physical experiences. This is, I will suggest, a good and healthy thing.

You shouldn’t need a further high from Nature’s own ultimate high.

So these neural networks and these experiences normally remain distinct—unless our experiences begin to fuse them together. When this fusion happens, the brain gets confused…

Article: Liberal Sex Education and Rational Opposition

article here;

Sexual Education is often a go-to topic used by liberals to attack conservatives as being unreasonable and uneducated. The cliché of the sexually lacking ignorant Christian opposition is well known. It is equally accepted as truth that people, in general, were repressed and unhappy until liberal sexual liberation flooded the cultural mindset and freed them all. The argument over abstinence – only education implies that the only choice parents have is to accept whatever sexual education is presented or hope their kids don’t have sex. The problem, however, is not in the nature of sexual education, but the agenda behind it.

In a piece mocking conservative opposition to sexual education beginning in kindergarten, Thinkprogress.org defended the program stating, “…students will receive age-appropriate information about wellness, anatomy, puberty, and sexual health that’s tailored for every grade.” This is used to demonstrate that clearly conservatives are being irrational about the whole thing. Why would anyone oppose discussing wellness, puberty and sexual health that are “appropriate” for each grade? What does modern psychology think appropriate is? Psychology Today, in an article titled Is Your Child’s Sexual Behavior Normal? states, “…the vast majority of children, from a young age, derive enjoyment from genital manipulation… As long as children are nurtured through this time and taught to cherish their sexuality without flaunting or exposing it indiscriminately, it can be a healthy experience for the child.” Stopitnow.org, a website reporting to prevent sexual abuse of children, openly discusses children under age 5 enjoying sexual activity with peers.

The same Psychology Today magazine defines pedophilia as a combination of abnormal sex hormones and possibly experiencing sexual abuse as a child. It even implies witnessing sexuality may cause the potential pedophile to imitate. It opines, “The prognosis for pedophilia is difficult to determine. For pedophiles, these longstanding sexual fantasies about children can be very difficult to change.” At no point does the liberal mindset behind both concepts connect the dots to see how aggressively asserting children hold valid and equal – to – adult standards of sexuality and pedophilia could be associated.

As Breeanne Howe discusses in an article, Planned Parenthood recently engaged in discussing Sadomasochism, bondage and other “kinky sex” with a young girl. While there has been outrage over this specific and controversial event, in general liberalism has no moral opposition to the concept. Writing in 2012 about the book Fifty Shades of Grey, Debby Herbenick, a sexual health educator at the Kinsey Institute, defended BDSM(Bondage/Discipline/Dominance/Submission/Sadism/Masochism) stating: “Like many, many other sexual behaviors, BDSM is part of a normative sexual experience that feels healthy and enjoyable to many people[.]”

Dan Savage, a well-known liberal sex advice columnist tweeted in response to Breeanne Howe’s post: “@breeannehowe seeking out kinky sex in the absence of info about consent, reality vs. fantasy, etc. That can have disastrous consequences.” and  “Some young people are into BDSM. Shouldn’t they have access to info about safe BDSM practices?” Just as Richard Dawkins stated in 2013 that his own sexual contact with an adult when he was a child was not harmful [DS: ???!] and described the perpetrator as expressing “mild pedophilia”, Savage tweets in defense of Planned Parenthood stating: “…some kids are kinky. If you talked to kinksters you would hear from kids who were tying themselves up at 13…” [DS: No. Anecdotes aren’t evidence either.]

The driving issue is not whether adults should participate in BDSM or if it is right or wrong. It is ironic that the “rape culture” obsessed left would be so enthusiastic about sexual practices that are driven by the domination and intentional application of pain to the sexual partner often involving violent and humiliating actions. But, as in all consensual sexual activity, freedom does not restrict this with adults. The underlying problem is that the acceptance of this activity as being part of adult sexuality is not enough for liberal thinkers. Because liberals focus on “educating” adults on the possibilities of sexuality, they assume dominion over children in the same area. This is what conservatives oppose.

Sexual education is always described as teaching kids about their bodies, diseases, protection and healthy sexuality, but as we can see liberals define those terms differently than an average person might. The agenda liberalism promotes is the idea that sexuality is fluid, amoral and absolutely natural in all of its forms. Children experience sexuality early and should be taught to embrace it fully without question. Parents should encourage exploration and as long as everyone is fully knowledgeable and protected the experiences thereafter will be wonderful and healthy. To deny children access to this is to set them up for dangerous experimentation, exploitation and emotional damage. The assumption is that because liberal thinking people view the world exclusively through sexuality, all people do and therefore everyone must be provided the fullest access to liberal sexual theory as an absolute.

The key piece that is missing, however, is personal responsibility. Where is the individual in all of this? Are we purely driven by various sexual impulses that can only be expressed through mindless action? Assuming every single theory on sexual development by liberal psychology is true, why are we bound to it? Liberalism seems to define itself by its lack of control over its environment.  In order to survive one must be surrounded by warnings, labels, education, protections and emotional support.  There is simply no concept that a person can choose differently.

Underlying the belief of child sexuality, pedophilia, and teenagers engaging in BDSM is that they simply have no other option available to them and must simply do the best with what they have been programmed with. Sexual education has always been driven by the demand that “kids will have sex anyway!”  In 2011 the Heritage Foundation linked to an article about teen sexual behavior stating: “The toll that early sexual activity takes on youths’ physical and emotional well-being and the association of abstinence with greater academic achievement all signal the importance of promoting the upward trend of abstinence through family, community, and public policy.” It also concluded that “…numerous studies have documented the impact that parents can have on their children’s sexual behavior. Youths whose parents discuss the consequences of sexual activity and monitor them more closely are less likely to be sexually active, and teens who feel that their parents would strongly disapprove of their becoming sexually active are less likely to contract a sexually transmitted infection.”

It is important to recognize that if a young person respects themselves and is actively building their future they are less likely to take risks or allow themselves to be devalued. Abstinence is not about denying a person sexuality, it is about empowering a person to choose sexuality with purpose. We are free to explore sexuality as we choose, but why can’t that include experiencing sex in a meaningful or spiritual way? Young people have the opportunity to define their entire lives based on how they view themselves in the present. Why do we assume sexuality is the only lens they have available to them? [Control.] Conservatives do not oppose sexual education, they just simply do not want their children, or children in general, exposed to the liberal version of it. Young people deserve to be more than the sum of their sexual impulses.”

Deny the teen pregnancy rate.
If you get ’em young, they’ll vote in welfare checks. Or consequence-free abortions. Abortions aren’t factored into pregnancy stats because then it’s too obvious.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9497270/Sex-education-doesnt-cut-teen-pregnancy-rate-claims-academic.html

 

Joss Whedon is into femme BDSM and other Issues

Every project includes a minimum of one female of precise Type, shoehorned in no matter how much it jars. Preferably, the entire project and plot is shaped around them and their humiliation (physical and verbal) of the men. Let’s go through a few character profiles and see if you spot a pattern. Or skip to the bolded conclusion at the end.

Yes, that is a whip.

Yes, that is a whip.

spoilers ahoy, duh

Buffy – the prototype plot

virginal schoolgirl (alarm bells should be ringing) develops special powers and uses them to beat up men (evil vampires) every night

She sLAYS them

She sLAYS them

She has a gang of orbiters including a lesbian and a sexy father figure character whose title is Watcher. For her. Out of every girl in the world. She defends her lovers when she acquires them as if she were a jock with ‘roid rage.

You don't own him, he isn't a puppy.

You don’t own him, he isn’t a puppy.

She discovers some vampires can be good (in bed) and spares them until she finds something better and they leave town on her orders. She saves the world multiple times despite being a complete ditz with emotional instability issues and has a literal death wish. She chooses to die to protect the world and runs her mouth for entire episodes on how she wished she had stayed dead. This happens twice.

Zombie Jesus: Feminist Edition.

Zombie Jesus: Feminist Edition.

There’s even an entire musical number on it. It is psychologically disturbed. Naturally, she beats up demonic entities, who all happen to be male. All the evil guys are male, ever. Spoiler: Any female evil isn’t really evil, she was forced or misled or is doing it for a secretly noble reason. I’m being serious, those are the plots of Whedon stories. He can’t even get Monster of the Week right.

It’s times like this I feel the Borderline Personality criteria were based on this type of crazy bitch. One episode, she’s in an asylum. Prima role model.

Sure, great characters.

Sure, he’s a ‘genius’.

Now you have the gist plot-wise and the appeal to loser men and feminists, his female characters and co. display…

Arrogance

And the fans wonder why Firefly was cancelled.

And the fans wonder why Firefly was cancelled with hipster dialogue like that.

Superhuman Power

TK is sexy now. As are death threats?

TK is sexy now. As are death threats?

Sexualized Baby Talk

And she's one of the best characters, trust.

And she’s one of the best characters, trust.

Leader, minus the dirty work

You can tell she's cool because she's got kooky hair.

You can tell she’s cool because she’s got kooky hair.

Sexually dominant female

Notice she's of questionable race, vaguely Asian for the fetishist in the target male demo!

Notice she’s of questionable race, vaguely Asian for the hentai fetishist in the target male demo! Plus spaceships!

Body part humour

This is where hipsters picked up their ironic sense of humour.

Is this musical intended for adults? This is where hipsters picked up their ironic sense of humour.

Disrespectful Attitude towards men, as a good thing

Why did no one slap her in this scene? Just tying her to a chair. No actual beating, like every male counterpart?

Why did no one torture her in this scene? Just tying her to a chair. No actual beating, like every male counterpart in an interrogation ?

Never gets hurt

This scene made no sense.

This scene made no sense.

Of course, search all you please for other examples of Girl Power in Whedon’s work (i.e. women fucking over/fighting men and always metaphorically winning) but you’ll notice the Strong Female Character wins in the literal sense too. Black Widow closed the portal in Avengers preventing further invasion (Freudian vagina joke?), Stark’s sacrifice meant nothing to the plot (one pump chump?). Snuck that one past the fanboys, didn’t he?

like I believe that tosh

Stop asking awkward questions.

Stop asking the awkward sex question.

I theorize this exertion of domination over men enjoyed by the beta/below demo of his works are a means of projecting the alpha qualities they subconsciously wish they had themselves and rationalizing them as a sexual release. Psychologically, it makes sense and explains why certain Modern Males like “bitches”. They’ve been trained to.