The idea that there is a genetic predisposition to kink seems to be very old. Kraft-Ebbing suggests it (1965 [1903]), placing it within the general framework of “degeneracy” used by the eugenics movement of his era. Freud (1969 [1905]) acknowledges it as a possibility in at least some cases. It is also suggested seriously by Mass (1979), and Strauss (2001, p. 126) among others. It has never been tested, however, and there is no evidence in support of it. Rather, it seems to be a convenient explanation for highly deviant behavior. As Freud wrote: “it has become the fashion to regard any symptom which is not obviously due to trauma or infection as a sign of degeneracy.”
An important sub-category of this approach is the idea that kinky people have a neurologically different experience of pain than non-kinky people. This “wired differently” theory seems to be a widespread explanation among kinky people themselves. It is also proposed by Kraft-Ebbing and Mass, it is the explanation Tanahill (1982 p. 385) suggests, as well.
But this, too, is problematic. In the first place, the experience of pain within BDSM is very complex. As Weinberg (1987) points out, a great deal of BDSM involves no pain, or minimal pain; Bienvenu and Jacques suggest that about 9% of kinky people report no experience of pain-play. Moreover, we can generally assume that “different wiring” in this regard is not a major motive for sadists or tops who never switch (and who seem to account for around 20% of all kinky people). Finally, a large portion of BDSM scripts do not involve any immediate experience of pain: they revolve around domination and submission, humiliation, bondage, service, anticipation of pain, and the like.
The only study that I am aware of which investigates a genetic etiology for kink is Gosselin and Wilson (1980, pp. 115-116). They use a sexual fantasy survey comparing 14 pairs of identical twins with 14 pairs of fraternal twins. As the researchers point out, their sample size is too small to produce significant results. Nevertheless, they note a pattern where identical twins are more likely to have similar cross-dressing fantasy indices than fraternal twins. A (much weaker) pattern also exists for sadomasochistic fantasies, but for media-fetish fantasies, and an equivalent pattern is observed in the opposite direction: fraternal twins are more likely than identical twins to score similarly.
Gosselin and Wilson argue, optimistically, that these findings "adhere very well to theoretical explanations," since they believe fetishism to be based on conditioning. But this is fallacious: if there is no genetic component to fetishism, we should expect to see no difference between the scores for fraternal and identical twins. Moreover, there is no theoretical backing for the idea that fraternal twins should be more alike than identical twins, on any index. The fact that we do see this (for fetishism) calls into serious doubt all the other results of equivalent magnitude, which includes sadomasochism.
The only study that I am aware of which investigates a genetic etiology for kink is Gosselin and Wilson (1980, pp. 115-116). They use a sexual fantasy survey comparing 14 pairs of identical twins with 14 pairs of fraternal twins. As the researchers point out, their sample size is too small to produce significant results. Nevertheless, they note a pattern where identical twins are more likely to have similar cross-dressing fantasy indices than fraternal twins. A (much weaker) pattern also exists for sadomasochistic fantasies, but for media-fetish fantasies, and an equivalent pattern is observed in the opposite direction: fraternal twins are more likely than identical twins to score similarly.
Gosselin and Wilson argue, optimistically, that these findings "adhere very well to theoretical explanations," since they believe fetishism to be based on conditioning. But this is fallacious: if there is no genetic component to fetishism, we should expect to see no difference between the scores for fraternal and identical twins. Moreover, there is no theoretical backing for the idea that fraternal twins should be more alike than identical twins, on any index. The fact that we do see this (for fetishism) calls into serious doubt all the other results of equivalent magnitude, which includes sadomasochism.
At best this leaves us a hint of evidence for what could only be a very partial explanation of kink. In the absence of further evidence, it is tempting to view this as what Plante (2006) calls a “stigma reduction tactic:” masochists are not psychologically deviant, it's simply that their body is constructed differently. Ergo, their desires are not “their fault.”
Radical Feminist Critique
Updated 4/17/2011
Radical Feminist Critique
Radical feminist authors strongly objected to the claim that BDSM proclivities (or indeed any sexual proclivities) had a genetic component. It is important to qualify this argument historically. At the time that the critical anthology Against Sadomasochism was published, most radical feminist thought in America asserted that lesbianism (even if closeted) was a political choice, a (partial) act of liberation from patriarchal structures; a “decolonialization of the body.” (Clarke 1981). For instance, Wagner (1982) suggests that homosexuality is a “freely chosen, emergent, and changing” sexuality. She considers claims of innateness to be abhorrent “biological determinism,” and cites Dworkin in calling this “the world's most dangerous and deadly idea.” Rian (1982) states that it is “analytically incorrect to assume that any sexual desire is an innately or psychologically given character trait, a fixed and unchanging part of one's personality.”
Updated 4/17/2011
I feel fairly confident that studies will eventually show that there is a genetic component to kink. New genetic research is continuously coming out, and they are always finding strong heritability estimates. Even if the techniques they use are somewhat exaggerating the influence of genetics, the effect is still very strong (say, 30 percent of the variance instead of 40 or 50). Unless there are fatal flaws to the paradigms that these researchers are using, eventually we'll all need to recognize that there is a genetic component to everything about us.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the key word here is component. The rest of variance is still unexplained. Genetics will never explain all of human behavior. Right now, genetic paradigms are able to carve out large chunks of explained variance for themselves because they have an effective paradigm. The research that will almost certainly demonstrate strong influences for experiences on our lives, and the research that will show the percentage explained by interaction effects, will be much more difficult to carry out and will take much more time.
Right now we are in a strange place because our understanding of biological psychological influences is growing at a faster rate than other areas. This has led some people to ignore interactionism, or to only pay lip service to it in their research.
I think that those who study sex and gender are going to have to collectively admit that genetics plays a factor, just as the biological researchers are going to have to collectively admit that genetic and pre-natal effects are not the only factor. Only then are we going to be able to push the research and theorizing past this needless factionalism.
It is unquestionably true that some simple behaviors correlate well with individual genes (though I would like to know where your figure of 30% variance comes from: are you thinking of correlation?). New genetic research is continuously discovering these associations. Most of these discoveries, however, are far more exciting as newspaper headlines than they are as scientific studies. By contrast, studies refuting the neat connection between a gene and an observed behavior (especially complex behaviors) get little coverage.
ReplyDeleteRemember, for instance, all the hoopla about dopamine receptor D4, which was supposed to cause risk-seeking, gambling, extraversion, impulsivity, and (drumroll) liberalism? It was discussed in the NYT, on Fox News, NPR, BBC, all over the place. And then in 2008, a meta-analysis of the research showed that (a) there had been "significant publication bias" (b) the correlation did not extend to the extremes of the range (c) it didn't explain extraversion at all, and (d) it accounted for only 3% of variance. The meta-study, however, got almost no press coverage. (It's at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17574217, BTW).
As John Horgan wrote in Scientific American (10/29/10):
"Over the past two decades, gene-whizzers have discovered 'genes for' high IQ, male homosexuality, religious belief, gambling, attention-deficit disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, autism, dyslexia, alcoholism, heroin addiction, sadness, extroversion, introversion, anxiety, anorexia nervosa, seasonal affective disorder, violent aggression—you get the picture. So far, not one of these claims has been consistently confirmed by follow-up studies."
Look, I agree wholeheartedly that human behavior is the product of interactions between our genetics and other biological factors, and our environment and social context. (Though I don't think it is meaningful to say that there is "a genetic component to everything about us": being an orphan? Having an identical twin? Winning the lottery?) But I think that whatever language we use to discuss this needs to reflect the actual variance and importance of different factors. Right now, genetic causality is considered so sexy that "3% variance in measures of impulse control" immediately gets translated as "gene for liberals discovered!" Meanwhile, rather basic social studies on the determinants of political outlook go begging, even though such studies often find factors worth 10% or 15% of variance.
Lastly, I don't think I'm being factionalist here. I am listing every study I can find on the genetic etiology of kink. So far that's only one, and it's tiny and inconclusive. If you know of others, by all means let me know.