A thought on ballbusting

[Richter]

Pertaining to genetics and heriditary traits and so on, it dawned on me that ballbusting and ********** stand out as extremely odd fetishes. Not from a puritan point of view, but an evolutionary point of view. Women have wide hips because they could have the most babies and passed on that genetic trait. Men reach sexual peaks at 20 and women at 31 because those corresponded to the best breeding ages for each. Men have facial hair because as a sign of testosterone production it meant they were fertile.

But ballbusting and ********** wants go against the grain, compelling us to do something that is evolutionarily bad for us and against our breeding preferences. There's lots to say for the psychology of it, but for the genetic part of it, it goes way against the grain.

[poolman2]

Richter,

FWIW, I wondered that same thing shortly after I got seriously busted the first time.

Some time later I tried to explain it to my wife. She politely shut me up by saying that the why part didn't matter; she was just going to do it, and we were going to enjoy it; period.

In our household: I am the highly educated one with a doctorate in a prestigious field; I am the one who makes the big bucks; and let us be clear on this, she is the one who decides; and let us be even more clear on this, she is the one who will kick my balls if and only if I am good, very good, and not at all if she thinks or even feels that I am bad. Some of these things are not at all fair. Not only that, but the law even recognizes that she even owns me with that ring through my, errrr... around my left ring finger....

poolman2

P.S. Let's also be very clear about this: I am a very happily enslave male, and never want to change my condition. And I say this even if she is not listening. Marriage is a truly wonderful institution, especially for the enslaved. It gives me the right to be owned by her; to ask her opinion, on anything, whenever I want, and even to be bound by it if she wishes. A single person could not imagine how many undesirable invitations we have escaped by the unattainable spouse's consent which has for reasons unexplainable is just not available (while we are at home just enjoying each other's company). As I say it is really good to belong to somebody.

[Dix]

Another point of view. In the great scheme of genetic immortality of the very best offspring - the urge for women to use the balls for a control tool or a self defence tool, it allows the woman to only allow the best genetic material to impregnate her. For the male to enjoy toying with that control in a relationship but still succeed in impregnating the woman means the best man wins as he is tempted to risk it all and thus only the smartest men remain intact to reproduce. I believe it's part of the natural selection to produce the best quality offspring part of nature.


Pertaining to genetics and heriditary traits and so on, it dawned on me that ballbusting and ********** stand out as extremely odd fetishes. Not from a puritan point of view, but an evolutionary point of view. Women have wide hips because they could have the most babies and passed on that genetic trait. Men reach sexual peaks at 20 and women at 31 because those corresponded to the best breeding ages for each. Men have facial hair because as a sign of testosterone production it meant they were fertile.

But ballbusting and ********** wants go against the grain, compelling us to do something that is evolutionarily bad for us and against our breeding preferences. There's lots to say for the psychology of it, but for the genetic part of it, it goes way against the grain.

[finally]

[...] means the best man wins as he is tempted to risk it all and thus only the smartest men remain intact to reproduce.
I think that is a little contradictorily.
"The man who risks it all" and the "smarter man, who remains intact" should be the same person?

"Evolutionary sense" often is a complicated thing to see. Often we have to admit that what we think is the "sense" may be it or not. It's always just theory because pratice is evolution itself and in most cases we can not "experience" it.

---

To me, what sounds plausible is one "sense" in male-sexual-victim-fantasies, one strenght shows in it:
The ability to SUFFER. Even to suffer the female.

It would make sense in the way that the male shows that he can suffer at all (if he is attacked by an enemy for example) and survive AND he can suffer his partner (when she wants him to do things for her or to face situations he "normally" would avoid) and still love her.

You see, evolutionary speaking males have interest in impragnating "strong" females AND in helping the offspring to survive.
Females have interest in beeing inpregnated by "strong" males AND in making them (and anybody) help her raising the offspring.
"Help" is a crucial thing here.
A "single" female can (evolutionary) never outclass a couple, or even better a group, in raising offspring, even if she is the strongest female on earth.


So! If we put that backward it would mean:
Males want to do just what they want to do. They have an urge to fight and an urge to help and so on.
Females, on the other hand, want others to do anything for them.
It's not even so important WHAT. Everything that disburdens the female makes her more successful in raising kids.
...

So in that sense it would be an advantage for a male if he is not only able to suffer a female but even enjoys it in a way.

Of course..., ********** fantasies are covered by that "theorie" only in the way that **********, emasculation etc is the direction, of that desire.
It's not "thought" to be achieved by evolution.
But for the male individuum it may feel like he would want it to be achieved.
And on the other hand he doesn't want it really.
For evolution that is sufficient. Evoultion doesn't need the individuum to recognize. Evolution just "puts" the male individuum between two opposing "needs" and either it balances out or not.
:)

[snack marvin]

I think it has a lot to do with psychology and sociology, and not so much with genetics. With the upcoming emancipation of women gender relations changed dramatically. The old traditional scheme (man = strong; woman = weak) didn't work anymore and was forcefully challenged by women who wanted the "half of the world" and decide for themselves.

Furthermore there is a dynamic that a very much wanted and desired woman will not just fullfill our desires but has her own head and can – and will eventually – fight back. So we want her... but will we get her?? It's obviously a power game. And the most effective, frightening (for the male) way of attack, a woman has (and makes her dangerous), is... to get him by his balls and incapacitate him. He's absolutely helpless. And the women often really enjoy their power. Attacking the balls is – for men and women – a symbol for the power of women who can take him what makes him a man...

I think that's the psychology behind ballbusting...

snack marvin

PS: I don't think it has a genetic component other than being a very effective way to ward off a potential lover and preserving her for the most attractive man around. But sure it can have a striking genetic effect: When being kicked too hard, you simply say good bye to the human gene pool and won't get kids anymore... ;)

[Richter]

Yeah, I don't mean psychology at all. It's pretty darn obvious the many reasons women are into ballbusting and a little less obvious, but still pretty obvious why men are into ballbusting.


The genetic predispositions of the fetish are what I can't reconcile with. Why hasn't the want to be hit in the balls been bred out of us? The people most into ballbusting would've been the least likely to produce many offspring and hand down the trait.

I like finally's explanation: that the want remains to find a strong woman who can carry the most offspring. That's probably the reason that fetish has survived on a genetic standpoint. Still, like him, I'm at a loss for a good idea on ********** fantasies remaining in our DNA.

[snack marvin]

On one hand there has never been a desire being hit in the balls, I think. Normally being kicked is strongly avoided, nobody wants to be hurt. Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain... that's our genetic script.
Even ballbusting fetishists don't want to be kicked by other men or by fat old women, but only in an erotic phantasy context, isn't it?

On the other hand not all of our behavior is genetically determinated at all. Once born we do what we want, regardless of genetics... ;)

Serious... remember different behavior (for example sado-masochistic behavior), that is not very "reasonable" in terms of biological reproduction, survival and "genetic plan of nature".
People do very much things, show extremely risky and even unhealty behavior, take extreme and even senseless risks (for example jumping in unknown waters from great heights etc.) and often pay with their life. Sometimes soldiers are loyal to their units and don't try to escape even when they know that the whole platoon will die.

So I think that the genetic dispositions regulate only a limited part of our behavior. There is also a sensation-seeking interest, some try things even when they know for sure that a damage will occur (for example drug abuse).

For sure ballbusting has a quite irrational component – from a biological/genetic standpoint as well as from a psychological one – and I don't think that there is a reasonable explanation (other than the psychological one). People do a lot of things to knock themselves out. And they do it nevertheless...:D
There is an irrationalism you problably can't explain...?

But I admit... I don't have a final explanation...:wooow

greetz, snack marvin

[Landwand]

I also believe that this fetish has very little, if anything at all, to do with genetics.

I am fairly certain that each one of us can remember back to a certain event in our lives that sparked the slowly growing flame of this perversion, in some manner.

It makes absolutely no sense, but that is what most fetishes are like: is that not a fundamental truth?

[finally]

*thinking...

Snack marvin, Landwand:
- One thing is: You just use the term "genetics" in a different way than me (and Richter, I suppose).
(http://www.femaledom.com/forum/member.php?u=13376)
Like many people nowadays, you seem to presume, if I talk of "genes" or "genetics" I would also mean: "Man is made of genes and genes control everything and there is a corresponding gene for every single aspect of us, etc."
That is not so. :)
We can think evolution without touching genetics much at all, just as evolution (an old idea) has been "discovered" earlier than genetics and both independingly.
It doesn't mean that our behaviour is "genetically determinated ".
It just means we have evolved to what we are.

- The other (more important) thing is: You (both) say ballbusting fetish is "irrational", a "perversion", " It makes absolutely no sense", and you "don't think that there is a reasonable explanation (other than the psychological one)".
I say:
Psychology is the description of the state beeing.
Evolution is the process of becoming what it is.
If you can describe it psychologically then you can also ponder about how it could evolve.

On the other hand, if it really made "absolutely no sense", then there was no point thinking about it at all, neither it's structure nor it's origins.;)

...

I say: It IS, so it has evolved, so it "makes sense".

And just because some behaviour does not directly aim at reproduction or even seem to be contraproductive in that way, that does NOT mean it IS in cortadiction to evolution.
The origins of most "senseless" behaviour , like taking risks and so on, can easily be described in its evolutionary context.

:bananajum

[skweezme]

Genetics doesn't really explain it, does it? Analytical psychology might. Dark stuff about the ********** female. And our (men's) attraction to her. Or was this Freud's hangup?

I think there's something in there.

[finally]

Genetics doesn't really explain it, does it? Analytical psychology might.
It always depends on what aspect you want to have explained... :)

I science and especially in medicals "explanation" often means nothing more than pinning a name to something. ...: "Oh, that is a *latin-name*. It's caused by *another-latin-name*. Don't you understand?" Explaines nothing but sounds very sophisticated. ;)

I don't care much about the psychology of my fetish, that means, I don't care what a psychologist could tell me. I AM my psyche. I KNOW it. Even if I don't know everything about it, I know it better than any shrink. :D
And the psyche of the women..., I make up my own mind about that too. ;)

But here, Richter was talking about the evolutionary context. And that is something interesting I think.

[snack marvin]

A quite interesting discussion...

I didn't say that the genes regulate every behavior and that there is a gene for every action. I said that only a limited part of our behavior is regulated by genes, what means that only in parts we react on a biological base – like a schimpanzee, for example. In certain behavioral parts we have the destiny of other animals, because we ARE animals, in part. The schimpanzee is our grandpa, if you want so... ;)

Remember my sentence: "Once we are born we do whatever we want, regardless of genetics."
I know the freedom of acting, but this freedom isn't absolute but relative, in my opinion.

And I definetely support the view of those who believe that psychology – or analytic psychology – can explain the reasons, why we are looking for such a painful (yet exciting) experience like ballbusting.
Under a biological and psychological perspective it is worth asking: Why the f**k are you looking for such a painful experience?

I think psychology asks not only for "the state of being", but asks also how and why became it what it is now?!
May be sometimes there are arousing and exciting childhood or lifetime experiences, in other cases there may be even a traumatic experience, especially when very odd fetishes are involved (remember those who want to be treated like little babies).

The term "irrational" I want to use only in so far, as one can wonder why we are looking for such a painful action. When you would try to cut off your own hand, we would wonder because the normal striving is to protect oneself and to avoid harm. In so far it is "strange" or "bizarre" or "irrational" etc.

Because the striving for survival and avoiding harm is indeed genetically based, I think.

greetz, snack marvin

PS: You are right, risky behavior can easily be explained by evolution. But is it possible to explain an intentional self damaging behavior too...?

[BTerran]

PS: You are right, risky behavior can easily be explained by evolution. But is it possible to explain an intentional self damaging behavior too...?

I should start by saying that my understanding of evolution/genetics is limited so I'm going to make assumptions that could be very wrong...

Maybe it's a pack mentality quality. Some may simply prefer to be submissive rather then risk challenging for leadership and it's taken to an extreme? That said not everything that comes to be as a product of evolution is helpful. The idea behind evolution is that those qualities which do not make the species better adapted to their enviroment will get weeded out though natural selection. Except to say I don't think humans practice natural selection in the same manner that other species do.

Then again in the animal kingdom there are animals who like the same gender and thus are very unlikely to have children. And yet in each generation there still are some that like the same gender. So maybe it can be explained away as just something some are randomly born with for no other reason then it's genetically possible and genetics are semi-random.

[snack marvin]

@ BTerran: It's quite possible the way you described it.

After all – for my part being scientifically interested and just having a little bit free time in the moment – I just tried to shine with a flashlight into a tunnel of darkness. Just for intellectual fun and curiosity. Your arguments – and others – show me that there are no simple answers.

May be it has a genetic aspect, maybe not, for sure it has some psychological foundations... but we all like ballbusting, that's the reason we visit this board for discussing, downloading some clips and hopefully receiving a solid kick or sudden grab by a sexy woman right in the balls... :jumpsmile:jumpsmile for what reasons ever... :D

greetz, snack marvin

[finally]

I'm going to make assumptions
I must say, I like your assumptions.
:)

not everything that comes to be as a product of evolution is helpful. Exacly what see also.
Not everything is "better", there may as well be dead end streets in evolution.
But saying that, every individuum is a dead end street in that sense, as soon as it stops breeding. Nevertheless many creatures happily live on years and years afterwards.

And you are right, if you suppose that homosexual animals are indeed much more than a "genetic coincidence", in fact homosexuality has devoloped more than once in diferent "branches" of the family tree of life independently, for eyample also in birds, with wich we share only very very far ancesters.

I like your term "pack mentality quality" beacause it shows something I also mean: "mentality" is something that influences your behavour at lifetime. I read "mentality" in the sense of: "general strategies of managing things in your life". And if you survive and breed, you pass it on to your kids.

Behaviour of animals has evolved evolutionary and human behaviour is nothing different but has evolved on top of that.
And animal behaviours (or other characteristics) are "sensless" often enough. Yet. But never impossible. It is never really sensless.
It always has a good reason why it is as it is, and doesn not need to be perfect anyway, it just needs to be good enough to survive and breed again.

So many things are given further and further through breeding, that have nothing to do with breeding anymore, but are just still there. Even if it means a disadvantage now. It is all ok as long as it is balanced out by advantages.

snack marvin:

But is it possible to explain an intentional self damaging behavior too...?Of course it is. Animals do it all the time, when they are in "prison". It's not more difficult to explain than animals helping each other. It is still complex behaviour of course.
Now we, as the only creatures who do anything intentionaly, have the same "repertoire" of behavoir as animals (and more).
We can and we will. For the same reasons as other animals.
:)

[ram2000]

Great stuff!
--------------
http://www.c4slive.com/images/max.jpg (http://www.c4slive.com/view_all.php)

[chode]

some try things even when they know for sure that a damage will occur (for example drug abuse).

First off, not all drugs are bad for you. Second, the people who do the drugs that cause harm don't realize it will. Most likely they say they won't get hurt, that they're different and most just do them to feel good without caring about consequences. Nobody willingly gets addicted to drugs.

[gopballbuster]

i hope this does not turn into a political debate

[snack marvin]

@ chode: Would answer you but at the same time agree with gopballbuster that a fetish forum isn't the right place for political or similar discussions when discussed extensively...

Sorry... ;)

greetz, snack marvin