• Lots of naked NEW Members on the forum plz add an AVATAR we are adding them if you don't if you don't like change them.

AndyRew00

Hercules
Diamond Member
Points
0
Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.
 
Last edited:

AndyRew00

Hercules
Diamond Member
Points
0
The Psychology of Submission: Equal But Different
Compiled by: Kayla Lords

I imagine that anyone outside of the BDSM lifestyle, especially those who don’t practice Dominance and submission (D/s) look at those of us on the inside as strange creatures from an alien planet.

Actually, I’d say they look at submissives that way. Dominants make more sense, don’t they? Dominants are in control and have all the power. They get what they want, when they want it.

What does a submissive get out of any of it, other than kinky sex?

People on the outside looking in on any dynamic, relationship, lifestyle, or situation only see what’s on the surface. In this case, a strong (often male) Dominant standing over a kneeling, naked (often female) submissive. He’s in charge. He’s powerful, and she’s weak.

I guess that’s what it would look like from the outside. But, as with most things, that view doesn’t consider the thoughts, emotions, feelings, conversations, negotiations, and inner voices that guide all of us.

A Misunderstood Relationship
Dominance and submission is a constant push and pull between willing partners. One leads, the other follows. One commands, the other consents. The needs of each are different – to control or to be controlled. The power and trust, however, are equal even though each partner is on different ends of a spectrum.

The misconceptions surrounding D/s are many:

- Dominants take what they want.
- Submissives do what they’re told.
- Submissives should never ask for what they want. They’re not real submissives if they do.
- Dominants shouldn’t ask for a submissive’s opinion or desire. It makes them appear weak.
- Laughter, teasing, and silliness have no place in D/s. It’s serious business.


Lies! All lies! Dominants and submissives are first and foremost people in a relationship. Each person must find it fulfilling in order for it to be successful and last any length of time.

- Dominants don’t “take” anything without mutual agreement, consent, and prior negotiation. They need a submissive’s permission first.
- Submissives do as their told and asked after ground rules have been set and consent gained.
- Both Dominants and submissives should also have the freedom to express their wants, needs, and desires whenever they want.
- Laughter, teasing, and silliness need to have a place in every relationship or you’re doomed before you start.

D/s is a give and take power dynamic. Each side feeds off of the other.

Submission: Power, Control, and Trust
Yes, I’m a female submissive in a relationship with a male Dominant, and from the outside, I’m the stereotype. I enjoy kneeling (while quite naked, thank you very much) at his feet. I enjoy pain, rough sex, and being told what to do, commanded, if you will. Yep, that’s me, your “typical” submissive. Of course, there’s also the stuff you’ll only see if you look closer.

The power in my D/s relationship sits with me, the submissive. Without my cooperation and willingness to submit, there is no D/s. He may be a Dominant, but he’s not dominating anyone unless he has a willing submissive. Sure, either of us could decide to stop a scene, a moment, or even the relationship. Free will still applies. But the act of Domination from a BDSM standpoint can’t happen (legally) without a consenting and willing submissive. He can tell me to get on my knees, but only I decide if I will or not. The freedom, as a submissive, is knowing you can trust your partner enough in order to let go completely and follow the rules, guidance, commands, and directions you’re given.

On the other side, a Dominant needs to know they can trust their submissive to follow those rules and protocols and to do as they are told. Some of those rules are for the Dominant’s benefit – they get off on the control. Some are for the submissive’s benefit – they needs to learn discipline. Others though are mutually beneficial. At the end of the day, it’s about integrity, though. Trust in one another, control over their own actions, and an understanding of the power they yield – these are what make a D/s relationship successful and satisfying.

Submitting: Two Perspectives
A submissive is given a command by their Dominant. What does it mean? What is it for? Is a Dom just a power-hungry bully or are they weak-willed and simpering with no thoughts of their own? Every command should have a purpose – from kinky fun to something deeper. A submissive’s willingness to comply can come from multiple places.

“Spread your legs. Don’t move.”

That moment could be a spanking or a bit of kinky fun. The submissive wants the release of endorphins and the pain. The Dominant wants to exert ultimate control and make physical, mental, and emotional contact with their partner. At the same time, maintaining a position keeps them both safe from accidental harm. One wrong angle, and real damage can be done when partners play rough. It’s a power play, a means to a kinky end, and a safety measure.

Look at it from a different perspective, though. That moment could be a test of wills. A Dominant places their submissive into a position and expects them to maintain it until they releases them. Let’s be real, if they weren’t willing, they could walk away at any moment. The reasons a submissive maintains that position vary: they’re turned on by pleasing their Dominant; they’re stubborn and refuse to falter before their Dom gives the word; they know that compliance will yield a greater prize later. Who knows what a particular sub’s reasons might be, but none of them are based on weakness. Their own integrity keeps them in place, regardless of any other reason.

Submission isn’t a two-dimensional act done by an unthinking robot or a weak-willed person who requires guidance to get through their day and life. No, submission requires thought, consent, and integrity, as well as the understanding that there’s a reason for everything that happens.

D/s is both simple and complex. Simply put, it’s a power exchange between two willing partners. The Dominant makes the rules, sets the course, and takes on the responsibility of the care of another human being. Submissives follow the rules, serve their Dominant, and should provide constant feedback in the form of continued consent, safewords, and sharing their thoughts and feelings about the experiences they’re having. Each has their part to play, and both have their own kind of power. There is no D/s without both partners willingly engaging – they’re equal but different.

REF:
Kayla Lords is a sex blogger, erotic writer, and kinky submissive living and loving the BDSM lifestyle. She focuses on BDSM in most of her writings in order to help people realize it's not all scary and it can be fulfilling for those who truly enjoy it.

 
Last edited:

AndyRew00

Hercules
Diamond Member
Points
0
BDSM in Psychological Literature - KinkForAll Providence

In her KinkForAll Providence talk, Ruth Garrott gives us a brief overview of historical references to BDSM in psychological literature starting all the way back in the early 1800's and ending with the upcoming revisions of the DSM-V today. She postulates that early psychologists were trying to understand a sexuality they probably didn't share and, in their careful attempts at objective analysis coupled with the morals of the day, they pathologized consensual actions through a lack of understanding about certain behaviors.


REF:
KinkForAll
A serendipitous, ad-hoc unconference about the intersection of sexuality with the rest of life.

Ruth Garrott, Psy.D.

trained at the Massachusetts School for Professional Psychology where I graduated with a Psy.D. (a Doctorate in Psychology). The Psy.D. differs from a Ph.D. in Psychology in that the Psy.D. has a greater emphasis on practical, clinical work, and less on research or learning to be a professor. Each year of graduate school, I worked with people in different settings and with different problems, from hospitalized people dealing with major mental illnesses to inner-city Boston high-school students to divorcing families in a Court Clinic. I graduated in 2008 after presenting my doctoral project, The Effects of Psychotherapists’ Values On Their Work with Clients Who Practice Consensual Sexual Sadomasochism.

After receiving my doctorate, I entered a Fellowship at the Boston Institute for Psychotherapy, where I worked with individuals and couples dealing with everything from Attention-Deficit Hyperactive Disorder to fibromyalgia to questions about the place of their religion in their lives. I also co-led a group called “Coping Skills for Women Trauma Survivors,” where we adapted Dialectical-Behavioral Therapy to be useful for our clients. At the same time, I also worked as a fee-for-service clinician at the Brighton-Allston Mental Health Association outside Boston. There, I worked primarily with high-school students, though I also performed diagnostic interviews for people entering the clinic.

I spent some time on hiatus from work, living in College Station, Texas, where I served as Secretary and then President of the Board of Directors of the Pride Community Center, a newly-forming GLBTQIA resource center.

Currently, I’m on staff at the Boston Institute for Psychotherapy, as well as running this private practice.
 
Last edited:

AndyRew00

Hercules
Diamond Member
Points
0
The Psychology of Sadomasochism
An attempt to explain sadism and masochism.​

Sadomasochism can be defined as the giving or receiving of pleasure, often sexual, from the infliction or reception of pain or humiliation It can feature as an enhancement to sexual pleasure, or, in some cases, as a substitute or sine qua non. The infliction of pain is used to incite sexual pleasure, while the simulation of violence can serve to form and express attachment. Indeed, sadomasochistic activities are often initiated at the request of, and for the benefit of, the masochist, who often directs activities through subtle emotional cues.

Consensual sadomasochism should not be confounded with acts of sexual aggression. Moreover, while sadomasochists seek out pain and humiliation in the context of love and sex, they do not do so in other situations and dislike simple, unfettered violence or abuse as much as the next person. In short, and in general, sadomasochists are not psychopaths. While psychopathy, or antisocial personality disorder, is a diagnosable mental disorder, sadomasochism is not diagnosable unless it causes significant distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others.

Some surveys have suggested that sadistic fantasies are just as prevalent in women as in men. However, it seems that men with sadistic urges tend to develop them at an earlier age. While some sadomasochistic people are purely sadistic and others purely masochistic, many are varying degrees of both, and may describe themselves as ‘switchable’.

Origins

Sadomasochism is a portmanteau of sadism and masochism, terms coined by the 19th century German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing, who spoke of basic, natural tendencies to sadism in men, and to masochism in women.

Krafft-Ebing named sadism for the 18th century Marquis de Sade, author of Justine ou les Malheurs de la Vertu and other books. The film Quills, starring Geoffrey Rush, Kate Winslet, and Michael Caine, is inspired by the story of Sade.

How delightful are the pleasures of the imagination! In those delectable moments, the whole world is ours; not a single creature resists us, we devastate the world, we repopulate it with new objects which, in turn, we immolate. The means to every crime is ours, and we employ them all, we multiply the horror a hundredfold. —Marquis de Sade, Les prospérités du vice

Masochism he named for the 19th century Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, author of Venus in Furs.

Man is the one who desires, woman the one who is desired. This is woman's entire but decisive advantage. Through man's passions, nature has given man into woman's hands, and the woman who does not know how to make him her subject, her slave, her toy, and how to betray him with a smile in the end is not wise. —Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, Venus in Furs

While the terms sadism and masochism are from the 19th century, the phenomena they describe are not so recent. In his Confessions (1782), Jean-Jacques Rousseau bravely speaks of the masochistic sexual pleasure he derived from his childhood beatings, adding that ‘after having ventured to say so much, I can shrink from nothing’. In a different time and place, the Renaissance philosopher Giovanni Pico della Mirandola described a man who needed to be flogged to get aroused. And the Kama Sutra which dates back to the 2nd century, makes mention of consensual erotic slapping.

Early theories


The German physician Johann Heinrich Meibom introduced the first theory of masochism in his Treatise on the Use of Flogging in Medicine and Venery (1639). According to Meibom, flogging a man’s back warms the semen in his kidneys, which leads to sexual arousal when it flows down into his testicles. Other theories of masochism spoke of the warming of blood or the use of sexual arousal to mitigate physical pain.

In Psychopathia Sexualis (1886), a compendium of sexual case histories and sex-crimes, Krafft-Ebing did not amalgamate sadism and masochism, understanding them as stemming from different sexual and erotic logics. In Three Papers on Sexual Theory, Freud observed that sadism and masochism are often found in the same individuals, and, accordingly, he combined the terms. He understood sadism as a distortion of the aggressive component of the male sexual instinct, and masochism as a form of sadism against the self—and a graver aberration than simple sadism.

Freud remarked that the tendency to inflict and receive pain during intercourse is ‘the most common and important of all perversions’, and ascribed it—as so much else—to incomplete or aberrant psychological development in early childhood. He paid scant attention to sadomasochism in women, either because sadism was thought to occur mainly in men, or because masochism was thought to be the normal and natural inclination of women.

In Studies in the Psychology of Sex, the British physician Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) argued for the absence of a clear distinction between aspects of sadism and masochism, and, moreover, restricted sadomasochism to the sphere of eroticism, thereby divorcing it from abuse and cruelty.

The French philosopher Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) begged to differ. In his essay Coldness and Cruelty, he contended that sadomasochism is an artificial term, and that sadism and masochism are in fact distinct phenomena. He provided fresh accounts of sadism and masochism, but, unfortunately, I seem unable to fully understand them.

Explanations


The same can be said for sadomasochism in general. Sadomasochism is hard to understand. Here, I propose several understandings. While some may hold in some circumstances and not others, none are mutually exclusive. Indeed, many of our strongest emotions result from more than just one impulse.

Most obviously, the sadist may derive pleasure from feelings of power, authority, and control, and from the ‘suffering’ of the masochist.

The sadist may also harbour an unconscious desire to punish the object of sexual attraction for having aroused his desire and thereby subjugated him, or, in some cases, for having frustrated his desire or aroused his jealousy.

By objectifying his partner, who is thereby rendered subhuman, the sadist does not need to handle the partner’s emotional baggage, and can deceive himself that the sex is not all that meaningful: a mere act of lust rather than an intimate and pregnant act of love. The partner becomes a trophy, a mere plaything, and while one can own a toy and perhaps knock it about, one cannot fall in love with it or be hurt or betrayed by it.

Sadism may also represent a kind of displacement activity or scapegoating in which uncomfortable feelings such as anger and guilt are displaced and projected onto another person. Scapegoating is an ancient and deep-rooted impulse and practice. According to Leviticus, God instructed Moses and Aaron to sacrifice two goats every year. The first goat was to be killed and its blood sprinkled upon the Ark of the Covenant. The High Priest was then to lay his hands upon the head of the second goat and confess the sins of the people. Unlike the first goat, this lucky second goat was not to be killed, but to be released into the wilderness together with its burden of sin, which is why it came to be known as a, or the, scapegoat. The altar that stands in the sanctuary of every church is a symbolic remnant and reminder of this sacrificial practice, with the ultimate object of sacrifice being, of course, Jesus himself.

For the masochist, taking on a role of subjugation and helplessness can offer a release from stress or the burden of responsibility or guilt. It can also evoke infantile feelings of dependency, safety, and protection, which can serve as a proxy for intimacy. In addition, the masochist may derive pleasure from earning the approval of the sadist, commanding his full attention, and, in a sense, controlling him.

For the dyad, sadomasochism can be seen as a means of intensifying normal sexual relations (pain releases endorphins and other hormones), regressing to a more primal or animal state, testing boundaries, or playing. In her recent book, Aesthetic Sexuality, Romana Byrne goes so far as to argue that S&M practices can be driven by certain aesthetic goals tied to style, pleasure, and identity, and, as such, can be compared to the creation of art.

Et tu


Many 'normal' behaviours such as infantilizing, tickling, and love-biting contain definite elements of sadomasochism. It is possible to read this article and think that this sort of stuff only applies to a small number of ‘deviants’, but the truth is that each and every one of us harbours sadomasochistic tendencies. In the words of the Roman playwright Terence, ‘I am human, and consider nothing human to be alien to me.’

In almost every relationship, one partner is more attached than the other, leading the less attached partner to become dominant, while the more attached partner becomes infantilized and submissive in a bid to pacify, please, and seduce. Eventually, the less attached partner feels stifled and takes distance, but if he ventures too far, the more attached partner may simply go cold and shut-out or leave. This in turn provokes the less attached partner to flip and become the more enthusiastic of the partners. Eventually, the balance re-establishes itself, until it is upset again, and so on ad infinitum. Domination and submission are elements of most relationships, but that does not prevent them from being tiresome, sterile, and, to echo Freud, immature.

Rather than playing at cat and mouse, lovers need to have the confidence and the courage to rise above that game—and not just by getting married. By learning to trust each other, they can dare to see each other as the fully-fledged human beings that they truly are, ends-in-themselves rather than mere means-to-an-end. True love is about respecting, sharing, nurturing, and enabling, but how many people have the capacity and the maturity for this kind of love?

And, of course, it takes two not to tango.

Compiled by :
Neel Burton, M.D., is a psychiatrist, philosopher, writer, and wine lover who lives and teaches in Oxford, England.

He is a Fellow of Green-Templeton College, Oxford, and the recipient of the Society of Authors' Richard Asher Prize, the British Medical Association's Young Authors' Award, the Medical Journalists' Association Open Book Award, and a Best in the World Gourmand Award.
 
Last edited:

Vanessa Jane

New to the team
Silver Member
Points
0
as a psych student - I appreciate the little reference at the end :p

very informative - will have a proper read when I'm not at work. I'm loving your posts AndryRew!
 

AndyRew00

Hercules
Diamond Member
Points
0
What's dangerous about BDSM?
BDSM: Loving, dangerous, or deviant?


Sadomasochism

Can be considered a type of sexual play, preference, or identity where an individual derives satisfaction from receiving pain, inflicting pain, or both. Often called "S&M," sadomasochism is part of a large category of consensual sex practices and lifestyles called BDSM. BDSM is an acronym for "bondage and discipline," "dominance and submission," and "sadism and masochism."

Sadomasochism can be difficult for people to understand, and for some it can seem downright scary. For individuals who prefer a more "vanilla" sexual life with no kink, it can seem odd that there are people who want to be whipped, uncomfortably chained to a cross, caned, or otherwise tortured. Equally as disturbing can be imagining oneself being the person who enjoys doing these things to others. For many people the practices associated with sadomasochism can bring up strong reactions, one of them commonly being, "That's dangerous!"

In an article published by ABC News last year, and in other articles from mainstream news sources over the past few years, this seems to be the reaction. The ABC article, entitled, "Love Hurts: Sadomasochism's Dangers," discusses a 67-year old man who was rushed to the emergency room after losing consciousness in a sex club. He had passed out during an S&M scene that involved him hanging by his arms from a cross, and the damage was so severe that it took him a few days to regain consciousness. The article discusses how lucky the man is to be alive, and goes on to talk about the more unfortunate individuals who have died while engaging in S&M practices. Not surprisingly, the article's main message, as expressed by the sex experts they quote in the article, seems to be that people shouldn't get into dangerous sex.

It's true that some sex practices can be dangerous, and that people should always take precaution when experimenting with a new practice. But people can get injured or die from a variety of activities. A SCUBA diving death is not uncommon, nor is a rock climbing death. Even dying during sex isn't uncommon after a certain age. What makes BDSM injuries and deaths so newsworthy is that they occurred during alternative sex practices that are not widely well understood. The mystery surrounding these practices allows people to be easily frightened, and it can make judgment seem a little more okay.

4195-76735.jpg

In the ABC News article it seems like the reaction expressed ("That's dangerous!") is thinly masking a judgment toward BDSM. If the message is really just that S&M (and hence BDSM) can be dangerous for some people at some times, then it would make sense to give tips about how to reduce the danger (other than full abstinence). For instance, the dangers associated with BDSM can be greatly reduced by consensually playing with a caring, experienced partner, using safewords, and clearly defining boundaries ahead of time. There are many safety precautions taken by those who engage in BDSM, and nearly none of that information is presented in this article, which makes individuals who are into BDSM practices appear to be universally irresponsible and negligent.

In addition, the article appears to pathologize individuals who prefer BDSM to more normative sex practices, assuming them to be incapable of love. As quoted in the article, Judy Kuriansky, a sex psychologist, says, "There is a triumvirate of guilt, embarrassment, and fear of intimacy for these people... It's rare that all of the sudden they can give up on being interested in pain and suddenly capable of being loved." It seems that while the article started with one reaction, that BDSM is dangerous, it ends with a judgment that BDSM is a shameful, rarely curable pathology that afflicts those who cannot experience love and intimacy. By asserting that the inclusion of S&M in sex precludes a person from experiencing love, the article is endorsing the idea that there is only one way to love. However, many individuals in BDSM communities vehemently disagree, and maintain that they do love, and that BDSM allows them to do this more fully. To quote Lee, the main character in the S&M themed movie, "Secretary": "I feel more than I've ever felt and I've found someone to feel with. To play with. To love in a way that feels right for me."

So what's dangerous about BDSM? Is BDSM dangerous because it is bad for our health, or because it is non-normative and threatening to traditional views on love? Is BDSM only for deviants who can't love, or is BDSM just a different way of loving? Before deciding, it can be useful to take a look at the other side of the issue, from the perspective of those who enjoy BDSM in their lives.

Written By:
Jennifer Sweeton, Psy.D.

Is a licensed clinical psychologist specializing in PTSD, women's issues, and neuroscience applications to psychotherapy. Dr. Sweeton owns a private practice and is a nationally-known speaker on trauma treatment and feminist therapy. Previously, she served as the Director of Behavioral Health at Indian Health Service, and at the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center as a telemental health psychologist. Dr. Sweeton earned her doctoral degree from the PGSP-Stanford Psy.D. Consortium, and a master's degree from Stanford University in Personality Psychology (emphasis in Affective Neuroscience). In addition, Dr. Sweeton is the director of a nonprofit organization, Workings of Well-Being (link is external), which focuses on the use of a variety of techniques that facilitate improved functioning, life satisfaction, and emotional well-being
 

AndyRew00

Hercules
Diamond Member
Points
0
How Do You Define What Is 'Sexually Normal'?
The prevalence of many 'sexually unusual' behaviors is surprisingly high.

A study recently appearing in The Journal of Sex Research has found that nearly half (45.6%) of the Canadian sample of 1,040 adult males and females admitted to a desire for a paraphilic (sexually abnormal) behavior, and just over one-third (33.9%) had actually engaged in at least one.

The study looked at all kinds of ‘unusual’ sexual behaviors (both ‘desire for’ and ‘experience with’) and basically found that many acts typically regarded as abnormal or deviant, are in fact reasonably common. Below is a brief summary of the prevalence rates found for various sexual interests (the first number is the rate of desire for the behavior, while the number in brackets is the portion of the sample that had actually experienced/committed the behavior):

Voyeurism: 46.3% (34.5%)
Fetishism: 44.5% (26.3%)
Exhibitionism, extended—had sex with a partner while someone else watched: 30.6% (30.9%)
Exhibitionism, strict: 4.5% (5.0%)
Frotteurism: 26.7% (26.1%)
Masochism: 23.8% (19.2%)
Sadism: 7.1% (5.5%)
Transvestism: 6.3% (4.9%)
Sex with a child: 0.6% (0.4%)

Fantasies

Given that sexual interests often include fantasies, it’s of interest that a study appearing in the Journal of Criminal Justice and Behavior found that more than 60% of male college students fantasized about sadism and bondage. Another group of researchers found that male college students may even fantasize about BDSM and coercion more often than sex offenders!

A related study reported that nearly 50% of female college students said they had fantasized about an episode in which they had either submitted to force or been sexually victimized. Consistent with these findings, a study published in the Journal of Sex Research found that while 62% of the female undergrad sample had experienced a ‘rape-fantasy’ (going by the legal definition of rape), only about 45% of these were completely erotic.

Evidence such as this would seem to suggest that fantasies categorized by the DSM-5 as paraphilic are reasonably common (or at least not all that uncommon) among the general population. However, to fulfill DSM-5 criteria, a sexual fantasy/urge would have to be at least as intense as a ‘normophilic’ interest for it to be considered a paraphilia.

A large Canadian study of both men and women found that while many people may fantasize about things which are not considered ‘normal’, the most common sexual fantasies are more conventional. Below are the 10 most common sexual fantasies reported by each gender (the numbers in brackets represent the portion of the sample that reported at least one fantasy of this kind). The gender difference is very interesting, but probably not too surprising.

Men


Taking part in fellatio or cunnilingus (87.6%)
Having sex with two women (84.5%)
Having sex with someone that I know is not my spouse (83.4%)
Having sex in an unusual place, such as in the office or in a public toilet (82.3%)
Watching two women make love (82.1%)
Ejaculating on my sexual partner (80.4%)
Having sex in a romantic location like on a deserted beach (78.4%)
Giving cunnilingus (78.1%)
Masturbating my partner (76.4%)
Having sex with more than three people, all women (75.3%)

Women


Having sex in a romantic location like on a deserted beach (84.9%)
Having sex in an unusual place, such as in the office or a public toilet (81.7%)
Taking part in fellatio or cunnilingus (78.5%)
Giving fellatio (72.1%)
Being masturbated by my partner (71.4%)
Masturbating my partner (68.1%)
Having sex with someone that I know who is not my spouse (66.3%)
Being dominated sexually (64.6%)
Making love openly in a public place (57.3%)
Having sex with more than three people, both men and women (56.5%)

However, fantasies are VERY different from reality. There is a very strong social proscription against non-consensual sex, as there should be, and many other paraphilic behaviors. Thinking about something (or reporting having thought about it) is entirely different from actually doing it. For example, most respondents that report having experienced a ‘rape fantasy’ are emphatic about not wanting to ever have such an experience.

Looky-loo (voyeurism)

I enjoy a good steamy sex scene as much as the next guy but this does NOT make me a voyeur. Voyeurism goes beyond simply liking to watch people engage in sexual behavior. Observation (but secret observation) is an essential element of voyeurism but it may also involve taking some kind of photo or video. Clinically, voyeurism is a serious psychosexual disorder in which a person derives sexual pleasure and gratification from looking at the naked bodies and genital organs, or observing the sexual acts of others

A study of young male college students found that more than half (52%) acknowledged some kind of interest in voyeurism. In a different study, including women, nearly two-thirds of the college-aged sample said that they would engage in voyeurism if they could be certain that there would be no consequences. The question is, would you?

The overwhelming majority of research examining voyeurism reports a strong gender discrepancy. This is one of the very few pastimes in which males are the more frequent ‘observers’.

A Swedish study concluded that the best predictor of voyeurism is frequent use of porn. According to estimate by the porn industry, about 80% of consumers are males, almost always flying solo.

Fifty shades of kink (BDSM)

Once viewed as the domain of creepy perverts, BDSM has crossed over and with the unprecedented success of the Fifty Shades franchise, is more ‘mainstream’ than ever.

BDSM is really more of an umbrella term encompassing a variety of erotic practices. The term is generally interpreted as a combination of abbreviations: B/D (Bondage & Discipline); D/S (Dominance & Submission); and S/M (Sadism & Masochism).

These days BDSM is associated with imagery such as tight-fitting leather, gags, and whips, although the BDSM community may include crossdressers, body modification enthusiasts, bondage enthusiasts, rubber fetishists, and many other fringe groups.

The Kinsey studies in the middle part of the 20th century, found that as many as 24% of men and 12% of women had at least some kind of erotic response to sadomasochistic stories. It’s of interest that nearly all of the people in the study were middle-class Caucasians. A study of almost 3,000 American adults that took place in the 90’s found lower prevalence levels. Only 14% of men and 11% of women reported having had an experience with sadomasochism. The numbers were similar for prevalence rates of dominance and submission.

In case you think that BDSM was only popular ‘back then’, a study by Durex (the condom guys) recently found that roughly 37% of people in the UK have engaged in some form of bondage or blindfolding.

Strut your stuff (exhibitionism)

Deriving enjoyment from getting your bits out and showing everyone really isn’t that common. Chances are that when you get called (or call someone) an exhibitionist you’re not necessarily referring to the clinical definition. Strictly, exhibitionism involves some kind of achievement of sexual gratification from indecently exposing one’s genitals, generally to a stranger or group of strangers.

In a Swedish sample of nearly 2,500 people aged 18 – 60, only about 3% reported at least one incident of having felt sexually aroused due to exposing their genitals to a stranger. Unsurprisingly, the prevalence was higher among men (4%) than women (2%). Similar results were found in a large Canadian sample of 1,040 adults, with strict exhibitionism being reported by around 5%. The study also asked about extended exhibitionism (having sex with a partner while someone else was watching), with over 30% having had experience with this act!

What nice shoes you have (fetishism)

Fetishism is probably one of the more common paraphilias.

When many people hear the word ‘fetish’ they think of things like shoes or undergarments. Arousal caused by shoes or feet makes up only a portion of what fetishism actually is.

Generally the fetishist focuses on the obsession of an object (not always shoes) and the sexual arousal resulting from seeing or interacting with that object. The article of desire is typically held, rubbed, or smelt for sexual gratification. But fetishism can also involve arousal due to behaviors or situations.

In a 2016 study, more than one-quarter of the young males sampled (28%) expressed an interest in fetishism. However, actually engaging in fetishism (or at least admitting to having engaged in it) may be considerably less frequent. A study of 2,765 American adults reported that only 11% of men said they had engaged in some kind of fetishism. 1 in 9 is still pretty high (statistical rareness would be closer to 1 in 40), but again, thinking about something is very different from actually doing it.

Pedophilia

Of all the different types of paraphilia, none provoke more of an emotional reaction than pedophilia. This is generally considered a psychiatric disorder. Pedophiles have a sexual preference for children, who are legally, morally, and psychologically unable to reciprocate the interest. Some pedophiles act on their thoughts, some don’t.

To be clear, pedophilia is unequivocally illegal, and morally unjustifiable. Confessing a sexual attraction to children is basically laying claim to one of the most reviled statuses on the planet.

As it happens, pedophilia is exceedingly rare. The Canadian study referenced at the start of this article found that less than 0.4% of individuals had ever engaged in an act of pedophilia. As alarming as 4 in 1000 is, it is statistically anomalous.

Although pedophiles are notoriously hard to identify, due in part to the overwhelming social proscription against pedophilia, about 1% of the population is considered an upper limit for the incidence of this perversion.

It rubs me the wrong way (frotteurism)

Frotteurism is perhaps one of the more unusual paraphilias but is apparently reasonably common. It typically involves rubbing one’s pelvic area against a clothed stranger (or non-consenting other) for the purposes of sexual gratification (crowded buses or trains). As with most paraphilias, frotteurism is more common among men (specifically 15-25 year olds) than women.

Acts of frotteurism generally carry legal consequences, thus self-reports of the behavior may underestimate its incidence. Dr. Mark Griffiths, Chartered Psychologist and Professor of Gambling Studies at Nottingham Trent University, says that based on the literature, about 30% of adult men in the general population have committed an act of frotteurism at some point.

The Canadian study referenced at the start of this article found that in an online questionnaire, 32.2% of respondents (men and women grouped together) said that they had committed at least one act of frotteurism in their lifetime.

Man, I feel like a woman (transvestism)

Okay, we need to be clear because there is some confusion about the terms transvestite, transsexual and transgender. A transvestite is a person of one gender (typically a heterosexual male) who derives some enjoyment from dressing in clothing traditionally associated with the opposite-sex (a cross-dresser). A transsexual is someone who has medically changed their gender to the desired gender. Transgender is a more general (and politically correct) term that includes transvestites, transsexuals, and anyone else who feels as though they don’t conform to typical gender roles.

Contrary to popular belief, transvestites are usually heterosexual. Most have wives or girlfriends, and most transvestites want to remain men.

This is one of the few paraphilias that possibly gets an over-representation in mainstream culture. The truth is that transvestism is probably less common than most people think. A Swedish study found that less than 3% of men had any experience with transvestism in their life. In Canada the prevalence rate among women is about the same, but it is more than double this (6.5%) among men.

So what is ‘normal’ sexually? Well, it’s definitely not well agreed upon. The rise and rise of the internet has probably made it easier for people from ‘fringe’ subcultures (masochists etc.) to seek out and find like-minded enthusiasts. Chatrooms, lairs, and forums may lead to increased understanding, awareness, and maybe even validation. The bottom line is, nearly half of us admit to doing or thinking about doing something which isn’t considered sexually ‘normal.’

All of these except for masochism were far more prevalent among men than women. To put this in perspective, a behavior is considered ‘statistically unusual’ if it occurs among less than 16% of the population, and ‘statistically rare’ if it occurs among less than about 2.3% of the population. By this criterion, only sadism, transvestism and sex with a child would be considered ‘unusual’. The only ‘rare’ behavior here would be sex with a child.

Paraphilia

The term paraphilia is often used in a pejorative way, and is sometimes used interchangeably with sexual perversion. It has been variously defined but most definitions incorporate some element of sexual deviance and/or sexual arousal to unusual objects, situations, or behaviors. In the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) the American Psychiatric Association categorizes sexual interests as either ‘normophilic’ (normal) or ‘paraphilic’ (non-normophilic). They define normophilic sexual interests as “interests in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners.” (APA, 2013, p. 685)

Everything else is considered paraphilic (examples of paraphilia given include voyeurism, sadism, masochism, exhibitionism, fetishism, pedophilia, frotteurism, and transvestism). Although paraphilia isn’t precisely defined, experts often talk about it as being a sexual drive “outside the normal” involving behavior that “deviates significantly from the norm”. Exactly what is ‘normal’ is still unknown.

The Mating Game
Investigating the psychology underpinning human relationships
Written By:
Ryan Anderson, BSc, BPsych,
A psychologist and zoologist currently undertaking doctoral studies at James Cook University examining mate choice.
 

AndyRew00

Hercules
Diamond Member
Points
0
The science of what excites kinky people doesn't end with armchair psychology...........
Though popular tropes all hold that people interested in BDSM were all abused or are disturbed, the biological basis of kink deserves more study

When it comes to explaining the how and why of sexual desire, there are few answers more reassuring than “because it’s in our DNA”, or “because we’re wired that way”. From why men love boobs to why both partners start wanting to scratch other sexual itches after seven years, a plausible-sounding biological explanation for our sexual predilections is always welcomed – apart from, of course, when it comes to BDSM.

16bde4c3-d190-4b92-8c87-80416845838f-1020x612.jpeg

Most general medical discourse about kink focuses on unpicking early childhood trauma, emotional disturbance or abuse (as experienced by the protagonist in Fifty Shades of Grey). Psychological arousal is not, however, just about physical stimulation, and physical reactions don’t confine themselves to psychologically comfortable circumstances. But when it comes to consensual kink, we could greatly benefit from more focus on the physical.

Put simply, there’s a science to spanking, to nipple torture, to candle waxing and to pretty much any other sex act you could name where prolonging the anticipation of touch or relief or safely manipulating blood flow causes the release of neurotransmitters – such as dopamine, adrenalin or serotonin – that result in a chemical high. It’s true that you have to be able to find that kind of physical stimulation arousing in order to be turned on, but if you do, having a person you find attractive putting you over their knee and spanking you in a way that encourages your body to release noradrenaline, adrenalin and dopamine in anticipation of the spank, and then opioids on point of contact is likely to be a pretty positive sexual experience.

And the research backs it up. Take some conducted by Meredith Chivers of Queen’s University, for example, which found that vaginal blood flow in women interested in BDSM increases when they watch kinky porn – at the same rate as it does for non-kinky women who watch vanilla porn. Conversely, blood flow does not increase when kinky women watch vanilla porn, implying that the brain has a part to play in controlling that blood flow, and that the brains of people who respond to kinky stimuli fire up the way those who respond to vanilla sex do. The pending fMRI scans of kinksters are expected to confirm what sexologists already hypothesise: there’s nothing neurologically or biologically dysfunctional about kink-related desire.

Most of us have demons and neuroses, swallowed frustrations and some of us act on them more than others and at different points in our lives. For a minority, BDSM may be a way those are expressed – as vanilla sex is for many others. But most of us lack the self-awareness necessary to pick apart the vagaries of our psychological motives and sexual peccadilloes. If you and your partner walk away from a sex act both satisfied and unscathed – or at least with no lasting emotional or physical bruises – perhaps that’s an outcome that needs no further probing.

Fifty Shades may certainly have opened up the general debate on kink, but social and legal prejudice still prevails. In the UK, December amendments to laws governing online porn fell disproportionately on kink acts. In the US, the First Amendment still does not apply to all sexual communications under the Communications Decency Act, if they are “patently offensive under local community standards” and cannot be proved to have “redeeming social value” by the author – particularly if they are kinky and non-heteronormative. And while the fifth edition of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders may no longer consider sadomasochism or fetishism to be medical conditions, it still lists paraphilias such as sadomasochistic disorder and fetish disorder.

And the systemic prejudice against BDSM affects the funding of research that would help us better understand it. Off the record, American academics at major colleges have told me that their sex research projects remain on ice for months, sometimes years, and many American sexologists decamp to Canada where the liberal climate – and budgets – better facilitate research. Yet if the US National Institutes of Health won’t even fund, for example, research on the intersection of gender and health despite the massive current discussion around transgender identification, it’s unlikely to fund research on spanking and health.

If science was on the side of the kinky, how might that change the American mindset about what makes for good, clean and even godly sexual relations?

There’s almost certainly a methodology for exploring the science of kink – but if it threatens to challenge the sexual status quo, or inject some rationale into a debate about what kind of sex is acceptable, it’s a safe bet that it won’t be funded any time soon.

New book, 'The Curious History of Dating'

Written by:
Nichi Hodgson for The Guardian
Nichi Hodgson is the sex columnist for Men's Health, director of the Ethical Porn Partnership and author of Bound To You. Her new book, 'The Curious History of Dating' is due out 2017
 

AndyRew00

Hercules
Diamond Member
Points
0
Paraphilias
Paraphilias are conditions marked by sexual attraction for objects or people outside the norm.

A paraphilia is a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme. A paraphilia can revolve around a particular object (children, animals, underwear) or around a particular act (inflicting pain, exposing oneself). Most paraphilias are far more common in men than in women. The focus of a paraphilia is usually very specific and unchanging.

A paraphilia is distinguished by a preoccupation with the object or behavior to the point of being dependent on that object or behavior for sexual gratification.

Paraphilias include sexual behaviors that society may view as distasteful, unusual or abnormal. In descending order, the most common are pedophilia (sexual activity with a child usually 13 years old or younger), exhibitionism (exposure of genitals to strangers), voyeurism (observing private activities of unaware victims) and frotteurism (touching, rubbing against a nonconsenting person), while fetishism (use of inanimate objects), sexual masochism (being humiliated or forced to suffer), sexual sadism (inflicting humiliation or suffering) and transvestic fetishism (cross-dressing) are far less common. Some of these behaviors are illegal and those who are under treatment for paraphilias have often encountered legal situations surrounding their behaviors. There is also a category called Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified to cover paraphilias not falling into the already named diagnoses such as those involving dead people, urine, feces, enemas and obscene phone calls.

Symptoms

Although many paraphilias seem foreign or extreme, they are easier to understand if one thinks of those behaviors that, in less extreme versions, are quite common. For instance, having a partner "talk dirty" may be a "turn-on" for some people, but when talking dirty is the only way that sexual arousal or satisfaction can occur, it would be considered a paraphilia. Others want to be bitten, or spanked, or become aroused by watching their partner. Viewing a nude person or watching sexually explicit videos can be arousing for most people. Paraphilias are magnified to the point of psychological dependence.

Causes
It is unclear what causes a paraphilia to develop. Psychoanalysts theorize that an individual with a paraphilia is repeating or reverting to a sexual habit that arose early in life. Behaviorists suggest that paraphilias begin through a process of conditioning. Nonsexual objects can become sexually arousing if they are repeatedly associated with pleasurable sexual activity. Or, particular sexual acts (such as peeping, exhibiting, bestiality) that provide especially intense erotic pleasure can lead the person to prefer that behavior. In some cases there seems to be a predisposing factor such as difficulty forming person-to-person relationships.

Behavioral learning models suggest that a child who is the victim or observer of inappropriate sexual behaviors learns to imitate and is later reinforced for the behavior. Compensation models suggest that these individuals are deprived of normal social sexual contacts and thus seek gratification through less socially acceptable means. Physiological models focus on the relationship between hormones, behavior and the central nervous system with a particular interest in the role of aggression and male sexual hormones.

Treatments
Treatment approaches have included traditional psychoanalysis, hypnosis, and behavior therapy techniques. More recently, a class of drugs called antiandrogens that drastically lower testosterone levels temporarily have been used in conjunction with these forms of treatment. The drug lowers the sex drive in males and reduces the frequency of mental imagery of sexually arousing scenes. This allows concentration on counseling without as strong a distraction from the paraphiliac urges. Increasingly, the evidence suggests that combining drug therapy with cognitive behavior therapy can be effective.

Regarding medication for paraphilias, level of sex drive is not consistently related to the behavior of paraphiliacs and also high levels of circulating testosterone do not predispose a male to paraphilias. That said, hormones such as medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) and cyproterone acetate decrease the level of circulating testosterone thus reducing sex drive and aggression. These hormones result in reduction of frequency of erections, sexual fantasies and initiations of sexual behaviors including masturbation and intercourse. Hormones are typically used in tandem with behavioral and cognitive treatments. Antidepressants such as fluoxetine (Prozac) have also successfully decreased the sex drive but have not effectively targeted sexual fantasies.

Research suggests that cognitive-behavioral models are effective in treating paraphiliacs. Aversive conditioning, for example, involves using negative stimuli to reduce or eliminate a behavior. Covert sensitization entails the patient relaxing, visualizing scenes of deviant behavior followed by a negative event such as getting his penis stuck in the zipper of his pants. Assisted aversive conditioning is similar to covert sensitization except the negative event is made real most likely in the form of a foul odor pumped in the air by the therapist. The goal is for the patient to associate the deviant behavior with the foul odor and take measures to avoid the odor by avoiding said behavior. Aversive behavioral reversal is commonly known as "shame therapy" as the goal is to shame the offender into stopping the deviant behavior. For example, the offender might be made to watch videotapes of their crime with the goal that the experience will be distasteful and offensive to the offender. Vicarious sensitization entails showing videotapes of deviant behaviors and their consequences such as victims describing desired revenge or perhaps even watching surgical castrations.

There are also positive conditioning approaches that might center on social skills training and alternate behaviors the patient might take that are more appropriate. Reconditioning techniques center on providing immediate feedback to the patient so that the behavior will be changed right away. For example, a person might be connected to a plethysmographic biofeedback machine that is hooked to a light. The person is taught to keep the light within a specific range of color while the person is exposed to sexually stimulating material. Or masturbation training might focus on separating pleasure in masturbation and climax with the deviant behavior.

Cognitive therapies described include restructuring cognitive distortions and empathy training. Restructuring cognitive distortions involves correcting erroneous beliefs by the patient, which may lead to errors in behavior such as seeing a victim and constructing erroneous logic that the victim deserves to be party to the deviant act. Empathy training involves helping the offender take on the perspective of the victim and in identification with the victim, understand the harm that has been done


Sources
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fourth Edition, Revised.
Nathan, P. E., Gorman, J. M., * Salkind, N.J. (Eds.). (1999). Treating mental disorders: A guide to what works. New York: Oxford University Press.
 
Last edited:

AndyRew00

Hercules
Diamond Member
Points
0

' Loving on the edge: A brief look at extreme sexual behaviour'

The Potential Dangers of EdgePlay

Written By; Professor MARK GRIFFITHS, BSc, PhD, CPsychol, PGDipHE, FBPsS, FRSA

In my previous blogs I have examined a wide variety of different – but potentially dangerous – sexual fetishes and paraphilias including sexual masochism, autoerotic asphyxiation (breathplay/hypoxyphilia), enema play (klismaphilia), scat play (coprophilia), watersports (urophilia), and electricity play (electrophilia). All of these sexual behaviours could arguably be classed as ‘edgeplay’. The online Urban Dictionary, edgeplay is “sexual play that is very extreme in nature. Said to be on the edge of safety and sometimes even sanity. Can be very dangerous if not practiced correctly. [Examples include] breathplay, bloodplay, humiliation play, Total Power Exchange (TPE), [and] rape roleplay”. According to ‘lunaKM’ who describes herself as a “full-time slave in an M/s relationship” and the editor (and founder) of the online Submissive Guide, edgeplay has three definitions (that I have reproduced verbatim below)
  • Definition 1: Edgeplay is SM play that involves a chance of harm, either physically or emotionally. It’s also subjective to the players involved; what is risky for me might not be risky for you and visa versa. A few examples of edge play under this definition are fireplay, gunplay, rough body play including punching and wrestling, breath play and blood play.
  • Definition 2: Edgeplay can also literally mean play with an edge. Such examples of play are cutting, knives, swords and other sharp implements. These forms of edge play also fall under the broad term in [the definition above]
  • Definition 3: Any practice which challenges the limits or boundaries of one or more of the participants.
In his book Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices, Dr. Anil Aggrawal notes that edgeplay is dangerous in many different ways as the activities may involve (i) increased risk of spreading disease (e.g., through cutting or bloodplay), (ii) psychological danger (e.g., humiliation play, incest fantasies, rape roleplay), (iii) challenging social taboos (ageplay, scat fetishism, and racial slurs), and (iv) even permanent harm or death (e.g., gunplay and breathplay). Such activities can be done alone, with a partner, or with a group of people. From what I have read anecdotally online, edgeplay enthusiasts claim they know the human body better than most medical professionals, and attempt to exercise as much safety as is humanly possible when going to the point of near death and then resuscitation.

The Wikipedia entry on edgeplay also roots edgeplay within BDSM sexual practices but adds that it is a “subjective term for types of sexual play that are considered to be pushing on the edge of the traditional SSC [safe, sane and consensual] creed [and] considered more RACK [Risk-Ware Consensual Kink]”. The article also notes that such sexual acts involve risking serious (and sometimes permanent) harm including possible death. The same article also notes that what constitutes edgeplay may depend upon both an individual’s viewpoint and may change over time. Activities such as ‘ageplay’ (a form of roleplaying in which an individual acts or treats another as if they were a different age, for example a baby or toddler) or ‘rape roleplay’ (involving imagining or pretending being coerced or coercing another into sex) may be considered ‘edgy’ by some but not others. Activities such as ‘scatplay’ (coprophilia) that were considered edgy in the 1990s have arguably shifted into mainstream BDSM practices.

Journalist Rachel Rabbit White is one of the few people to have written an article on edgeplay. As she writes:

“Edgeplay is a sex thing. It is a BDSM thing. And while BDSM among consenting adults is considered cool and OK by most reasonable people, edgeplay is sort of not OK. Edgeplay refers to acts are those deemed not safe, sane, or consensual, which are the watchwords for “normal” kinky sex. This is the BDSM that is never going to end up in a bestselling erotica novel for moms….Like every flavor of kinkster, edgeplay enthusiasts talk to each other online…There’s a group devoted to the topic on FetLife, the sex-based social networking site. One of the group’s threads asks members what the ‘edgiest’ thing they’ve ever done is. Responses ranged from ‘gun play with a cop’ to ‘as a black woman, going to a 1920s themed party chained to my white partner and dressed as a piccaninny’ to ‘smearing Icy Hot on his fresh Prince Albert piercing – while he slept’. I can’t imagine a world in which that last one is sexy but just because it isn’t my thing doesn’t mean it’s wrong”.

She also confirms that what is considered ‘edgy’ has changed over the last three decades. She claims that in the 1980s and 1990s sexual activities such as scatplay, ageplay, puppyplay, and suspension by skin hook piercings were not allowed at BDSM sex conventions. However, all of these can now be found at such events. This is because “attitudes about what should be forbidden seems to have shifted thanks to people getting better [sexually] educated”. Much of this has coupled the rise of the internet where there are now numerous ‘how to’ guides on almost every type of ‘adult’ sexual activity, and articles on sexual ethics. One of the interviewees for her article (Madeline) describes edgeplay (somewhat paradoxically) as a “consensual non-consent” where activities like ‘rapeplay’ do not involve ‘safewords’ (typically used by BDSM practitioners to signal for the activity to cease). Madeline “talks lovingly” about the rapeplay between her and her husband, and claims it keeps “their long-term relationship tender and fresh, and likewise, their trusting relationship allows them to do rape play”. The article also notes that:

“Rather than glorifying [edgeplay], the BDSM community might be headed in the direction of eradicating the idea of ‘edge’ altogether. That way, the focus can be on how to communicate consent – rather than labeling acts ‘good’ or ‘bad’”.

Another article on edgeplay published by The Dominant Guide by an edgeplay practitioner also made some interesting observations. For instance:

“To understand what edge play is you must first understand that there are actually two types of edge play, personal edge play and general edge play. Personal edge play is any activity that pushes one’s personal limits. It can be anything; there honestly is no limit to what someone might consider stretching their personal boundaries. If someone were afraid of single tail [whips], then using a single tail [whip] on them would be edge play to that individual. If someone were afraid of closed in spaces, then putting him or her in a cage would be considered edge play. So you see personal edge play is different for everyone, but one thing is true in all forms, this type of play is dramatic both mentally and physically. The second type of edge play is what most people refer to as edge play. This is any activity that by common consensus is to be considered pushing the limits of safety and or sanity. Normally people consider such activities as blood play, breath play, gunplay, fireplay, needleplay and knifeplay to be edgeplay”.

The article also discusses whether those into edgeplay are insane to do what they do. (I am well aware that ‘insanity’ is a legal terms and not a psychological one, but this was the word used in the article). The author of the article asserts:

“Can something be considered insane if you are aware of the risks and accept all the possible outcomes…ask a skydiver, or perhaps an astronaut, even a policeman or fireman. Every activity has some level of risk, it is only when one ignores the risks or does not logically think out all possible dangers that the action may be considered insane. If one enters into an activity informed, and educated of the risks then the activity should not be considered insane, but is should be considered dangerous, hence edge play”.

Professor MARK GRIFFITHS, BSc, PhD, CPsychol, PGDipHE, FBPsS, FRSA. Dr. Mark Griffiths is a Chartered Psychologist and Professor of Gambling Studies at the Nottingham Trent University, and Director of the International Gaming Research Unit. He is internationally known for his work into gambling and gaming addictions and has won many awards including the American 1994 John Rosecrance Research Prize for “outstanding scholarly contributions to the field of gambling research”, the 1998 European CELEJ Prize for best paper on gambling, the 2003 Canadian International Excellence Award for “outstanding contributions to the prevention of problem gambling and the practice of responsible gambling” and a North American 2006 Lifetime Achievement Award For Contributions To The Field Of Youth Gambling “in recognition of his dedication, leadership, and pioneering contributions to the field of youth gambling”. One of his most recent awards is the 2009 Research Award from the US National Council on Problem Gambling.
 
Top