Why we are the way we are

Have you ever thought about why we are the way we are, you know like the things we like .I have a kink for almost every thing out there and sometimes I have to just sit back and think how Much better off we would be without some of our kinks.

For me it's just I have all these kinks but my wife shares almost none of them she will give me an enema or supps every now and then but if it comes to spanking she can talk a mean game but when it comes to game time it never happens . There are sum things she just won't do and I can respect that . Just wondering if any one else is in the seame boat?

Brad, I see you've been on zity for 2 years. I think if you've read many of the posts as I assume you have you are finding that your question of "Why we are" is one of the primary reasons that many of us are on zity or have been on other sites or chatrooms before zity came along. Many of us have partners or SOs that we wish had the same interests we do and we find no matter how we encourage them that we can't get there. Zity offers us a chance to communicate openly about our needs and interests and in some ways for many of us that helps to satisfy the cravings and also helps us accept that our partners are what they are, and we aren't likely going to change them. For those that are interested in making outside ventures it also offers a rather safe way to make contacts with someone that may satisfy the needs. Living a lifetime having a kink of some sort is challenging without a doubt. I'm guessing that probably half the world has some kink hidden inside of them that they never ever let out due to the potential risks, but they keep on going. At least we have a wonderful source of accepting people that allow you to ask the very question that you did and understand why you ask it. I wish you well! And maybe your wife will learn how to swing the prison strap? Bend over!

It's a constant puzzle that no one person can satisfactorily answer. We all have in born hard-wired tendencies which are individual to us and then life events and experiences which affect us in completely different ways. With that number of variables it's hardly surprising that those inner desires which we keep hidden don't always match the partner closest to use. Amazingly lucky if your 'kinks' fit together like two jigsaw pieces. Hence, fantastic that on Zity there's usually someone who genuinely fits the bill -and technology let's us befriend them! Enjoy what you can!

I have spent lots of time wondering why I am the way I am. I do know that my interests started as early as elementary age. Several theories but no hard evidence. The facts are that it has made relationships extremely hard and that it has probably cost me countless amounts of money due to time spent on internet searching for whatever interest instead of working or furthering my career. But also has provided lots of good times too... keeping fingers crossed that I will eventually find that perfect partner😃

I think the important thing is to accept the fact that 'we are as we are'! At least through wonderful sites like this we realize that we are not alone!

How much better off would we be without your kinks ? It's not a question of that. The multi part question is whether or not you can live without your kinks being fulfilled, or find someone who can fulfill them, whether it can be done discreetly, or would it have to compromise your marriage.

There is no one answer... I was spanked growing up... I have a spanking fetish... I know many people with a spanking fetish who never were spanked as a child... I did not find my Dad particularly attractive nor did I in anyway enjoy my childhood discipline other than a good cry over Dad's knee did make you feel better.

We are what we are because of things that happened earlier in our lifes some good some bad but yes it does put a mark on us sometimes i wonder how it would of turned out if these things didnt happen

Its the age old question of nature VS nurture...

@itsameah My first psychology class my freshman year of college we talked about how the "nature vs nurture" debate is old that it isn't one or the other it is both nature and nuture. Genetics have an effect on your environment and your environment can affect your genetics. For example, a temperament of someone more distant in a relationship may not be as close to their partner because of their attachment as a baby, child, teenage relationships can all affect romantic relationships and relationships in general. The four types of attachment in a child are secure, disorganized, avoidant, and ambivalent.

It is true that nature and nurture play a role BUT the age at which certain characteristics become expressed are definitely based on one or the other.

For example characteristics like intelligence and confidence are genetic. Toddlers who teach themselves to read by following a Gilbert and Sullivan libretto when they are three years old (my husband--he has very bright parents) or have the confidence and desire to learn things like gymnastics (like The Adventurer), playing a musical instrument or swimming at a very young age are clearly driven by genetics and the parents can claim 100% of the credit for their children being able to do those things because the children have their genes. Mozart's parents get full credit for Wolfgang's ability to write Andante in C when he was five years old. There is no amount of nurture that can give those abilities to a child. Likewise for Bobby Fischer's ability to play chess.

Characteristics that don't get expressed until the child is much older can be attributed to nurture--how they have been manipulated by the environment. Nurture can change the outward appearance of a person but it never really changes what they are. It's like putting make-up on a wrinkled old lady. She may look good with the make-up, but take it off, and you see what she really looks like. With regard to how people interact with each other, some children/people are genetically strong and nurture will never have a real affect on them. For example, a child who is outgoing and speaks their mind like myself and my daughter “The Voice” (she wants me to stop calling her “The Mouth”) will never be stopped by others who try to constrain them and there are those who don't care at all about getting positive reinforcement and will keep on going to develop their strong suits regardless of negative reinforcement or obstacles in their way. If The Voice knows she did a good job, she won’t even stop to listen to a compliment—she just doesn’t care and is moving on to the next project at hand. I’m glad my older daughter is more mellow than her sister when it comes to expressing herself. Having three people with a big mouth in the house would be really tough!

Liking kinks is definitely genetic. You might need the “nurture” to learn that they exist, but once you know they exist, liking them is genetic. My cousins, nieces, nephews and our children have had very open discussions about kinks and BDSM at family gatherings and it is striking that most of us engage in them despite how debauched, disgusting and/or cruel some might be.

There is no question genetics plays the vastly major role in the development of a person.

Liking kinks is definitely genetic. You might need the “nurture” to learn that they exist, but once you know they exist, liking them is genetic. My cousins, nieces, nephews and our children have had very open discussions about kinks and BDSM at family gatherings and it is striking that most of us engage in them despite how debauched, disgusting and/or cruel some might be.

I would argue that a preference for certain 'kinks' or paraphilias also have a lot to do with situational experiences. That is what I seem to read a lot here on the forum. A particularly noticeable if not traumatic experience in childhood later gives rise to a predilection for the same when older. Think of spanking for instance. How often do we not read of members spanked during childhood, often excessively spanked/punished, not developing the same craving when older? That is not the result of genetics, nor of nurture strictly speaking, but of experience.

I've never given much thought to why I am like I am. I know I learned my value system from my parents. Beyond that, I have no idea other than many life experiences coming together in various ways. Why do I enjoy enemas? Never had one as a child. Why do I like anal play? It's just plain enjoyable; but, if my wife hadn't lost interest in sex years ago and I hadn't lost my erection to prostate cancer, I may never have gotten into ass play to the extent I have. Regardless, I don't care to analyze these things this late in life.

It is true that nature and nurture play a role BUT the age at which certain characteristics become expressed are definitely based on one or the other.

For example characteristics like intelligence and confidence are genetic [...] playing a musical instrument or swimming at a very young age are clearly driven by genetics and the parents can claim 100% of the credit for their children being able to do those things because the children have their genes. [...]

Liking kinks is definitely genetic. [...] My cousins, nieces, nephews and our children have had very open discussions about kinks and BDSM at family gatherings and it is striking that most of us engage in them despite how debauched, disgusting and/or cruel some might be.

There is no question genetics plays the vastly major role in the development of a person.

Switchable Susie is one of my favourite regular contributors to Zity, and agracier is another! But on this occasion I think Susie (quoted above) sounds confused (!) and agracier gets it right when he says in his post 'that a preference for certain "kinks" or paraphilias [has] a lot to do with situational experiences' - the notion of contingent (or chance) experience/s nicely supplements a hard-line 'nature versus nurture' understanding.

I don't disagree that 'characteristics like intelligence and confidence are genetic'. (For what it's worth, I have watched very young kittens - well, one in particular - whose adventurous, headstrong personality already stood out and who grew up to be exactly what his kittenhood had indicated he would be!) But, incidentally, I do quibble with saying 'the parents can claim 100% of the credit [...] because the children have their genes'. I'm sorry, but we're all creatures of God (or however you like to put it - try 'our creaturely nature') and subject to that nature (once our species, etc. has been allocated: my kitten was never going to be other than a cat when he grew up). The parents have nothing to do with it, although they may contribute to making or marring their offspring's potential (and may take pride or shame from that).

Susie, you write: 'Liking kinks is definitely genetic.' I guess you mean: capacity to indulge (meaningfully) whatever kinkiness you find yourself saddled with? The way you refer to your extended family - like one Super (as in 'Uber') family! - is quite Nietzschean! The very best of luck to you and them!

But there are many roads to Rome (or Heaven or Nirvana or - again call it what you like!)! I do believe that fetishes occur because of chance occurrences affecting our creaturely natures/dispositions, often at a young age. ( I had a thread about that, in 'The Parlor'.) And that the outcome of how those fetishes are expressed or suppressed may depend on 'the school of hard knocks' that many (or all) of us must follow, i.e., our individual experiences in life. Genetics can only influence the outcome to a certain extent. Those of us lucky enough to have found Zity should thank Providence (or someone, but presumably not our parents!) for that fact - and for the chance to express ourselves more meaningfully that it offers!

- Ken

kenneth177 said

incidentally, I do quibble with saying 'the parents can claim 100% of the credit [...] because the children have their genes'. . . . . The parents have nothing to do with it, although they may contribute to making or marring their offspring's potential (and may take pride or shame from that).

If we were older having children and they were Down's Syndrome/Mongoloid/trisomy 21 and were mentally handicapped, wouldn't it be the fault of the parents? YES! . . . and when they turn out very well, they are also the result of their parents' good genes. For good and for bad, the parents get the credit.

You can quibble, but I will still insist that our daughters are able to do what they do because they got a good mix or our genes, especially my husband's. He's a real brain, but I have to claim some credit for our younger daughter's intellectual and three dimensional cognitive abilities that have significantly eclipsed even his.

If we were older having children and they were Down's Syndrome/Mongoloid/trisomy 21 and were mentally handicapped, wouldn't it be the fault of the parents? YES! . . . and when they turn out very well, they are also the result of their parents' good genes. For good and for bad, the parents get the credit.

Hi Switchable Susie. To desist from conceiving a child in certain circumstances (e.g., the age of the parents) is meritorious and responsible in one sense - but isn't perhaps the converse of (one or both parents, in the prime of life, let's say) taking credit for bringing favourable genes to the child they conceive. But I shan't allocate points one way or the other! I only claimed that the parents can hardly take 100% of the credit for having a sweet, clever child - some things are blessings from above. Credit where credit is due, and let's be fair!

And you ARE blessed, all of your family, it sounds like!

- Ken

I only claimed that the parents can hardly take 100% of the credit for having a sweet, clever child - some things are blessings from above. Credit where credit is due, and let's be fair!

And you ARE blessed, all of your family, it sounds like!

Switchable Susie, you might care to look up the entry on the British philosopher Galen Strawson in Wikipedia. His 'basic argument' apropos free will is set out as follows:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.

2. To be ultimately responsible for what you DO, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you ARE - at least in certain crucial mental aspects.

3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.

4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do [or have DONE].

I think that 3. and 4. especially apply to the matter of whether parents can be blamed and/or credited with how their offspring turn out (from birth onwards). (Q.E.D.?!)

- Ken

I am not an intellect - but I was a aerospace engineer - my son is a cardiologist - so we are not stupid. I got to where I am because of my parents encouragement, discipline and support. I am responsible for what I accomplished - or didn't accomplish. Galen Strawson's argument to me sounds circular. You are responsible for what you do. Don't write it off because of the set of marbles you were given at birth. How you ultimately use those marbles is not a given - it is learned through your upbringing and experiences. There are some very smart people that are total failures because they never got their act together. That isn't because of a deficiency in their genes - it's because of their upbringing. I worked with several Phd's who were worthless - even tho they had the intellect (genes) they were never taught to close - only to study. They are responsible for who they are and for what they never accomplished.

You will get no argument from me about the sad case of certain intellectuals, gwhap! My argument was only against claiming 100% credit for being the parents of a sweet, clever child - as Galen Strawson indicates, it's ultimately an impersonal (not a personal) thing!

My slightly mischievous last post was prompted by how I was struck by Strawson's argument which seemed to fit with what I'd posted previously, and because I do like his argument for determinism (which as Wikipedia points out, resembles that of the arch-pessimist, but clear-sighted, Schopenhauer!)

Back to our fetishes and oral/anal/genital concerns!

Pax - Ken

I have never been into philosophy and am not good at understanding philosophical arguments. Give me a good differential equation any day!! Bottom line, I probably didn't understand Strawsons argument and teed off in the wrong direction.

Agree - I will stick to my fetishes!

I am not an intellect - but I was a aerospace engineer - my son is a cardiologist - so we are not stupid. I got to where I am because of my parents encouragement, discipline and support. I am responsible for what I accomplished - or didn't accomplish.

Yes, you ultimately got to where you are WITH encouragement, not because of encouragement and you do get credit for your accomplishments, but without good genes, all the encouragement in the world would not get you where you are.

Parents get less credit for amazing accomplishments as the child gets older as environmental effects come in to play.

Lots of encouraged people are failures.

-------------

My argument was only against claiming 100% credit for being the parents of a sweet, clever child

If the child does amazing things at a very young age, the parents get to claim 100% credit (not that the child doesn't deserve credit for his brilliant abilities), but rather that nurture deserves very close to ZERO credit because the child is too young for nurture to have made the enablement.

When a three year old boy teaches himself to read by following the libretto to Gilbert and Sullivan when the his father has the stereo on, the parents get to claim full credit because it's simply not something that normally happens. The GENES rule. Mozart's parents get full credit for Wolfgang's ability to write Andante in C when he was five years old. There is no amount of nurture that can give those abilities to a child. Likewise for Bobby Fischer's ability to play chess.

The importance of good genes cannot be overlooked.