My comments are based on this article: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Health–Science/Bondage-sex-helps-couples-bond/articleshow/4341683.cms
Now, I’m in total agreement regarding the title, however I’m not getting the math that the article is using. According to one study, the article cites that an increase in cortisol (a stress hormone) increased with SM play. Wouldn’t that mean that the couple is less bonded? Or, do increased stress hormones somehow increase bonding? I’m not quite getting the science here.
Another study states that there were increased levels of testosterone in the female bottoms after SM play. Not sure how this leads to a conclusion of bonding, but it’s interesting none-the-less.
The article asks that future studies check for orgasm related to play, since current science seems to agree that the experience of orgasm during a sexual encounter leads to increased hormones connected to bonding, at least for women. The wrinkle here is, I believe, that not all SM play leads to orgasm, however I would wonder whether or not that means those folks aren’t feeling “bonded” to their partners. Maybe what is really needed here is Ye Olde Multi-Method research, inccluding not only tests for particular hormones (objective) but also people’s responses regarding how they feel (subjective).
So, although this is a step in the right direction, at least according to this article (which is hardly the full outline of the study I’m sure) I’m not really seeing the connection between bondage and bonding. Unfortunately, for those of us who have experienced it, we can’t just use “Duh!” as scientific evidence.
positivesex
simonexrez
2 Comments
April 15, 2009 at 8:41 pm
An intersting article, but I agree, a bit misleading and raises a few questions. Generally, oxytocin is most often associated with bonding, but there is no mention of it even though the title uses the word “bond.” Oxytocin levels are generally highest in females when breastfeeding/after birth, after orgasm and in men after orgasm. The psychologist who suggested controlling for orgasm alluded to this. Also, the coritsol study tested 13 people, hardly enough subjects to report anything significant. I wonder if the participants were new to the scene or experienced long time players? What about their age? A numerof things could affect hormone levels? Some coritsol studies can be misleading because our levels of cortisol can produce stress that isn’t necessarily negative as many associate the hormone with. One of the primary functions of this hormone is to return the body to it’s homeostatic state after stress. But there are different kinds of stress.
For example, physical exertion or fear can increase coritsol levels, but that can be a good thing. An athlete can have heightened coritsol levels during and after playing a sport. It’s fair to assume that most athletes enjoy playing the sport. My fantasy date with Jessica Alba can produce fear and raise my cortisol levels, but believe me, it’s a welcomed kind of “good” stress. Wouldn’t many physical and psychlogical aspects of BDSM fit into that framework of enjoyable states of stress? But what about the other hormones in our body? Regardless, we can’t make the assumption that cortisol and bonding are correlated. There’s too many additional factors not addressed.
It seems like the article wanted to use research to support the title or topic of bonding. Hormones are just one small piece of the bonding pie.
(ringing sound) Bye all, I have to go. The phone’s ringing and it might be Jessica…
April 16, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I found the actual study I believe this article was based upon.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t3hrx7ug71783t23/
The study itself does a much better job of explaining what was being tested, etc. (As one would hope!)
I agree that the increase in cortisol is not really explained in regards to stress, physical assertion, etc. Also, there was not much data collected regarding the participants, other than sex and type of relationship with their play partner, so we don’t really know how skilled the players are, how really familiar they are with one another’s play styles, etc. I also have issue with the instruments used to determine “closeness”. I felt the questions in the pre- and post-surveys were a bit vague and wordly oddly enough that participants may not have really understood what was being asked.
Interestingly, what seemed to be found was that women’s testosterone increased after play, whether they were topping or bottoming, while men’s decreased. What I don’t know is how this compares to men and women engaged in “vanilla” sex, sporting activities, etc. ? I would also like to know if women who engage in SM already have more testosterone than women who do not. It’s not clear in the study what type of testosterone this is as well. Is it free T, which tends to be linked with sex drive, or other T?
I see this as a wonderful springboard for other positive studies regarding the SM community. No where in the article are judgments made, and in fact, great care is taken to be as respectful and tactful regarding the community and the individual participants.