Taking pleasure in pain: How to understand masochistic sexual practices?

Taking pleasure in pain: How to understand masochistic sexual practices?  O. Benhamou. Sexologies, Volume 29, Issue 3, July–September 2020, Pages e85-e92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sexol.2020.01.002

Summary: The encounter with a patient who initially came to consult for sleep disorders, which concealed moral suffering linked to masochistic sexual practices with a Domina, was at the origin of this research work. The objective of this research is to try to understand how masochistic sexual fantasies emerge and what these sexual practices represent for their devotees, in terms of their psychological life and their sexuality. Sixteen subjects answered a questionnaire built on two axes: the sexual practices themselves (from the first fantasies to their implementation in sexuality), and the biographical path of the subjects (life history, relations with the family and the environment). This is a qualitative research, the results of which were treated in the form of thematic analysis and portraits of each subject, to reflect the uniqueness of their itinerary. The results of this research indicate that masochistic sexual practices always perform a function for those who choose them. They are most often a solution to an internal conflict linked to early relational modalities that generate suffering and/or traumatic experiences. They can also be a solution to sexual problems.

Keywords: MasochismPainSexual satisfactionViolenceFantasiesSexuality

Check also Physical Pain as Pleasure: A Theoretical Perspective. Cara R. Dunkley, Craig D. Henshaw, Saira K. Henshaw, and Lori A. Brotto. The Journal of Sex Research, Volume 57, 2020 - Issue 4, May 2 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1605328. Free at https://med-fom-brotto.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2019/05/Physical-Pain-as-Pleasure-A-Theoretical-Perspective.pdf

Abstract: Physical pain represents a common feature of Bondage and Discipline/Dominance and Submission/Sadism and Machochism (BDSM) activity. This article explores the literature accounting for how painful stimuli may be experienced as pleasurable among practitioners of BDSM, and contrasting this with how it is experienced as painful among non-BDSM individuals. We reviewed the available literature on pain and on BDSM, and used the findings to postulate a theory accounting for how painful stimuli are experienced as pleasurable. Our theory was then checked with BDSM practitioners. The emotional, physiological, and psychological elements of pain interact to facilitate the experience of pain as pleasure in BDSM. A multitude of interconnected factors was theorized to alter the experience of BDSM pain, including: neural networks, neurotransmitters, endogenous opioids and endocannabinoids, visual stimuli, environmental context, emotional state, volition and control, interpersonal connection, sexual arousal, and memories. The experience of pain in this context can bring about altered states of consciousness that may be similar to what occurs during mindfulness meditation. Through understanding the mechanisms by which pain may be experienced as pleasure, the role of pain in BDSM is demystified and, it is hoped, destigmatized.

Fig. 1:
1. Prior to the experience of pain, there is a preexisting emotional and interpersonal context based on present circumstances, memories of related past experiences, and the extent to which one feels in control. These situational factors may facilitate sexual arousal.
2. The presence of sexual arousal prior to (and/or alongside) the infliction of pain stimuli serves as an analgesic, altering levels of dopamine and oxytocin.
3. Contextual factors and sexual arousal lead to a positive anticipation of pain.
4. Context, sexual arousal, and the positive anticipation of pain set the stage for receiving pain sensations and fostering the experience of pain as pleasure.
5. Once pain is introduced, nociceptor stimulation engages bottom-up/top-down processing and produces changes in levels of dopamine, cortisol, endogenous opioids, and endogenous endocannabinoids, further influencing the psychological and physiological response to pain sensations.
6. These conditions may promote mindfulness and lead to an altered state of consciousness, colloquially called subspace, which contributes to the various mechanisms through which pain is experienced as pleasure in the context of BDSM.

Backfire effect (when a correction leads to an individual increasing their belief in the very misconception the correction is aiming to rectify): Paper suggests the effects are not a robust empirical phenomenon

Searching for the Backfire Effect: Measurement and Design Considerations. BrionySwire-Thompson, Joseph DeGutis, David Lazer. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, September 2 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006

Abstract: One of the most concerning notions for science communicators, fact-checkers, and advocates of truth, is the backfire effect; this is when a correction leads to an individual increasing their belief in the very misconception the correction is aiming to rectify. There is currently a debate in the literature as to whether backfire effects exist at all, as recent studies have failed to find the phenomenon, even under theoretically favorable conditions. In this review, we summarize the current state of the worldview and familiarity backfire effect literatures. We subsequently examine barriers to measuring the backfire phenomenon, discuss approaches to improving measurement and design, and conclude with recommendations for fact-checkers. We suggest that backfire effects are not a robust empirical phenomenon, and more reliable measures, powerful designs, and stronger links between experimental design and theory could greatly help move the field ahead.

Keywords: Backfire effectsBelief updatingMisinformationContinued influence effectReliability

General Audience Summary: A backfire effect is when people report believing even more in misinformation after they have seen an evidence-based correction aiming to rectify it. This review discusses the current state of the backfire literature, examines barriers to measuring this phenomenon, and concludes with recommendations for fact-checkers. Two backfire effects have gained popularity in the literature: the worldview backfire effect and the familiarity backfire effect. While these both result in increased belief after a correction, they occur due to different psychological mechanisms. The worldview backfire effect is said to occur when a person is motivated to defend their worldview because a correction challenges a person's belief system. In contrast, the familiarity backfire effect is presumed to occur when misinformation is repeated within the retraction. Failures to find or replicate both backfire effects have been widespread. Much of the literature has interpreted these failures to replicate to indicate that either (a) the backfire effect is difficult to elicit on the larger group level, (b) it is extremely item-, situation-, or individual-specific, or (c) the phenomenon does not exist at all. We suggest that backfire effects are not a robust empirical phenomenon, and that improved measures, more powerful designs, and stronger links between experimental design and theory, could greatly help move the field ahead. Fact-checkers can rest assured that it is extremely unlikely that their fact-checks will lead to increased belief at the group level. Furthermore, research has failed to show backfire effects systematically in the same subgroup, so practitioners should not avoid giving corrections to any specific subgroup of people. Finally, avoiding the repetition of the original misconception within the correction appears to be unnecessary and could even hinder corrective efforts. However, misinformation should always be clearly and saliently paired with the corrective element, and needless repetitions of the misconceptions should still be avoided.

Practical Recommendations

Regarding the worldview backfire effect, fact-checkers can rest assured that it is extremely unlikely that, at the broader group level, their fact-checks will lead to increased belief in the misinformation. Meta-analyses have clearly shown that corrections are generally effective and backfire effects are not the norm (e.g., Chan, Jones, Hall Jamieson, & Albarracín, 2017; Walter & Murphy, 2018). Furthermore, given that research has yet to systematically show backfire effects in the same subgroups, practitioners should not avoid giving corrections to any specific subgroups of people. Fact-checkers can therefore focus on other known issues such as getting the fact-checks to the individuals who are most likely to be misinformed.

Regarding the familiarity backfire effect, avoiding the repetition of the original misconception within the correction appears to be unnecessary and could even hinder corrective efforts (Ecker et al., 2017, Kendeou and O’Brien, 2014). We therefore instead suggest designing the correction first and foremost with clarity and ease of interpretation in mind. Although the familiarity backfire effect lacks evidence, we must be aware that the illusory truth effect in the absence of corrections or veracity judgments is extremely robust. Therefore, when designing a correction, the misinformation should always be clearly and saliently paired with the corrective element, and needless repetitions of the misconception should still be avoided. For instance, given that many individuals do not read further than headlines (Gabielkov, Ramachandran, Chaintreau, & Legout, 2016), the misconception should not be described in the headline alone with the correction in smaller print in the text below (Ecker, Lewandowsky, Chang, & Pillai, 2014; Ecker, Lewandowsky, Fenton, & Martin, 2014). Adding the corrective element within the headline itself, even if it is simply a salient “myth” tag associated with the misconception, can be considered good practice.

Future Research

Although improvements in both experimental measures and designs are important, Oberauer and Lewandowsky (2019) highlight that another cause of poor replicability is weak logical links between theories and empirical tests. Future research could more explicitly manipulate key factors presumed to influence belief updating, whether it be fluency, perceived item importance, strength of belief, complexity of the item wording, order of corrective elements, internal counter-arguing, source of the message, or participants’ communicating disagreement with the correction. Focusing on theoretically meaningful factors could help to better isolate the potential mechanisms behind backfire effects or the continued influence effect in general. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to be aware of other competing factors to avoid confounds. For example, when investigating the effects of familiarity, one could avoid exclusively using issues presumed to elicit worldview backfire effects (e.g., vaccines, Skurnik et al., 2007). Additionally, given that responses to corrections are likely heterogeneous, it would be beneficial to use a wide variety of issues in experiments that vary on theoretically meaningful criteria to dissociate when backfire effects occur and when they do not.

Future research should also empirically investigate common recommendations that stem from the familiarity backfire effect notion which have yet to be thoroughly examined. For example, it is unclear whether belief updating is fostered by presenting a “truth sandwich” to participants, stating the truth twice with the falsehood between (Sullivan, 2018). Preliminary findings suggest that a “bottom-loaded” correction, which first states the misconception followed by two factual statements, could be more effective than the truth sandwich (Anderson, Horton, & Rapp, 2019), although further research is required prior to firm recommendations being made.

Finally, there are additional occasions where corrections could be counter-productive that require empirical investigation. For instance, correcting facts in public political debate might not always be advisable, because it involves the acceptance of someone else's framing, allowing the person who promulgated the original falsehood to set the agenda (Lakoff, 2010; Lewandowsky, Ecker, & Cook, 2017). Furthermore, broadcasting a correction where few people believe in the misconception could be a legitimate concern, since the correction may spread the misinformation to new audiences (Kwan, 2019, Schwarz et al., 2016). For example, if the BBC widely publicized a correction to a misconception that its readership never believed to begin with, it will not reap the benefits of belief reduction, and those who do not trust this source may question its conclusion. The next crucial step is to examine such instances with real-world scenarios on social media or fact-checking websites.