Search Results

Following the orders of Julio, her dominant, Cecilia pays a visit to his fiancé, Laura, who has a few surprises in store for her. Excerpt from my novel Amores imposibles. Madrid, Saturday January 27, 1979 At ten before five, Cecilia got out of the elevator on the third floor, her heart pounding furiously as she stood in front of Laura's apartment door. She wondered why she was so nervous. Laura had told her that she had a surprise that she would enjoy. She doubted it. Perhaps she wanted to start a fight, which would break her deal with Julio. But she was determined not to fall for her provocations. As Julio had ordered her, she wore flats and a gray skirt. No stockings, despite the cold wind blowing down the street. But the most important detail was missing. She took her leather collar out of her handbag and put it on. She held her finger on the doorbell for a moment before pressing it. She heard the clicking of high heels inside. The door opened. Laura was more dazzling than ever. She was wearing a cream knit dress, short and tight, with white lace stockings and pumps. Yes, you're pretty as a princess, Laura, but deep down you're a witch. “Cecilia!” said Laura, smiling. “Hello gorgeous! Please, come in!” “Hello, Laura,” she said as she unbuttoned her coat. Laura kissed her on both cheeks, took her coat and hung it on the coat rack. She smiled non-stop, but her quick movements betrayed her nervousness. Her hair was done in perfect amber waves, as if she had just stepped out of the salon. A pearl necklace and matching earrings completed an elegant outfit with a white theme. Laura took her by both hands and didn't let go until they reached the living room. On the coffee table, Laura had neatly served tea: an immaculate placemat and napkins, two cups, a steaming kettle, and a plate of delicious-looking pastries, some with green and red cherries, others with chocolate. She watched it all with some relief. So that's all! Laura just wants to have tea with me and pretend that we are friends again. With a little luck, I'll be able to get out of here soon, forget about the whole thing and tell Julio that I've obeyed him. “I'm going to play some music,” said Laura, going over to the record player. “Do you like Supertramp?” “Yes, a lot.” Laura picked up a record with a snow-covered piano silhouetted against a blue sky on the cover. She knew it well. She had bought it for herself last summer. “I prefer French music, but I know that Julio and you like this type of rock. I want you to make you feel at home. Please sit down.” Laura’s smile was friendly, but in her manners there was a certain affectation. She paid visits to her as she does to a stranger, to a person from whom one wants to get something, not to an old friend. The first song on the album began to play: Give a little bit. She translated the lyrics to Spanish in her mind as she sat on a corner of the sofa. Someone was asking for a little bit of her time, a little bit of her life, a little bit of her love. Laura had sat on the other corner of the sofa and inspected her carefully. Cecilia realized that she had barely opened her mouth since she had come into her house. “What do you want with me, Laura?” “That we become friends again! Besides, I have prepared a couple of surprises that I’m sure you will enjoy. We are going to have so much fun this evening!” She detected a touch of sarcasm in her voice. “Friends, huh? Look, I want to make one thing crystal clear from the start. I'm only going to tell you once, so that later you won't say that I was rude. We are not friends, Laura, nor will we ever be. Is it clear?” Laura's face showed dismay for an instant. Then her expression turned thoughtful. “Yes, that's clear,” she said quietly. “I hope that you will change your mind. Until then, please don't tell me that again.” She uncovered the sugar bowl. “How many tablespoons do you want?” “Two, please… I came because Julio ordered me to. Only because of that.” Laura served her the sugar in his tea. “Yes, I know. I see you're wearing his collar, and that means you're here under his command. I know that it is very important for you to obey him.” “What has he told you about what we have been doing?” Laura fixed her ice-blue eyes on her. “He’s told me everything, Cecilia. Do you fancy some pastries?” she added, offering her the plate. Cecilia picked up a small cake with a green icing on it and chewed on it thoughtfully. It was delicious. “So, he’s told you everything… Of course! You always manage to find out about my intimacies, Laura. I guess I'll have to get used to it.” “Don't worry, Cecilia. Julio won't leave again. Of course, you’ll have to behave and fulfill your part of the deal: to be respectful and obedient to me.” “Obedient? No way! The deal was that I would treat you with respect, nothing more.” “Didn't he tell you to obey me when he called you on Monday?” “Possibly…” she admitted. Things were starting to take a turn that she didn't like at all, but she didn't want to contradict Laura. Laura put her hand on her knee. “So, you’ll have to shallow your pride and obey me. But don't worry, darling, I won’t be mean… If you behave, of course.” “What are you going to do to me, if I may know?” “You will find out in due time. For now, treat me politely and respectfully. I won’t ask you to pretend to be my friend, but neither I want angry answers, solemn silences, or long faces. Understood?” “Understood.” Cecilia sighed, seeing her hopes vanish that all this would end soon. * * * Laura took her teacup delicately by the handle and took a sip, staring at her. “Then, if you don't mind, I'd like to see your diary. And don't give me any excuses, I know you have it in your bag. Julio ordered you to bring it.” “What? Of course I mind! That diary is intimate, something that I share only with Julio.” “No, Cecilia, you are very wrong… Look, I'll prove it to you.” She got up, opened a drawer, took out some papers and gave them to her. Cecilia turned the pages, incredulous. “You recognize them, don’t you? They are photocopies of your diary. If Julio didn't want me to read it, then why did he give them to me?” She felt a sinking feeling. How could have Julio done that to her? How could he have betrayed her? He had promised her that no one else would read the diary. She rose unsteadily. She could only think of one thing: to get out of there and never see Julio or Laura again. She picked up her bag and ran to the door. She reached for the latch to open it, but she stopped. She remembered what she had promised herself before coming in: that she would put up with anything and do what Julio had ordered her to do. * * * She returned to the living room. Laura had her head in her hands, fingers buried in her hair, her gaze lost in her teacup. She looked up with relief when she saw that she’d come back. “Alright, we're going to play this game to the end,” Cecilia said, plopping down on the couch. “I don't like what you have done, but I'm going to stay until I know exactly what you two are up to.” Laura smiled at her, stroking her knee. “You already know what we are up to. It's what you've been doing with Julio all along. Only now you know that I'm also in on it. It’s not as terrible as it looks, you’ll see. You won’t regret it. Come on! Are you going to give me that diary or not?” She took it out of the bag with trembling fingers and handed it to Laura. “You've already read it, anyway,” she said with feigned indifference. “Not all of it…” Laura undid the clasp and opened the diary to the first page, the one that had been dampened with her tears and stained with her blood. The paragraphs below recounted in her own handwriting what happened in that hostel in Toledo. Laura stopped briefly to read it, then she turned several pages until she came to the last thing she had written. “There we go! I hadn't read this part yet. Pour me more tea, please.” Cecilia filled her cup. “Thank you,” said Laura, and she dove into the journal, drinking her tea in small sips. * * * Cecilia finished her cup of tea and ate a couple of pastries, not knowing what else to do. She didn't dare interrupt Laura's reading. “Take off your panties,” said Laura casually, without lifting her gaze from the diary. “What?!” Laura looked up from the diary and glared at her. “You heard me. I want you to take off your panties. And don’t give me any excuses.” She is dominating me! The bitch wants to dominate me! And she’s doing it well! Well, let's see how far she’ll go! Cecilia rose a little to pull down her panties under her skirt. Her hands were still shaking. Laura glanced at her out of the corner of her eye. She slid her panties down her legs. She struggled for a moment to untangle them from her shoes. “Put them here, on the table.” Laura moved aside the teapot and the plate of biscuits to make room right in the middle of the coffee table. Cecilia bunched her panties in a ball and tossed them on the table. Laura stared at her severely. “No, not like that! Spread them out, so they look nice.” Cecilia unfolded the panties on the table, smoothing them out with her hand. They were simple black cotton panties, not the fine lingerie that Laura liked. They struck a shocking note in the middle of the plush tea set. “Like this?” “Perfect. They are cute.” Laura plunged back into her reading, as if nothing had happened. Cecilia did not dare to interrupt her. She felt doubly naked and vulnerable. By the absence of clothes under her skirt, and by recalling the intimate things she had written on the pages Laura was reading. She picked up another cookie and nibbled on it. Obviously, this was not going to be a courtesy visit, but an ordeal of humiliation at the hands of Laura. She was going to play with her like a cat with a mouse. Strangely, that thought filled her with a strange thrill. A tremble in Laura's hands when she turned the pages betrayed her nervousness. Or was it also excitement? Finally, Laura left the diary on the table next to her panties. Cecilia reached out to take it back, but a stern look from Laura dissuaded her. “I see that you want to dominate me, but it won't be that easy. I have a lot of experience in these things.” “You finally got it, huh? Well, don't worry. I think I'll know how to rise to the occasion. For now, I'm having a great time, watching you squirm, wondering what I'm going to do to you. Knowing that you are naked under your skirt,” she gestured to her panties in the middle of the table. “Another pastry?” she offered her the plate. Cecilia accepted the cookie. She had to admit it: Laura was not bad at that game. “Thank you. They are very good. You shouldn't have gone to so much trouble for me.” “You mean the tea and what I've dressed up?” Laura gave her a mischievous smile. “I have to confess that I have done it for me. I like to do things with elegance. My style is very different from Julio's. He treats you roughly, almost brutally. I believe that these perverse acts are more powerful when they are done with refinement. In that, I think I can count on you, because you know how to preserve your dignity, Cecilia. It's one of the things I like about you. You will fight to maintain your dignity and that will ensure that what happens here this evening will be of the strictest good taste.” “I see…” she couldn't help but smile. She had to admit that she liked that. Laura had managed to keep her in suspense. To take her to the edge and bring her back again when she was about to bolt. She had even managed to turn her on a little. Still, now that she knew what the game was about, she wasn't going to give in. However, she realized that Laura was using her own resistance against her. By forcing her to be always on the defensive, every concession she got from her became a victory for Laura and a defeat for her. “Do you want more cookies?” “No, thanks.” “Then take all this to the kitchen. Except your panties. Leave them where they are. I like to see them.” Laura picked up the diary, making it clear that she wasn't going to help her. Cecilia piled up the cups and plates and placed them on her arm, also picking up the teapot and sugar bowl. Laura looked at her sideways. “Do not carry everything at once. You’ll drop something.” “I’ve been a waitress,” she replied defiantly. “Ah, yeah, sure! I’d forgotten about that,” she said absently. She turned her attention back to her journal. She put the cups in the sink and placed the teapot and dish of pastries in the middle of the kitchen table. She picked up one of the remaining cookies and chewed on it thoughtfully. Falling into the trap that Julio and Laura had set for her was as sweet as the pastry she was eating. She was tempted by a strange meekness, a desire to indulge in whatever they had planned to do to her. * * * “Cecilia, what are you doing?” Laura called from the living room. “Come here! I have something to show you.” She was waiting for her, standing by the chest of drawers. She opened a drawer and brought out a hairbrush. “Do you remember this?” she said, turning it around in front of her face. Of course she remembered! The realization of what was coming froze her with embarrassment. She felt a tingle of anticipation in her bottom. “Yes, of course! How could I forget?” she said defiantly. “It must have hurt you a lot! From the way you complained.” “There are things that hurt much more than a simple spanking.” “Damn, don't get philosophical on me! You're going to spoil all the fun!” “I don’t care… But have it your way. If you want to hit me with the hairbrush, go right ahead. You know I can't refuse.” “Yes, that’s precisely what I’m going to do. But I wanted you to know that I’m going to spank you with the same hairbrush that Julio used that time. These things have an important symbolism, don't you think? Hitting you with this hairbrush is not the same as hitting you with something else.” Yes, symbolism was important. Using that hairbrush meant that Laura was going to usurp Julio's role as the administrator of punishments. “I know… But why do you want to spank me? You don't like that. You are not a sadist.” “Well, maybe I am a sadist. The idea of spanking you has fascinated me for a while. But, yes, I had some qualms. The thought of hurting somebody horrified me. However, I no longer have those scruples, so I'm going to hit your cute little butt with this brush until it turns red as a tomato. I’m drenching my panties just thinking about it.” Cecilia swallowed. She knew quite well that, when applied harshly, that hairbrush could do a lot of damage. The only way to deal with the pain was to bring out her masochism, but that meant making herself docile and vulnerable. The idea that Laura could arouse those feelings in her was revolting. “Well, that's enough, okay? You’ve gone far enough, Laura!” she said quietly, but wanting to sound determined. “You’ve gotten what you wanted. You have humiliated and scared me.” “Scared you? Are you kidding? You are not afraid of anything, Cecilia! And surely not of a few smacks on your behind… I’m not doing this to hurt you. I just want to see how masochistic you are. I want to see you enjoying a spanking.” She was right. It wasn’t like her to whine to Laura. She had to show her that she was stronger than her. She would endure the pain and then go home with her head held high. “You have no fucking idea what masochism is all about, Laura! Whether I enjoy it or not depends on who hits me, and why. Spank me if that amuses you, but let me feel whatever I want.” “You are so stubborn, Cecilia! Why do you have to make everything so difficult? But I think I know the way to stop all this nonsense. Come here!” Laura took her by the elbow and led her to the sofa. She let her do it. Everything was beginning to seem unreal, like in a dream. Her panties and her diary were still on the table. He had prepared her well. She would only have to lift her skirt to gain access to her bare bottom. “Take off your shoes.” She kicked them off with her feet. Laura sat in the center of the sofa, clutching the hairbrush. She crossed her legs and smoothed her dress over them. She patted her thigh. “Come on! Lie down here.” Cecilia kneeled on the sofa to her right, full of apprehension. For a moment, their gazes met. Laura's face showed excitement and a certain anxiety. Resigned, she dropped into her lap. She smelled the subtle rose perfume Laura was wearing, mixed with the musky scent of her body. Laura's crossed legs forced her to lift her bottom. She pressed on her hips with her hand, forcing her to arch her back even more to further accentuate that ignominious posture. “Pull up your skirt,” Laura ordered her. Apparently, Laura was not going to miss the slightest opportunity to humiliate her. Cecilia gritted her teeth and buried her face in the sofa. She grabbed the fabric of her skirt in her fists and yanked it up to her hips. The cold air on her buttocks made her feel exposed. “What a delicious ass you have, Cecilia! No wonder it drives Julio crazy!” * * * Laura's fingers brushed her bottom, caressing her bare skin, outlining the provocative curve of her buttocks. Her prodding became more daring, opening her crack to expose her asshole and her pussy. One of her fingers opened her lips, soaking in her moisture, which she immediately felt wetting her anus. She squeezed her buttocks to put an end to that demeaning invasion. “You don't like my caresses, huh? Well, then I'll have to start with the spanks. How about this one?” She gave her a gentle tap with the brush. “You call that a spank? Are you kidding?” “Oh, excuse me!” said Laura sarcastically. “I'm such a beginner that I have no idea how hard I have to hit you. Let me try again. How about this one?” Too late, she realized that she had fallen for her trap. The blow rang like a crack across the room and caused a considerable sting in her bottom. “Ow! Didn't you say you weren't going to hurt me?” “Oops! Sorry, again! I’m so clumsy! It’s so hard for me to judge my strength. No, I don't want to be too hard on you. I just want to warm your butt a bit, so you understand who's in charge here. But you are the expert on spankings, so maybe you’d help me find the right strength.” “It’s not fair making fun of me, on top of spanking me.” “I make fun of whatever I want. How about this one? She hit her hard enough to raise a sting, but it was quite bearable. “How was that? Too hard? Or about right?” “About right,” she admitted grudgingly. “Well, I thought that was a bit soft for a consummate masochist like you… But, okay, we'll start at that level, since I want to spank you for a long time.” And so the show started. Laura gave her a series of quick smacks all over her bottom. That really ignited the skin on her buttocks, drawing all her attention to them. Then the rhythm became more even and the blows more severe, although still bearable. Laura was completely focused on the spanking she was giving her. Each blow was like a message that she wanted to convey. Cecilia's naked butt, displayed in all its glory, became the center of the universe for both of them, each one faithfully fulfilling their role: to spank and to endure the spanking. The force of the blows with the brush increased a bit more, so Cecilia couldn’t help moving her bottom from side to side in a futile effort to dodge the smacks. “Oh! So you're starting to wiggle your butt, huh?” said Laura without stopping spanking her. “Yes, Julio told me about the spanking dance. Come on! Dance for me! And what else can I do, Laura? I hope that my dance will satisfy you soon, and you'll end the spanking. Darn! It’s such an indignity to have to endure this precisely from you! You spank me well, you bitch! You have found that sweet spot that turns me on. And it’s so utterly twisted having to submit to be punished by someone who I despite so much! I’d like to give up, to be able to let go and enjoy your spanking, just like I enjoy Julio’s spankings. And why not? Isn't that what he would like? “Ok, you win. I give up.” “What?” Laura sounded amazed. The blows stopped. “I said that you win. I surrender.” “Why do you say that? Do you think that I'm going to stop hitting you because of that?” “Not at all! I know this is going to go on for a while,” she said, panting a little. “I'm tired of resisting, so I'm going to allow myself to be a masochist. That's what you wanted, right?” * * * Laura giggled in triumph. “Yes! That’s what I wanted to hear! I'm glad you gave in so quickly. I thought that this was going to be a long battle, and I really don't want to hurt you too much. It’s what I told you: I want us both to have a good time. But, before we continue having fun, there are a couple of things that we have to clarify between us.” “Okay, we can talk about whatever you want.” She started to get up, but Laura stopped her with a hand on her back. “No, you stay there! Your bum and the brush are going to be part of this conversation.” “What do you mean?” she said, falling back on Laura's lap with resignation. “There are a few things that you’ve never understood, Cecilia. I think the brush will help to get them into your silly head. To begin with, let’s talk about how rude you were with me when I called you on the phone after Luis attacked you. I was really hurt! I have been turning it in my head, and I still can’t understand how you could be so ungrateful, after everything I’ve done to help you!” “To help me? None of that did me any good!” “Don't talk back, Cecilia! Listen to me! I think it did help… But what I want you to do now is to reflect on those nasty things that you have been saying to me all along. So, with each stroke of the brush, I want you to say ‘for being a bitch.’ Let’s see if that gets into your head that you have to treat me with respect.” “No, Laura! You have to understand that you also… Ow!” The smack of the brush caught her in mid-sentence. It was considerably harder than the ones she’d given her so far. “Now you have to say ‘for being a bitch’, Cecilia. Don't make me ask you again. I hate having to repeat myself.” “For being a bitch,” she said obediently. Only to be rewarded with another hard blow. “Again!” “For being a bitch!” And what did you expect? That we were still going to be friends after you stole my boyfriend? “Ow! For being a bitch!” And today I have been very polite to you… “For being a bitch!” Except when I told you that I we were not going to be friends… “For being a bitch! Ow!” I was going to tell you that I hated you, but I don’t want to hate anyone… “For being a bitch!” “Fuck! These spanks really sting! “For being a bitch!” Okay, yes! It’s true! Sometimes I’ve been very rude to you! “For being a bitch! Laura stopped. “All right. Now you may apologize to me. “Yes… Please forgive me for being so rude to you.” She was surprised at how sincerely her apology came out. “Alright, you're forgiven for that. Let's move on to the next thing…” “What? There's more?” she said with alarm. The spanking, combined with her professions of guilt, was quite an effective punishment. “Yes. There is also the issue of your jealousy, which has hurt you so much. So now you're going to say ‘for being jealous’ with each spank. I don't think that the beating will take away your jealousy, but maybe it will help you realize how much it hurts you. So… take this!” “Ow! For being jealous! But I already know that, Laura!” “Really? Well, I wouldn’t have guessed! If you hadn't been so jealous, we would have shared Julio a year ago. See how stupid you are? Take this! “Ouch! For being jealous!” “And maybe you would have cum that day when we had a threesome. So, here you go!” “For being jealous! You're right, but how could I know? For being jealous! Yes, I wish I could had been able to get rid of this jealousy! Ouch! For being jealous! Other thoughts she kept to herself… How could I not be jealous when you are going to marry Julio? “For being jealous!” How could I not be angry after the treacherous way you took him from me? “For being jealous!” You betrayed me! And you can't change that, no matter how many times you hit me with that brush. “Ow! For being jealous!” “Nice punishment, huh? You deserve it, Cecilia! Let's hope it stops you from acting so foolishly.” “I’m not acting foolishly!” she moaned. “You are the one who took Julio away from me! And, on top of that, you spank me hard! Haven’t you hurt me enough?” “I can’t believe how stubborn you are! Let's see if we can straighten this up once and for all. I didn't take Julio away from you. You managed to lose him all by yourself. I tried my best to get you both back together, but to no avail! Because he’s as stubborn as you are. And, despite all I did, you blame me!" “Of course I blame you! He left me because he wanted you all along!” “You deserved him leaving you, Cecilia! You lied to him and you cheated on him. You were such an idiot! So you're going to get more spanks, and this time you're going to say that: ‘for being an idiot.’ Let’s see if I can drill that into your head.” Again, the brush conveyed its stinging messages. Obediently, she intoned the new litany. “For being an idiot!” Of course I am an idiot! I had to be an idiot to sign up for this beating! “For being an idiot! Yes, I was so stupid for letting you take Julio away! “I told you that we could share him. But, instead, you threw a tantrum and started fighting with me. Take this, you fool!” “Ouch, yes! For being such an idiot!” “And then, on top of everything, you had the genial idea of becoming a whore! What the fuck, Cecilia?” “That’s the one thing I do not regret. Ow! For being an idiot!” “It’s not that I reproach you that, Cecilia. But, if what you wanted was to get Julio back, that’s the worst thing could have done. When he found out that you worked as a prostitute, he gave up on you and asked me to marry him. That's how we arrived at this awful situation, don't you see? So, do you deserve another good smack with the hairbrush?” “Yes, I deserve it! Ouch! Fuck, that hurts! For being so stupid! Maybe one day I’ll learn.” “That’s what I wanted to hear! Yes, I hope that you have learned your lesson.”

Scientific evidence shows that the majority of women are able to orgasm from vaginal penetration and find it appealing. This will be the first of a series of articles in which I want to debunk some of the most obnoxious dogmas of political correctness. Although some of these beliefs are quite harmful on their own, what I found most appalling is the underlying notion that truth can be sacrificed in the name of political expedience. This degrading of the value of truth translates into the science denialism that we see in both the Left and the Right. The politically correct dogmas of conservatives - like anti-vaccine beliefs and climate change denialism - are frequently debunked by progressives. But I think that we progressives need to clean our own house as well. The consequences of not doing that can endanger our most valuable causes. Not only our lack of intellectual honesty will give good arguments to conservatives, but the confusion we bring to our own actions will render them much less effective. For this article, I picked one of the dogmas most easy to debunk: the myth that women do not orgasm from penis-in-vagina (PIV) intercourse, and do not like it. Don’t get me wrong, I think clitoral stimulation is great. It’s just that it has become a bit overrated of late. Penis-in-vagina penetration is also great and takes most women to orgasm. Let’s take a look at the evidence. The erroneously cited Herbenick paper It is common to read that most women are not able to have orgasms from penetration. A Google search on “women do not orgasm from penetration” found 780 results. Here are few examples: “The vast majority of women do not orgasm from penetration alone.” Psychology Today. “Research has found that 81.6% of women do not orgasm from intercourse alone, with the majority needing clitoral stimulation to be able to orgasm.” healthnews. “Mintz says we need to first realize that the way we’ve traditionally been taught women orgasm—via penetration—is wrong: 95 percent of women do not orgasm from intercourse alone.” goop Wellness. “This is despite the fact that 75% of women do not orgasm from penetration alone and require direct clitoral stimulation.” Refinery29. “Did you know that over 95% of women who have given birth have never experienced an orgasm from penetration?” The HealthSite.com. “70% of women do not orgasm from penetration and need external stimulation of the clitoris.” Nut Nut. “We now know that plenty of women do not orgasm from penetration alone and that orgasm can occur without penetration at all.” Astroglide. “A study published in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy surveyed 1000 women aged 18 to 94 and found that 80% of women had never orgasmed from penetrative sex.” Medium. Most of these sites do not offer any evidence for these bold statements. Sometimes, they cite each other, a great way to propagate disinformation. The few that refer back to scientific research cite this the paper in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy as evidence: Women's Experiences With Genital Touching, Sexual Pleasure, and Orgasm: Results From a U.S. Probability Sample of Women Ages 18 to 94. D. Herbenick, T. J. Fu, J. Arter, S. A. Sanders and B. Dodge. J Sex Marital Ther 2018 Vol. 44 Issue 2 Pages 201-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2017.1346530 Here is the relevant part of the abstract of the paper: "While 18.4% of women reported that intercourse alone was sufficient for orgasm, 36.6% reported clitoral stimulation was necessary for orgasm during intercourse, and an additional 36% indicated that, while clitoral stimulation was not needed, their orgasms feel better if their clitoris is stimulated during intercourse." I guess what happened is that people stop reading after the first line. It says that 18.4% of women had orgasms from intercourse alone, so they subtract that from 100% and come up with 81.6%. There you go! More than 80% of women do not orgasm from penetration! Ever! Those selfish, evil men! But, if you keep reading the abstract - or, the unthinkable, read the entire paper - you find that an additional 36% of women do not need clitoral stimulation to reach orgasm, but touching their clit made their orgasms better. Which makes total sense. However, since these women were also able to reach orgasm from penetration, we need to add them to the first group: 18.6% + 36% = 54.6% Now, 54.6% is larger than 50%. So we reach an astonishing conclusion! The majority of women are able to orgasm from intercourse. What about the remaining 9.4% of women? Well, “7.5% did not have orgasms during intercourse” and 1.9% achieved orgasm before intercourse with cunnilingus, stimulating the clitoris or other means. Dr. Debby Herbenick is one of the best sex researchers in the USA, with many published surveys like this one. This one used a sample of 1,055 American women interviewed by email. To be clear, ‘intercourse’ here means penis-in-vagina (PIV) penetration. ‘Clitoral stimulation’ means direct stimulation of the clitoris, not the indirect stimulation that may be provided by the penis in certain sexual positions. If you have access to the entire paper, a detailed breakdown of the number of women able to reach orgasm without clitoral stimulation are in Table 2. Only 18.2% of women never achieved orgasm without stimulating their clits. 21.8% of women achieve orgasm less than 25% of the time. 8.2% of women achieved orgasm 25%-50% of the time. 10.5% reached orgasm 50% of the time. 12.3% reached orgasm 51% to 75% of the time. 15.5% reached orgasm more than 75%. And the winners are the amazing 13.5% that always got to the big O, clit-free. With clitoral stimulation, the number of women who always orgasmed with intercourse increased to 22.3%. However, 9.6% never achieved orgasm, even with clitoral stimulation. So 81.8% (100% - 18.2%) of women had an orgasm from intercourse at least once in their lives. This is a curious reversal of the number that is often cited. Much as I admire the work of Dr. Herbenick, I fault her for writing the abstract of her paper in such a confusing way. It would have been more honest if she stated outright that 54.6% of women reached orgasm through penetration alone, and then subdivided this number into those who prefer and do not prefer to add clitoral stimulation. Perhaps she was afraid to make a politically incorrect statement? The Kontula study of Finnish women This study has a bigger sample size than the Herbenick study. It compared women in six different age groups. It also checked changes in orgasms from 1971 to 2015. Spoiler alert: orgasms did not improve during those 44 years. Despite the advances of feminism, sexual techniques, sex education and all the blaming and shaming of men that took place during that time, the frequency of female orgasms stayed the same. It even decreased for the younger generations. Here is the full reference and a link to the PDF of the whole article. Determinants of female sexual orgasms. O. Kontula and A. Miettinen. Socioaffective neuroscience & psychology 2016 Vol. 6 Pages 31624-31624. Link to full article (PDF). The study used data from the FINSEX national surveys, conducted in 1971, 1992, 1999, 2007 and 2015 by randomly sampling the entire population of Finland. It gathered data from “10,613 responders, 4,482 men and 6,155 women.” The data analyzed in this paper were from women only. The sample size for each of these five years was between 1,496 and 2,590 women. Women were divided into 6 age groups: 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64 and 65-74 years of age. The percentage of women who had orgasms “most of the time or always” during intercourse was 30% to 50% for ages 18-24, 40% to 60% for ages 25-54, and 40% to 50% for ages 55-74. Around 60% of women reported having an orgasm during their last intercourse, except in the older group (65-74), where this number decreased to 40% (Figure 2). Curiously, the percentage of women who orgasmed “most of the time or always” during PIV intercourse in the 18-24 age group declined from 50% to 30% from 1999 to 2015. In the age group 25-34, it declined from close to 60% in 1999 to 40% in 2015. For women aged 35-54, it stayed constant around 60%. For the two older groups (55-74), the number was still high, 40% of the women. So, even after menopause, numerous women orgasm during intercourse. In this study, the majority of women (54%) reported that “they usually achieved orgasm via stimulating both the clitoris and the vagina.” Another 34% reported that they did it by stimulating only the clitoris, and only 6% did it by stimulating only the vagina. However, orgasms were more frequent (64%) in the women that achieved them through vaginal stimulation that in those who achieved them via clitoral stimulation (40%). Women who preferred clitoridal stimulation were less likely to achieve orgasm during intercourse. Other interesting findings: Orgasm frequency was higher in women who thought that having an orgasm was important. Women who had intercourse at an earlier age had more frequent orgasms during intercourse. However, age at first masturbation was not correlated with orgasm during intercourse. Masturbation frequency was not related to the frequency of orgasm during intercourse. “Nearly half of women (48%) reported that they achieved orgasm more easily in masturbation than in intercourse” while 14% of the women had an orgasm more easily through intercourse. “Duration of intercourse was strongly associated with women’s ability to experience orgasm.” The cowgirl (women on top) position and using several positions for intercourse were more likely to produce orgasms. Having a stable relationship (married, cohabiting or dating long term) increased the frequency of orgasms during intercourse. Good communication on sexual topics also increased orgasm frequency. Do women like having sexual intercourse? The full politically correct dogma is that women do not experience orgasms during PIV intercourse and, therefore, women do not no like intercourse and only put up with it for the benefit of men. To address the second part of this dogma - whether women enjoy sexual intercourse - I will refer to another paper by Dr. Debbie Herbenick: Sexual diversity in the United States: Results from a nationally representative probability sample of adult women and men. D. Herbenick, J. Bowling, T. J. Fu, B. Dodge, L. Guerra-Reyes and S. Sanders. PLoS One 2017 Vol. 12 Issue 7 Pages e0181198. Link to full text (PDF). This was a survey done by email with a sample size of 2,021 individuals. Table 5 of this paper is a long list of sexual activities, classified for their appeal for men and for women. The whole table is very interesting, but I will refer only to the line about vaginal intercourse. The numbers for men and women were similar: 72.8% of men and 69.9% of women found vaginal intercourse very appealing. The “somewhat appealing” response was chosen by 16.4% of men and 19.7% of women. Only 3% of men and 3.5% of women found it not appealing, while another 11.6% of men and 7.0% of women responded “not at all appealing.” Table 2 shows that 85.6% of men and 91.1% of women had vaginal intercourse during their lifetime. The percentage that had vaginal intercourse in the last month was 52.1% for men and 52.6% for women. This number increase to over 70% of women in the age groups 25 to 39 years old. Therefore, vaginal intercourse is greatly popular amongst both men and women, both in their stated preference and in practice. Where did the belief that women do not enjoy vaginal intercourse come from? This is a complex historical question that I addressed in another article: The Feminist Sex Wars - Radical Feminism Against Sex Positive Feminism In a nutshell, a puritanical form of feminism arose during the 70s, which targeted pornography, BDSM and prostitution as forms of exploitation of women by men. It was called anti-porn feminism, but today we know it as Radical Feminism. One of its main ideas was that penetration was intrinsically degrading for women, encapsulated in the phrase by Andrea Dworkin “penetration is rape” - found in her book Intercourse - and adopted by many feminists. In 1980, a long war inside feminism started - the Feminist War on Sex - which endures until today and split feminism into Radical Feminism and Sex Positive Feminism. The latest salvo in this war was the book The Right to Sex, by Amia Srinivasan. Purportedly a proposal to end the War on Sex, it insists in its condemnation of pornography and sex work, and says that BDSM is only good when women dominate men. She argues that nobody has a right to sex. Especially men. Many feminists do not want to take sides in the War of Sex, so they endorse a mild condemnation of vaginal intercourse. While they say it’s okay, they insist that cunnilingus, mutual masturbation and other forms of non-penetrative sex are better for women. It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see that the attack on vaginal intercourse was a power move that sought to subjugate men by depriving them of their favorite sexual act. The fact that this damaged the sex lives of countless women did not seem to bother these radical feminists. Conclusions Most women find vaginal intercourse appealing and enjoyable. Most of them have orgasms from intercourse. Although many women can have orgasms from vaginal stimulation alone, a majority prefers to combine it with clitoral stimulation. Because, why not take advantage of the full power of your body to give yourself pleasure? The politicization of sex by feminism has not helped neither women nor men. The paper by Kontula et al. shows that, in recent years, young women have become less able to orgasm during intercourse. This may be a consequence of the relentless indoctrination about intercourse being bad. It may also result from sex education steeped in ideology. For example, leading to the enthroning of the clitoris as the sole source of female pleasure. The paper indicates that when women masturbate focusing exclusively on the clitoris, their ability to orgasm from intercourse decreases. This may be similar to what death-grip masturbation causes in men. Death-grip and death-grip syndrome are slang terms for suffering adverse effects from one's aggressive and recurrent male masturbation technique, which result in an unsatisfactory experience when engaging in regular sexual intercourse with a partner. A similar condition, dead-vagina syndrome, has been asserted to exist in women. Wikipedia. In fact, orgasms are not triggered exclusive from the clitoris or the vagina, they can also be started from many different areas of the body. Orgasms produced by erotic fantasies without any physical stimulation are also possible. The paper by Kontula et al. underscores the importance of relationships and good sexual communication in getting orgasms. Women vary wildly in their capacity to orgasm and how orgasms are triggered, more so than men. Some women seem to be anorgasmic, while others are able to have multiple orgasms with the slightest stimulation. Perhaps there is a way to turn an anorgasmic women into a multi-orgasmic one, we just haven’t found it yet. It’s up to every woman to explore her body and find what works best for her. What is clear is that ideology, blaming men and political correctness are not the right way to get to the big O. More politically correct bullshit is on its way! This article will be the first of a series of posts debunking politically correct dogmas that nobody dares to question. For example: That there are no psychological differences between men and women. The fragile male ego. The gay gene. Sentience. That hating men is okay. That eating meat is unhealthy. That scientific research with animals is useless.

Denial of free will is based on religious or mystical ideas and can have dire consequences by making it ethical to control the mind. The denial of free will Lately, it seems to have become fashionable to say that humans do not have free will. I have heard this at meetings of the skeptic community and it is also one of the mainstays of writer and podcaster Sam Harris. I see this denial of free will as part of what of I call “modern misanthropy”, an effort to cast human beings as either animals or machines by denying the qualities that we most cherish about ourselves. It is also part of a deterministic view of nature in general, something we could call “radical determinism”. In fact, we do not live in a deterministic world, but that is a problem that I leave for another article. Free will deniers like to claim that theirs is a view that comes from science, when in fact the view from neuroscience is neutral or supportive of free will. Only by assuming a simplistic view of difficult neuroscience problems can they affirm that it denies free will. In my view, the key to whether we have free will resides not so much on what we understand as “free will”, but in what we mean by “I” when we say “I have free will”. If we start with the wrong assumptions about who or what we are, we will end up with the wrong conclusions about free will. I have identified three wrong ideas about the nature of the self that lead to the idea that we do not have free will: The ghost in the machine Derived from old religious dogma, this is the idea that we are an immaterial soul that somehow connects with our brain. The concept of the soul, as found in Christianity and Islam, is that it is the essence of ourselves that survives the death of the body. Many Hindu traditions believe that we are the Atman, an essence that is neither the body nor the mind and that is identical to Brahman, the primal God who created the Universe. The Christian soul or the Hindu Atman is free because it is not material and therefore not subject to the laws of cause-and-effect of the natural world. Paradoxically, many naturalists seem to buy into this idea in the sense that, once we prove that the soul does not exist, free will disappears because the mind is now subjected to the laws of nature. However, this is not true is we redefine free will as the ability of the mind to direct its own behavior, that is, to generate a subsequent mental state from its previous state. The homunculus or the command center Philosopher Daniel Dennett, in his book Consciousness Explained, argues that the old-fashion view of the mind is that of a homunculus in a “Cartesian Theatre”. Homunculus means “a little human”, a being in the center of the mind that watches what comes to the mind through the senses as if watching a screen in a movie theater — the Cartesian Theater. The homunculus then presses some levers that make to body move in a particular way. Free will, then, resides in the homunculus or a command center in the middle of the mind. Although there is no soul, there is a part of the brain that is the decision-maker. However, studies of the brain have shown that there is no command center, no privileged brain region that is in charge of making decisions. While it is true that brain areas like the prefrontal cortex or the anterior cingulate cortex play an important role in motivation and decision-making, they can only do this while communicating with other parts of the brain. Emotional states generated in the amygdala and the insula, and motivational/reward pathways linking the ventral tegmental area with the nucleus accumbens, play a large role in directing our actions and our attention. However, the fact that there is no command center in our brain does not mean that we do not have free will, because free will is not a property of a part of our brain but of the entire brain. Identifying the self with consciousness This is perhaps a more subtle version of the idea of the “ghost in the machine” or the “command center”. For example, for Sam Harris, consciousness is the ultimately undeniable reality because we cannot doubt our own experience. This is pretty much the same idea that Descartes put forward when he said “I think, therefore I am” as the starting point of his philosophy. Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio debunked this idea in his book Descartes’ Error, and it is also criticized by Dennett in Consciousness Explained. Basically, Sam Harris seems to think is that we are our consciousness. Therefore, if we are influenced by something outside consciousness, like an unconscious drive, then we are not free. Since everything that is now conscious was once unconscious, we are driven by impulses outside our conscious self and, therefore we do not have free will. The problem with this way of thinking is that we are not our consciousness. In this, Harris seems to be overly influenced by Buddhist ideas that give consciousness a mystical importance. However, Buddhism has a contradiction at its core: how to reconcile the idea that we have no souls (‘anatman’ or ‘anatta’, preached by the Buddha himself) with the idea of reincarnation. If we have no soul, what is there to reincarnate? The answer is that karma reincarnates. However, karma is the consequences of our actions, it is not “our self”, so we cannot say that “I” reincarnate. To get around this problem, many Buddhists say that consciousness reincarnates together with karma, “like a flame starting another flame”. We can see how this confers an immaterial attribute to consciousness: since it can survive death to pass from one body to the next, it is independent of the body and the brain. So we are back to the “ghost in the machine”, only that now it is called consciousness. Of course, Sam Harris does not believe in reincarnation, but he seems to believe that consciousness is something immaterial. Like some Buddhists, he thinks that we have no self, but that there can be “pure consciousness”. However, a careful look at what we know about consciousness from brain experiments, like the one taken by Dennett, shows that there is no clear delimitation between the conscious and the unconscious, but a constant flow from one to the other. We are our unconscious The true naturalistic view, firmly anchored in neuroscience, biology and the whole scientific worldview is that we are our brains, nothing more and nothing less. We are what our brain produces, the entirety of our psychological experience that we call our mind. Conscious AND unconscious. Most of the things we enjoy in life, and most of the things that make us suffer, take place unconsciously. That ambient music playing in the background, that subtle smell, that headache that we have successfully pushed out of our attention, they are unconscious and yet have an impact on the quality of our life. If pressed, we would have a hard time separating the things of which we are conscious from those that happen just beyond our consciousness. If we experienced something but then we forgot about it, is it conscious or unconscious? Many sports, like skiing, riding a bike or martial arts, are done unconsciously. Nevertheless, we say that “I” do these things, not that they are done for us by some parts of our brain foreign to ourselves. I propose that “I” am the entirety of my brain, of my mind, conscious and unconscious, and that this I has free will. I am not a puppet of my unconscious because my unconscious is me and I am my unconscious. By free will, I mean that I constantly confront situations in which I must decide between several options, and I choose them based on the state of my mind. Free will does not mean to be able to make choices against the laws of nature. It does not mean that I do not have an origin in the natural world or that I am free from death. I am a living being with a limited life span, and I only have free will during that time. Furthermore, my agency changes depending on my abilities: it increased as I grew from childhood to adulthood and it will decrease as I age. I am also caused, I didn’t come out of nothing. Still, this coalescence of causation that I am can generate its own causes and, therefore, it is free. Agency and free will We could say that free will is a particular case of agency. While free will is the ability to make conscious choices, agency is the property of living beings to internally generate causes according to a pre-programmed goal. We find this idea in the books by Stuart Kauffman (At Home in the Universe, Investigations): life and evolution are algorithms that run with the ultimate outcome of perpetuating themselves. If they fail to perpetuate, they disappear, making room for other algorithms that more effectively perpetuate themselves. So the algorithm which is life makes us believe that living beings have goals: stay alive and reproduce. Living beings become agents as they execute increasingly complex functions to achieve those goals. They are not independent of causation, it is only that causation has divided into two branches: the internal causation that moves them to stay alive and reproduce and external causation that may aid, hinder or be neutral to that goal. Inasmuch as living being are clusters of internal causes, they are agents. Humans are agents and are conscious, which means that we have free will. We have the ability to generate causes from the state of our bodies and brains, to generate one mental state from the previous mental state. We are those flowing mental states that cause each other. We are free. Free will and responsibility Let me end with two ethical implications. The denial of free will is framed in the context of moral responsibility. If humans do not have free will, the reasoning goes, then it is wrong to make them responsible for their actions and reward or punish them for what they do. Instead, people who do wrong should be treated as malfunctioning robots in need of reprogramming. This is cast as a way toward more leniency and compassion towards wrong-doers (there is a great discussion on this in the final chapter of Who's In Charge? by neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga). The idea that the perpetrators of the many hideous crimes that plague history are not responsible for them is morally repugnant to most of us. Free will and freedom There is another ethical implication in the denial of free will: the idea that individual freedom is not important. If free will is an illusion, then so is liberty. This is not just an abstract idea. It has practical implications. If freedom is an illusion, it would be ethical to reach into somebody’s mind and tweak it until they behave in an optimal way. Actually, technologies to achieve this are already available in the form of drugs and electrical, magnetic or genetic manipulations that allow the fine control the brain. If people do not have free will, then these forms of mind control would not be taking anything away from them. Denial of free will means that liberty, one of the founding principles of modern democracies, is just an illusion. We should be able to discard it in our way to build the perfect society, right? To be consistent with their ideas, deniers of free will should advocate for benign dictatorships based on mind control as ways to eliminate crime and build the perfect society. I put this idea at the end of the article so that it wouldn’t be the fallacy of arguing from adverse consequences. The idea that free will exists stands on its own, firmly based in neuroscience. My point, however, is that belief in the lack of free can have disastrous consequences for our society by undermining the idea that all human beings should be free. It would provide a moral justification to manipulate the human brain without consent. Who wants to live in a world without freedom?

These properties of the human mind make us experience happiness and suffering in ways that animals do not The question of human primacy One of the cornerstone ideas of the animal rights movement is that there are no fundamental differences between humans and animals: humans are just animals, only more intelligent (Ryder, 1991). Therefore, some argue, since having a larger brain is just another quirk - like elephants having larger tusks - animals should have the same rights as humans. In particular, they should have a right to life, a right to freedom, and a right not to be used by humans. Moreover, the well-being of humans should not be put above the well-being of animals (Singer, 1991). Hence, doing research on animals cannot be justified by improvements in human health, as scientists claim (Ringach, 2011; Bennett and Ringach, 2016). Of course, all of these arguments fly in the face of the values of all human societies from prehistory to date, which have used animals for food, clothing, work and entertainment. No matter, says the animal right activist, using animals is unethical and has to stop (Reagan, 1985). In the past, justification for human primacy over animals came from religions like Christianity, which stated that humans are superior to animals because they have an immortal soul, and that God commanded humans to rule over animals. However, the Theory of Evolution and modern physiology have pushed back against those beliefs, showing that there is an evolutionary continuum between animals and humans, and that there are no fundamental differences between the physiology of the humans and other mammals (Rachels, 1990). Intelligence is not the only difference between the human and the animal mind If the only difference between humans and animals is that of a higher intelligence, does that justify that we treat ourselves better than the animals? Or is this just self-interested behavior? “Speciesism”, as the animal rights proponent Richard Ryder has called it (Ryder, 1991). To argue their case, animal right proponents invoke “marginal cases.” These include infants and persons with significant mental disabilities. Their argument is that, since these persons have an intelligence similar to that of some animals, then they should be treated the same way as we treat animals (Reagan, 1985; Singer, 1991). Otherwise, they argue, we should be prepared to give animals the same rights that we readily give these marginal case humans. However, modern neuroscience has in fact uncovered many differences between humans and the rest of the animals that make us unique. These differences are not limited to a quantitative difference in intelligence but include many other mental abilities that make us completely unique (Penn et al., 2008). Humans are a qualitatively different type of being. Here is a list of the most important of these qualities of the human mind. Theory of Mind Theory of mind is the ability to understand what other people are feeling and thinking [pages 172-178 in (Blackmore, 2004); pages 48-54 in (Gazzaniga, 2008)]. We do that by running inside our heads a model of what is happening in other person’s mind. Of course, the model is not always right, but nevertheless it is extremely valuable because it lets us predict the behavior of people around us. Theory of mind seems to require the right anterior insula, a part of the brain cortex that evolved rapidly in apes. The function of the right anterior insula is to create hypothetical models of the internal state of our body in different circumstances (Craig, 2010, 2011). For example, when we imagine what it would feel like to stab our toe, is the right anterior insula doing that. Likewise, the right anterior insula can make a model of the internal state of the body of another person. Of course, theory of mind is much more than that. It involves the cognitive abilities of many other parts of the brain. Research on theory of mind has revealed it to be uniquely human (Penn and Povinelli, 2007), although some studies claims to have found it in rudimentary form in chimpanzees (Call and Tomasello, 2008; Yamamoto et al., 2013). One negative aspect of theory of mind is that it often creates the delusion of attributing human consciousness to inanimate objects or animals. This is called anthropomorphism. The same way that we project our thoughts and emotions to a person who we see behaving in a way similar to us, we project human thoughts and emotions to an animal or an object we see doing something that resembles human behavior. The anthropomorphizing of animals is extremely common in ancient and modern culture, from the Fables of Aesop to Disney movies. Episodic memory There are two basic forms of memory: procedural and declarative [pages 303-306 in (Gazzaniga, 2008)]. Procedural memory is present in both humans and animals and consists of the retention of perceptual, motor and cognitive skills that are then expressed non-consciously. For example, when we walk, swim, ski, listen to music, type on a keyboard or process the visual information we get from a television screen, we use procedural memory. Declarative memory stores information about facts and beliefs about the world, and can be further divided into semantic and episodic memory. Semantic memory is about facts in the world that stand by themselves, independently of our self, whereas episodic memory is remembering things that happened to us. That is, episodic memory retains events as they were experienced by ourselves in a particular place and time. Episodic memory appears to be uniquely human, because it involves subjective experiences, a concept of self, and subjective time. This is important because it allows us to travel mentally in time through subjective experiences, while animals are locked in the present of their current motivational state. Social emotions Mammals, birds and some other animals have a set of six basic emotions listed by Ekman: anger, fear, disgust, joy, sadness and surprise. However, we humans are able to feel many other emotions that regulate our social behavior and the way we view the world: guilt, shame, pride, honor, awe, interest, envy, nostalgia, hope, despair, contempt and many others. While emotions like love and loyalty may be present in mammals that live in hierarchical societies, emotions like guilt, shame - and their counterpart pride and honor - seem to be uniquely human. There is much controversy these days about whether dogs feel guilt and shame. There is evidence that they do not. Alternatively, they may also have gained this emotion as a way to interact with humans. Many of the emotions that we value as being human are not present in animals. Empathy and compassion “Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another's position.” Wikipedia. It is a well-established fact that many animals react to the distress of other animals by showing signs of distress themselves. However, this does not seem to represent true empathy as defined above, but a genetically encoded stress response in anticipation of harm. Since empathy requires feeling what the other person is feeling from their own frame of reference, it would require theory of mind. Only if we stripe the requirement of adopting the other’s frame of reference we can say that animals have empathy. Empathy involves the newly evolved anterior insula in humans (Preis et al., 2013), bonobos and chimpanzees (Rilling et al., 2012). Compassion is currently thought to be different from empathy because it involves many other parts of the brain. It seems to be associated with complex cultural and cognitive elements. Therefore, it seems safe to assume that animals are not able to feel compassion. Language and culture Although animals do communicate with each other using sounds, signs and body language, human language is a qualitative leap from any form of animal communication in its unique ability to convey factual information and not just emotional states. In that, human language is linked to our ability to store huge amounts of semantic and episodic memory, as defined above. The human brain has a unique capacity to quickly learn spoken languages during a portal that closes around 5-6 years of age. Attempts to teach sign languages to apes has produced only limited success and can be attributed to a humanization of the brain of those animals, raised inside human culture. The effectiveness of spoken and written language to store information across many generations gave raise to human cultures. The working of the human brain cannot be understood without taking culture into account. Culture completely shapes the way we think, feel, perceive and behave. Although there are documented cases of transmission of learned information across generations in animals, producing what we could call an animal culture, no animal is as shaped by culture as we are. Esthetic sense The appreciation of beauty also seems to be uniquely human. Of course, animals can produce great beauty in the form of colorful bodies, songs and artful behavior. What seems to be lacking is their ability to appreciate and value that beauty beyond stereotypical mating and territorial behaviors. Attempts to teach chimps to produce art by drawing have failed. Ethics Ethics is the ability to appreciate fairness, justice and rights. It is at the very core of our ability to form stable societies and to cooperate to achieve common goals. It depends on theory of mind; on social emotions like guilt, shame, pride and contempt; on empathy and compassion, and on cultural heritage. Lacking all those mental abilities, animals have no sense of ethics. Even though some studies have shown that monkeys have a primitive sense of fairness (particularly when it applies to their own interest), it is but a pale anticipation of our sense of justice. This simply shows that ethics is rooted in our evolutionary history. The fact that animals cannot even remotely comprehend the concept of rights is a strong argument for why they should not have rights. What sense does it make to give animals something that they do not know that they lack? Extended consciousness The question of what is consciousness has been called by philosophers “the hard problem” due to the difficulty of answering it (Blackmore, 2004). Therefore, the related question of whether animals have consciousness, or what animals have it, remains unanswered in the strict sense. However, based on their behavior, we commonly assume that animals like cats, dogs and horses are conscious and able to make autonomous decisions. On the other hand, unless we invoke some mystical definition of consciousness, it is safe to assume that animals with small nervous systems, like jellyfish, worms, starfish, snails and clams have no consciousness whatsoever. They are like plants: living beings able to react to the environment as automatons. That leaves a lot of animals for which it is hard to guess whether or not they are conscious: insects, fish, octopi, lizards and small mammals like mice and rats. What has been becoming clear is that we humans possess a kind of consciousness that no other animal has: the ability to see ourselves as selves extending from the pass to the future [pages 309-321 (Gazzaniga, 2008)]. This special kind of consciousness has been called extended consciousness by neuroscientist Antonio Damasio [Chapter 7 in (Damasio, 1999)]. It allows us a sort of “mental time travel” to relive events in the past and predict what may happen to us in the future (Suddendorf and Corballis, 2007). Extended consciousness is based on our ability to have episodic memory and theory of mind. Episodic memory configures remembered events around the image of the self, whereas theory of mind allows us to create a model of our own mind as it was during a past event or to hypothesize how it would be in a future event. I should point out that a few animals (apes, dolphins and elephants) may turn out to have episodic memory, theory of mind and hence extended consciousness. However, this is still very much in question. Suffering and happiness It is a common mistake to confuse suffering with pain and happiness with joy. Pain is the representation of a bodily state and the emotion associated with it (Craig, 2003). Likewise, joy is an emotion associated with an excited but pleasant body state in an agreeable environment. Suffering and happiness are much deeper than that, and refer to the totality of a mental state, encompassing cognition, emotion and state of consciousness. Although suffering and happiness are normally associated with certain emotions, there is not always a correspondence with them. For example, one can be happy while feeling scared or sad, or suffer even in the presence of a passing joy. The error of philosophers like Peter Singer (Singer, 1991) and Tom Reagan (Reagan, 1985) is that they consider suffering as something that occurs independently of cognition and other mental abilities, when it does not. Arguably, happiness and suffering require some continuity in time, which would seem to require extended consciousness. Furthermore, conceptions of happiness extending to antiquity refer to lifelong attitudes like hedonism - the quest for pleasure - and eudemonia - working to acquire virtue or to achieve goals that transcend oneself-, pointing to the fact that human happiness depends on cultural values. In view of all this, we need to wonder whether happiness and suffering can exist in beings that have no episodic memory, no extended consciousness, no sense of self, and no culture. Can happiness and suffering really be attributed to animals lacking these mental abilities? Or is this an illusion, an anthropomorphizing caused by the overreaching of our theory of mind? Without going to that extreme, it is quite clear that we humans have a capacity to be happy and to suffer that goes far beyond what animals can experience. Hence, human suffering should count more than any suffering than an animal could have. Shall we value being human? There are many more differences between human and animals. I think that the ones that I list here are important because they give us our special feeling of humaneness. All of them are based on scientific facts about the human mind that are slowly being unraveled by neuroscience, not on religious beliefs or on ideology. However, what cannot be based on science is the value we attribute to those differences. Ultimately, this is a decision based on our ethical intuitions. For most people, what determines how much consideration we should give to a being is its ability to be conscious; to feel empathy; to feel guilt and pride and shame and all other human emotions; to be happy as we are happy and to suffer like we suffer. Rejecting the marginal case argument An important corollary of the ideas I propose here is to refute the “marginal case” argument. Even when a human brain is damaged by disease, accident or old age, most of the properties that I have listed here remain because they are deeply engrained in the way the human brain works. Theory of mind and extended consciousness appear early in human life and are the last things to go in a deteriorating brain. It takes a coma to deprive us of them. A person may have a reduced intelligence or other cognitive disabilities but still have theory of mind, empathy, compassion, extended consciousness and human social emotions. That is why when we encounter people with mental disabilities, we recognize them as humans and we know we should treat them as humans. They are not animals and should never be treated as such. Intelligence is just a tiny part of what it means to be human. Different animals have different ethical status Another important conclusion is that there are vast differences in the mental abilities of animals and, therefore, in the way they should be treated. Many animals, like jellyfish, worms and clams, do not have any mental capabilities at all, do not feel pain, and can be treated the same as plants. On the other side of the mental spectrum, it is possible that we will find that the great apes, dolphins and elephants have some form of theory of mind and extended consciousness, and therefore deserve a special treatment compared to other animals. Dogs and cats have evolved special ways to communicate with humans that make them special in our eyes. Therefore, when it comes to ethical consideration, animals should not be put in a general category, but each species should be assigned its own ethical status. Otherwise, we may find ourselves in the quandary of not being able to rid our dog of fleas because these insects have the same “rights” as the dog. This is, in fact, what we have been doing all along based on our moral intuition. We establish a hierarchy of animals that deserve more or less consideration based on their mental abilities. And we put humans at the top of this hierarchy of ethical status because when we establish the criteria for doing that, we come inevitably at the top. Because, so far, there is no other being that can assign moral status but humans. Speciesism is unavoidable because we cannot treat different species of animals the same way. Animal welfare is based on our humanity Let me finish by saying that this is not an argument to treat animals cruelly or poorly. It is only an argument to treat humans better than animals and to keep using animals for our benefit. We should care about the welfare of animals, even as we try to understand how similar and how different they are from ourselves. What moves us to treat animals well is our empathy, our compassion, our sense of fairness and our cultural values. Things that animals do not have. We must treat animals right, not because of what they are, but because of who we are. References Bennett Allyson J, Ringach Dario L (2016) Animal Research in Neuroscience: A Duty to Engage. Neuron 92:653-657. Blackmore S (2004) Consciousness: An Introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Call J, Tomasello M (2008) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends Cogn Sci 12:187-192. Craig AD (2003) A new view of pain as a homeostatic emotion. Trends Neurosci 26:303-307. Craig AD (2010) The sentient self. Brain Struct Funct 214:563-577. Craig AD (2011) Significance of the insula for the evolution of human awareness of feelings from the body. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1225:72-82. Damasio AR (1999) The Feeling of What Happens. Gazzaniga MS (2008) Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Penn DC, Povinelli DJ (2007) On the lack of evidence that non-human animals possess anything remotely resembling a 'theory of mind'. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences 362:731-744. Penn DC, Holyoak KJ, Povinelli DJ (2008) Darwin's mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31:109-130; discussion 130-178. Preis MA, Schmidt-Samoa C, Dechent P, Kroener-Herwig B (2013) The effects of prior pain experience on neural correlates of empathy for pain: An fMRI study. Pain 154:411-418. Rachels J (1990) Created from Animals: The Moral Implication of Darwinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reagan T (1985) The Case for Animal Rights. In: In Defence of Animals (Singer P, ed), pp 13-26. New York: Basic Blackwell. Rilling JK, Scholz J, Preuss TM, Glasser MF, Errangi BK, Behrens TE (2012) Differences between chimpanzees and bonobos in neural systems supporting social cognition. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 7:369-379. Ringach DL (2011) The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research. American Journal of Medical Sciences 342:305-313. Ryder R (1991) Speciecism. In: Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issues (Baird RM, Rosenbaum SE, eds), pp 24-34. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Singer P (1991) The Significance of Animal Suffering. In: Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issues (Baird RM, Rosenbaum M, eds), pp 57-66. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Suddendorf T, Corballis MC (2007) The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behav Brain Sci 30:299-313; discussion 313-251. Yamamoto S, Humle T, Tanaka M (2013) Basis for cumulative cultural evolution in chimpanzees: social learning of a more efficient tool-use technique. PLoS One 8:e55768.

New genetic techniques like fluorescent reporter genes, optogenetics and DREADD allow scientist to manipulate the functions of individual cells in live animals. Many of my scientists colleagues are thrilled about the new transgenic techniques. Transgenic methods are sophisticated molecular biology techniques that consist of moving genes from one species to another, or in creating artificial genes and expressing them in a living organism. They represent the convergence of decades of work in areas as diverse as molecular biology, protein chemistry, cellular biology, neuroscience, microbiology, virology and animal behavior. Transgenic techniques are likely to be applied to humans in the near future and this will dramatically change medicine, hopefully bringing cures for diseases that we cannot treat today. And yet, the general public appears to be completely unaware of them. Maybe because they are done in animals, and animal research is a modern taboo. Genetic modification is also politically incorrect, so these scientists tend to be shy about explaining what they are doing, even though is one of the most remarkable advances of modern science. It is also true that these techniques are difficult to explain. So, let me give it a shot. What are knock-in genes? The techniques that I describe here are known as genetic knock-in. As you probably know, genes are sequences of DNA that get translated into proteins, which, in turn, are like little machines that carry out most of the cell’s functions. Therefore, by changing a gene we can change the protein that it makes and the functioning of that cell, which eventually shows up as a change in the whole animal. Translation of a gene into protein is initiated by a sort sequence of DNA located just before the gene, called the promoter. Gene knock-out is to manipulate a gene so that it cannot be translated into protein - it becomes non-functional. Gene knock-in is the opposite: making an organism express genes from another organism, or artificial genes that encode novel proteins. In biomedical research, gene knock-in techniques are applied to a few animal species: the worm C. elegans, the fly Drosophila, zebrafish and mice. However, mice are the most relevant for translation to humans because their physiology, nervous systems, and genes are closer to humans than those of flies and fish. Mice are studied instead of rats or other mammals because it is easier to insert genes in their embryos. Germ line and somatic line insertion of the transgenes Gene knock-in can be done in two fundamentally different ways Germ line insertion. The new genes are inserted in the cells used for reproduction, so that they will be present in the sperm and the oocytes when they combine to produce a new animal. Then, the new genes will be present in every cell of the offspring. Since this includes the germ-line cells of the offspring, they will also be present in the descendant of that animal. However, they will not be expressed - translated into protein - in cells that do not activate the promoter of the new gene. Somatic line insertion. The news genes are inserted only into some cells of an animal using a viral vector. For example, the gene may be targeted to particular type of neurons in the brain of the animal. Viral vectors are viruses that have been emptied of their genetic material (DNA or RNA), so they cannot produce a disease. Their genetic material is replaced by the transgenes. The viral vector can still infect the cells that it usually target - for example, a rabies virus vector will infect neurons. However, it will inject them with the transgene instead of the genetic material to make new viruses. Transgenic techniques often combine germ-line and somatic line insertions to administer two genes. Only the cells where the two genes find each other will express the new protein that changes their function. The difference between germ line and somatic line insertion is fundamental for ethical reasons. It is okay to do somatic line insertion in humans, because the genetic change will not be passed to the descendants of that person. However, germ line insertions will be passed to new generations, permanently altering the human genome. That’s a Pandora's Box that scientists are reluctant to open. Cell-selective gene knock-out An important feature of these transgenic methods is that the expression of the artificial proteins is cell-selective, that is, it can be targeted to a particular population of cells inside a tissue, even if they are mixed up with other cells types. This is done by taking advantage of the fact that a particular cell type expresses genes that are not expressed in other cell types. This is because each cell type activates a different set of promoters in their DNA. The selection of which promoters are activated is part of the cell differentiation during the development of the embryo and the fetus - the process that produces the different organs and tissues of the body. The gene encoding the artificial protein that we want to express is put after the promoter of a gene that is exclusive of that cell type. More specificity is achieved by using a technique called Cre-lox recombination (Heldt and Ressler, 2009). Cre is an enzyme derived from a bacteriophage (a virus that infects bacteria) that recognizes portions of DNA flanked by two sequences called lox and deletes them. Hence, when Cre is expressed in a cell with a gene flanked by lox - ‘floxed’ - that gene is deleted. The simplest way to use Cre-lox recombination is to selectively knock-out a gene in a particular cell type. Cre is expressed under the promoter of a gene exclusive of that cell type, either in the germ line or delivered with a viral vector. The gene that we want to delete is floxed. When Cre and the floxed gene meet in a cell, the floxed gene is deleted (Figure 3). Cell-selective gene knock-in Knocking-in a gene encoding an artificial protein requires a modification of Cre-lox recombination called DIO (Double-floxed Inverse Open reading frame). The gene encoding for the artificial protein is introduced in the DNA in reverse order, so that it cannot be translated into protein. The enzymes that transcribe DNA to messenger RNA cannot read inverted sequences, just like you cannot read cinegsnart as transgenic. That inverted gene sequence is flanked by two sets of lox - it’s double-floxed. Cutting and pasting by Cre on these two sets of lox sequences results in turning around the gene, so that now it can be read and translated into protein. Hence, only cells that have both Cre and the double-floxed inverted gene are able to express the artificial protein. It is usually expressed together with a fluorescent protein - a reporter gene -, to let us know that the expression has been successful. Fluorescent proteins Fluorescent proteins occur naturally in jellyfish and corals. They make them glow - fluoresce - when they are illuminated by light of certain colors. Scientists have extracted the genes that encode for these fluorescent proteins and inserted them in the mouse genome preceded by the promoter of a certain gene. This way, only the cells that activate that promoter to express that particular gene get loaded with the fluorescent protein. This allows them to label specific types of cells in a given tissue with bright colors. The resulting images are amazingly cool! When used in neurons, fluorescent proteins allow the visualization of very small features, like neurons (Figure 1) axons (Figure 2) or dendritic spines (Figure 4). By labeling neurons that activate different promoters with different fluorescent proteins, scientists were able to create the “brainbow” shown in Figure 5. The first fluorescent protein to be used was green fluorescent protein (GFP), extracted from a jellyfish. It was followed by others that were given names of fruits representative of their colors (mCherry, mOrange, mRaspberry and tdTomato) or exotic names like Venus, Citrine, mRuby or FusionRed. The use of fluorescent proteins has transformed the fields of physiology and anatomy by vastly improving our ability to identify and locate specific cell types. Until now, this was done using a technique called immunohistochemistry, based on the use of antibodies against specific proteins. However, fluorescent proteins provide much higher resolution and avoid many of the artifacts produced by the antibodies. But the way fluorescent proteins are mostly used is as reporter genes. They are expressed under the same promoter as another transgene, so we can now identify the cells expressing the transgene by the bright color provided by the fluorescent protein. The brightness of the cell also serves as a measure of the level of expression of the transgene. I have used fluorescent proteins as reporter genes in my own lab. You can see the results in some of the figures, which are images taken by me with a confocal microscope. Humanized mice Groups that oppose research on animal argue that animal research has no predictive value because animal physiology and human physiology are radically different, which is completely false. All mammals use the same set of proteins for the same functions. What is true, however, is that small changes in the amino acid sequence of a protein can cause a drug that binds well to a mouse protein to perform poorly on the same protein in humans. This has slowed down the translation of discoveries from animal research to clinical application. This problem can be solved by replacing the mouse gene with the human gene for the same protein. For example, we could replace the gene for the mouse mu-opioid receptor (which binds opioid drugs like morphine) with the human gene for the mu-opioid receptor. This does not result in monsters that are half-mouse, half-human, as in some horror movie, but in mice that are entirely normal in their looks and behavior, but in which we can test new opioid drugs for their effects on humans. Calcium indicators The calcium ion Ca2+ is one of the most important conveyors of information inside cells, what scientists call intracellular signals. Together with compounds like cyclic-AMP, diacylglycerol and inositol triphosphate, calcium ions are called second messengers. The first messengers are hormones and neurotransmitters that convey signals outside the cell. These signals are picked up by receptors in the cellular membrane or inside the cell and transformed into signals by the second messengers. Concentrations of calcium inside the cells are 10,000 times lower than outside the cells. They increase 10 to 100 times by opening calcium channels in the cell membrane or in intracellular calcium stores. This conveys a signal that turns on or off different proteins, the machines that perform the various tasks inside the cell. That way, calcium ions regulate cell function. In the 1980s, biochemist Roger Tsien invented several compounds (like Fura-2 and Fluo-3) that can be used to measure the concentration of calcium inside cells through changes in their fluorescence. These calcium indicators perform very well in cell cultures, but their use in tissue slices is problematic because cells absorb them randomly. The solution was to fuse the gene for green fluorescent protein with the gene encoding calmodulin, a protein that binds calcium inside the cells, to create a genetically-encoded calcium indicators called GCaMP. Like the fluorescent proteins, genetically encoded calcium indicators can be selectively expressed in particular cell types by associating their gene with a particular promoter in the DNA. This allowed scientists to observe cell activation as changes in in intracellular calcium live mice. This is done by mounting tiny microscopes on the mice that they carry while they move freely in their cages - another technological feat. These tiny microscopes have digital cameras connected to a computer. Chemogenetics Chemogenetics allows controlling the functioning of specific cell types in live animals. If calcium imaging lets us know how a cell is functioning, chemogenetics allows to change the function of precisely defined groups of cells. The most popular chemogenetic method was named DREADD by its inventor, Dr. Bryan Roth, an acronym for Designer Receptor Exclusively Activated by Designer Drug (Sternson and Roth, 2014; Roth, 2016). The name caught on, perhaps because of its humorous association with the word dread, and it is frequently used instead of chemogenetics. The Roth’s lab started with the genes for neurotransmitters receptors that inhibit cell function - like the M4 muscarinic receptor for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine - or receptors that increase cell function - like the M3 muscarinic receptor for acetylcholine. Then they altered these genes to modify binding site in the receptor protein so that it no longer bound acetylcholine, but an artificial compound, clozapine-N-oxide (CNO), that has no effect on mammals. This way, the new DREADD receptor cannot be activated by acetylcholine and to many drugs, but responds to CNO. Inhibitory DREADDs, like the one derived from the M4 muscarinic receptors, can be triggered by CNO to decrease the firing of action potentials in neurons that express it. Excitatory DREADDs, like the one derived from the M3 muscarinic receptors, when triggered by CNO, increase the firing of action potentials in neurons that express it. Other DREADDs are neither excitatory nor inhibitory, but activate different second messengers pathways. This allows fine-tuning the function of any cell in the body in ways that are much more specific for the cell type and the function than any drug used in medicine today. CNO can be given to mice with a simple subcutaneous injection. Its effect lasts more than four hours. The activation and inhibition of neurons by DREADD in mice can then be observed as changes in their behavior. Optogenetics Optogenetics (Kravitz and Kreitzer, 2011; Yizhar et al., 2011) is similar to chemogenetics in that an artificial protein is expressed in neurons to turn them on or off. However, instead of an artificial drug like CNO, optogenetics uses light. This was done by starting with the gene of a light-sensitive protein like channelrhodopsin (which activates cells) or halorhodopsin (which inhibits cells). The advantage of optogenetics over chemogenetics is that its effect on cells is extremely fast. Its main disadvantage is that it requires the use of light guides: small fiber-optic strings that have to be precisely inserted in the brain or other organs of the animal. There are now tiny light sources that can be mounted over the head of the mouse and activated by radio waves, so that the mouse doesn’t need to be tethered by cable for the experiment. Still, this is more invasive than DREADD. How we eliminated stress in mice in my lab using DREADD In my lab, we used DREADD to control stress in mice. We did this by manipulating the amygdala, a brain region that induces fear and distress. Some of the neurons in the amygdala produce corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF), a neuropeptide that increases stress (Andreoli et al., 2017). We bought transgenic mice that express Cre under the CRF promoter, so that Cre would be expressed in the CRF neurons of the amygdala. This provided one of the elements for Cre-lox recombination. The other element for Cre-lox recombination was packaged inside a viral vector, which we also bought. As I explained above, viral vectors attach to cells and inject the artificial genes into them. Inside the viral capsid there was a highly sophisticated genetic construct: a DIO (Double-floxed Inverse Open reading frame) inhibitory DREADD and a reporter gene, the red fluorescent protein mCherry. The most difficult part of the experiment was to inject the viral vector into the amygdala of the small brain of the mouse. This was done using a stereotactic injection, a method consisting of placing a small needle inside the brain of the mouse at the coordinates of a particular region, using a three-dimensional set of micro-manipulators and a computerized atlas of the mouse brain. Then the needle is used to inject minuscule amounts of solution containing the viral vector. The vector delivers the transgenes into all the neurons of the amygdala, but only the CRF neurons that express Cre can turn the DREADD-mCherry genes around so that they can be translated into proteins. Figure 6 shows the result: CRF neurons in the amygdala expressing the mCherry reporter gene. But how did we know that the DREADD is working? We took the mouse and made it swim in a bucket of water for 6 minutes. It got stressed and became more sensitive to pain. We measured its pain sensitivity by gently poking its paw with nylon filaments and measuring how long it took it to withdraw the paw. Then we took the same mouse and activated the inhibitory DREADD with an injection of CNO. When be put the mouse in the bucket of water for 6 minutes, it didn’t get stressed and did not develop pain sensitivity. Can transgenic methods be applied to humans? The experiment in my lab that I just described indicates that it is possible to inhibit stress in humans using DREADD. Similarly, we could use inhibitory DREADD to inhibit the neurons that transmit pain in chronic pain disorders to make the patients feel better. Or we could use excitatory DREADD to stimulate the neurons in the substantia nigra that release dopamine to counter the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Basically, we could pick up any population of neurons in the brain and turn them on or off to fine tune any function of the brain. And we can do the same with any cell of the body. This will create a new type of medicine that selectively targets specific cells to fine-tune their function, instead of administering drugs that affect the whole body and thus create a bunch of side effects. Application for brain-computer interface As for optogenetics, it may one day allow fast communication with individual neurons using fiber optics. That way, we could use light instead of electrodes to have the computer stimulate specific neurons in a brain-computer interface. This would serve to input information from the computer into the brain. To output information from the brain to the computer, we could use calcium indicators, which would monitor the activity of single neurons. Ethical barriers The main obstacle to apply transgenic techniques to humans is that it is currently forbidden to alter the germ line of a human being. As I explained before, any changes in the germ line will be transmitted to our descendants, permanently altering the human genome. As the genetic modifications start piling up, we would create a new human species. We have transgenic mice, but we cannot have transgenic humans. I don’t think that the gene knock-in modifications that have been done in mice will be harmful to humans. Transgenic mice expressing Cre or floxed genes are healthy. They behave normally until these genes are activated. This problem can be overcome if we keep the genetic modifications to the somatic line, leaving the germ line untouched. This could be done by giving the Cre gene and the floxed genes in two separate viral vectors. We are already doing this in mice, but more animal work would be needed before we know how to do it safely in humans. Research on animals is more necessary than ever DREADD (Nagai et al., 2016) and optogenetics (Chernov et al., 2018) are already being used in monkeys, a necessary step to adapt these techniques to humans. However, any experiments done in monkeys are fought tooth and nail by animal liberationists. In fact, these new transgenic techniques are exactly the opposite of what was expected from future developments in biomedical research. It was believed that research with animal would eventually become a thing of the past, a necessary evil that would eventually be eliminated by replacing lab animals with in vitro methods, cell cultures, computer models and clinical studies. However, transgenic techniques are moving science in the opposite direction. Experiments that could only be done in vitro or in cell culture now can be done inside live animals. This means that in a single experiment now we can gather information about interlinked molecular, cellular, physiological and behavioral events, providing valuable insights into the relationships between them. Far from replacing animal research, cell culture and in vitro methods are the ones that risk becoming obsolete. The use of transgenic animals today represents the cutting edge of science. Any country that curtails animal research with onerous and unnecessary regulations risks being left behind in the race to develop these exciting new technologies. References Andreoli M, Marketkar T, Dimitrov E (2017) Contribution of amygdala CRF neurons to chronic pain. Exp Neurol 298:1-12. Chernov MM, Friedman RM, Chen G, Stoner GR, Roe AW (2018) Functionally specific optogenetic modulation in primate visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:10505-10510. Heldt S, Ressler K (2009) The use of lentiviral vectors and Cre/loxP to investigate the function of genes in complex behaviors. Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 2. Kravitz AV, Kreitzer AC (2011) Optogenetic manipulation of neural circuitry in vivo. Curr Opin Neurobiol 21:433-439. Nagai Y et al. (2016) PET imaging-guided chemogenetic silencing reveals a critical role of primate rostromedial caudate in reward evaluation. Nat Commun 7:13605. Roth BL (2016) DREADDs for Neuroscientists. Neuron 89:683-694. Sternson SM, Roth BL (2014) Chemogenetic tools to interrogate brain functions. Annu Rev Neurosci 37:387-407. Yizhar O, Fenno LE, Davidson TJ, Mogri M, Deisseroth K (2011) Optogenetics in neural systems. Neuron 71:9-34.

How personal attacks, intolerance, shaming, victimism, language policing and canceling hinder the conversations we need for social change. Have you noticed how difficult is to have a rational conversation these days? I am not even talking about conversation between progressives and conservatives. I am talking about conversations between progressives with different opinions, sometimes even minor ones. And it’s not just politics. The number of difficult topics seems to be ever-expanding: religion, sex differences, gender, sexual orientations, violence on women, trans issues, racism, masculinity, feminism, animal welfare, orgasms, age, diets, pornography, sex work, grammar… These and many other topics have become so fraught with controversy that it has become utterly impossible to discuss them. I think it’s not the topics themselves, but the way we talk about them. Or, more to the point, we way we have become unable to have polite conversations. Personal attacks The most basic premise for a good conversation is politeness and mutual respect. However, they have been discarded because certain ideologies have made it okay to disrespect people that have opinions different from ours. Sometimes, the disrespect is so extreme as to lead to verbal violence and canceling. For me, the defining line between a polite argument and a personal attack is the ad hominem fallacy. A fallacy is an error in logic, something that turns a rational argument into an irrational one. The ad hominem fallacy consists in rejecting an idea not because of the idea per se, but because of the person expressing it. Therefore, a rational argument should consist of examining the ideas that are being discussed, not the person defending them. If we don’t cross that line, the conversation is less likely to become confrontational because we are attacking ideas, not people. Furthermore, if we do that, it becomes easier to convince somebody of our ideas, because we are not encouraging the other persons to identify themselves with those ideas. Identity politics and silencing Identity politics has made the ad hominem fallacy systematic by discarding the voice of entire groups of people. The argument goes like this: “You belong to an oppressor group [white, man, rich, American, etc.], therefore, everything you say is to defend your privilege, so it is automatically false.” This is wrong for several reasons. First, it is fallacious: an idea is not right or wrong because of who expresses it. Second, judging people from the group to which they belong erases their humanity, their singular characteristics as individuals. Third, this is self-defeating, because to enact social change we need people from powerful groups to change their behavior, and even to side with us to become allies. We are not going to achieve that if we don’t let them speak. A conversation means everybody gets their say. Otherwise, it’s not a conversation but a lecture. And nobody likes to be lectured. Mislabeling disagreement One subtle form of personal attack is to deny the ability of other people to disagree with you by labeling that disagreement as something else: confusion, ignorance or lack of education. This is a put-down, because you imply that the other person is your intellectual inferior, or is not sufficiently prepared to debate you. I first faced this problem as a teenager, while being brainwashed… err… educated, by the Catholic organization Opus Dei. Every time I came up with doubts about religious beliefs, they looked at me condescendingly and said that I was confused. That I was too young and uneducated to understand such complicated topics. But it’s not just religious people who do this. Even people who claim to be rational accuse others of being ‘confused’ when they don’t agree with them. Yes, people will often misunderstand what you mean. The polite thing to do in those cases is to say that you have not expressed yourself well enough, and then try to formulate your ideas in a different way. We have also turned ‘education’ into a dirty word by saying ‘you need to educate yourself’ - meaning ‘you haven’t been adequately brainwashed by my ideology.’ Using the word ‘education’ this way reminds of the re-education camps in which totalitarian regimes inter their dissidents. It is true that often people discuss subjects about which they know nothing. They don’t even realize the extent of their ignorance - the Dunning-Kruger effect. Responding to this with an appeal to authority - ‘trust me, I’m a neuroscientist’ - is still condescending, and a logical fallacy to boot. I try to take the high road by using my expertise to explain the problem as simply as I can. If you are truly honest and empathetic, they will either end up thanking you for educating them, or break through Dunning-Kruger to realize how much they don’t know about that stuff. Tolerance and its limits Political correctness does something that is an odd inversion of the ad hominem fallacy: it blames people for having certain opinions. This increases confrontation and sets the basis for shunning and canceling. To a certain extent, making people responsible for their ideas makes sense. Certain ideas represent a moral failure that defines that person. If you think that certain races are more intelligent than others, you are a racist. If you think that women should submit to men, you are a misogynist. If you think that the Holocaust did not happen, you are a Nazi. If you think that dictatorship is a good form or government, you are a fascist. I struggled with this all my life. According to the last definition, my father was a fascist: he thought that the Franco dictatorship in Spain was okay and held positions of power in the government of Franco. Later on, he became a democrat and was elected to Congress. I never stopped loving him and admiring the many valuable things he did. Even people with despicable ideas deserve respect. Sometimes our love. It’s called tolerance. We need to respect the humanity of everybody, even those with awful ideologies. We certainly should condemn people who do evil things, or who collaborate with those who do them. It is also true that evil ideas lead to evil deeds. However, unethical ideas should be fought with good arguments, not by persecuting the people who espouse them. Censorship is a tool of dictatorships. Free inquiry and intellectual honesty Another good reason to tolerate all kinds of ideas is that science and rational discourse require free inquiry. If certain ideas are off limits, how would we know that they are wrong? This is a can of worms that certain conservatives like to open by asking questions like “what if some races are really more intelligent than others?” But, in fact, the starting point in Western civilization was the racist belief that some races were superior to others. It was science what proved that wrong. Science is not amoral; it is based on some solid values: The quest for truth as one of our most worthwhile endeavors. The interrogation of Nature using a rigorous scientific method. Discarding an idea when it is proven wrong. Abiding by evidence and facts. These values define intellectual honesty: a wholehearted dedication to the truth. Here is where science and political correctness collide. Political correctness discards some ideas beforehand - it is dogmatic. Science will inquire into everything without prejudice, and abide by the truth, whatever it is. When we choose to disregard the truth in the name of political expedience, we open the door to irrational beliefs that eventually lead to oppression. Shaming and blaming Shame and guilt are two of the most powerful social emotions: the feelings that guide our behavior is society to encourage cooperation. They are driven by signals from others and have a profound impact on our self-esteem. They are so powerful that can drive people to suicide. The 20th century saw the slow realization that shame and guilt could be used for social change. If the rich and powerful could be made ashamed of supporting oppression and inequality, then they could be forced to eliminate them. And it worked. Demonstrations, talks, writing, organizing and voting became effective political tools to promote the rights of the exploited. But it went too far. These powerful psychological weapons were turned to other progressives to enforce political correctness and ideology. Even worse, they were used on people because they belonged to a particular group (men, whites, etc.), not because of their actions. The oppressor/victim dynamic The narrative about victims fighting oppressors was started by Marxism at the beginning of the 20th century. The exploited were the workers, and the oppressors were owners of the factories and lands where they worked. This struggle reflected well the situation at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. However, as Western societies became more developed, the working class became less well-defined. Thanks to powerful unions, many workers became members of a burgeoning middle class, where they joined professionals like college professors, engineers and lawyers. On the other side of the social spectrum, the unemployed were excluded from the political discourse. Then the narrative shifted from class struggle to identity politics. The oppressors were no longer the rich and the capitalists, but groups that were perceived as having more power than other groups. Thus, men were oppressors and women victims. Blacks were victimized by whites. Gays were the victims of straights. And so on and so forth. Never mind that what really oppressed these victims were not people - men, whites, straights, etc. - but societal structures - misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc. People are not immoral because they belong to a group that they haven’t chosen, but inasmuch as they accept and support the structures of oppression. But this inconvenient detail gets in the way of spreading ideology. It’s easier to preach hatred towards the out-group. After all, tribalism is in our genes. Ideologies hate nuance. It creates too much doubt. And the people who want to ride ideologies to power are not precisely characterized by their intelligence. So they welcome any tool that helps stifle dissent and rational discourse. The best of such strategies is what I call appeal to victimhood. Whenever anybody brings up an argument that challenges the ideology, it is instantly labeled as an act of oppression: blaming the victim, re-enacting the rape, supporting the Patriarchy, homophobia, defending the sexual binary. Since Postmodernism declared the centrality of language, ideas became acts of oppression indistinguishable from behavior. Policing language The next turn of the screw consisted of placing landmines all over language. Now you could be labeled as an oppressor, not just by defending the wrong idea, but just by using the wrong word. And that keeps changing constantly, so those who are not in the known - the out group - are constantly blamed for oppression. So ‘Indian’ became ‘Native American’, that was in turn discarded in favor of ‘indigenous people’. ‘Autistic’ is wrong, it’s ‘person with autism’! Don’t say ‘crazy’, it’s ‘neurodivergent’! It’s not ‘transsexual’, is ‘transgender’… no, wait, just say ‘trans’… but don’t you ever say ‘tranny’! And so every conversation we try to have quickly degenerates into an argument over the right words to use. And if you express the wrong idea or use the wrong word, it’s an unforgivable offense because it hurts the delicate feelings of the countless victims around you. In a society ruled by identity politics, we are divided into many groups of victims and oppressors. You have to quickly signal to what victim group you belong to, otherwise you will be thrown into an oppressor group, shamed and marginalized. For example, I am an immigrant, a Hispanic and an atheist. That should save me from being classified as an old white man, the worse possible oppressor group. Triggers and emotional blocks One way the appeal to victimhood is used as a conversation stopper is the emotional trigger. It is based on the idea that certain topics cannot be touched because bringing them up would produce great psychological distress to a person by triggering flashbacks of the abuse. This is not to deny that flashbacks do exist. I have seen them happen. By they have been weaponized as conversation stoppers. Especially when the goal of the conversation is to point out behavioral problems or moral shortcomings of the victim. Another way the appeal to emotional fragility is used is when, in the middle of a discussion that is not going too well for them, they declare that they cannot deal with it anymore because it is causing them emotional distress. Other times, people surround themselves with a host of taboo subjects that protect them from being called on their behavior. Or are used to protect their ideology from being attacked. This is not new. Christian, Islamists and other religious people quickly label any rational argument against their religion as an offense against their beliefs. Not long ago, and even today in some countries, they made you pay for your offense with your life. Shunning and blocking The penalty for expressing the wrong ideas, using the wrong words or triggering the fragile emotions of a victim is shunning. A group of people would refuse to talk to you. In our computerized world, you would be blocked from social media or even ghosted. I am not against blocking on social media or platforms like Medium. If somebody insults me or engages in a personal attack, I will block them. However, I will not block somebody simply because they disagree with me or use the wrong words. Canceling When shunning is done on a large scale to somebody whose livelihood depends on their public image, it becomes canceling. It has become a truly horrific practice that has destroyed many lives. One of the most egregious examples is the canceling of the documentary Jihad Rehab, by Meg Smaker, from the Sundance Festival and other venues, driven by Islamic extremists. The threat of cancelation eliminates rational, nuanced conversations, ensuring the survival of idiotic ideas that would be quickly discarded otherwise. Censorship used to be something that conservatives did because their arguments were not strong enough to counter those of the Left. However, these days we see a new form of censorship arising from canceling culture. Ideological bubbles The problem with shunning is that it’s reciprocal. People who are being shunned or canceled get together to support each other and, in turn, shun the group that has marginalized them. Then it becomes a numbers game: which group is the larger and hence more powerful? This dynamic creates a society of ghettos separated by ideological walls, who cannot talk to each other because of their intolerance. They are ideological bubbles. People inside each bubble live happily, content to be surrounded by people who don’t challenge their ideas, trigger their emotions or use the wrong words. If the ideas or politically correct words of the group change, as they often do, they quickly fall in line. The problem comes when it’s time for political action. When you need votes, money, followers, or bodies for a demonstration. Then you realize that your bubble is inconveniently small. You try to fundraise, get followers, get out the vote, but people seem oblivious to your cause. Ideas that seem so obvious to you - because nobody inside your bubble dares to challenge them - leave others unimpressed. Without being polished by vigorous debate, ideas become flat and lose their power. If you are not open to the opinions of others, you will never convince anybody. If you do not challenge them, your ideas cannot evolve to become something that most people would embrace. If you choose to remain emotionally fragile, you will not be ready to fight for social change. How your ego hides behind your opinions I would like to leave you with a reflection about the roots of our inability to engage in deep, meaningful conversations. It’s our ego. That conviction that we have the right ideas to save the world. Our self-assurance in our many reads and extensive education. Or, conversely, the belief that we are damaged victims who need to be protected from the wrong arguments and words. It’s all ego. It’s the ego trying to protect itself, to put up its defenses against shame and guilt. To convince others that we are okay. Please, praise me. Please, do not shun me. You are a fool if you think that you are going to save the world. Nobody is that powerful. The only thing that we can do, that we should do, is to contribute to the collective effort of Humanity to improve our lot and make our planet a better place. But, to do that, we need to work together. And we can only do that by communicating. By talking, but also listening. By having conversations. Particularly on the most difficult topics, because they are where change is most needed. We need to leave our egos behind and open up to others. That’s why, when ideologies get in the way of our conversations, we are doing it all wrong.

You are quivering like a flan. You stand in the middle of the hotel room, not knowing what to do, not knowing where to go. You give me that look: halfway fearful, halfway pleading. You're probably thinking about running away and never seeing me again. That would be a real shame, because I am planning to give you a wonderful afternoon. An afternoon that you will never forget, in which all your fantasies will come true. I’ve promised you that. But what if I can't keep my promise? It also depends on you. And you are quivering like a flan. I drop my duffel bag on the floor and walk over to you. I slide my hand gently under your hair, massaging your neck. I draw you closer until I can hug you. “Come on, let's play a game! You’ll like it.” You don't say anything, but you let me lead you in front of the mirror. “I want you to look at yourself in the mirror, but not with your eyes, but with mine. I want you to see your naked body as if it was the first time. As I am going to see it for the first time.” You nod, but you've become even more nervous. Your heart beats fast. I gather your hair in a tight bundle and I gently pull on it to force you to lift your chin. With the other hand, I undo the first button of your blouse. Then the next one. “Are you looking at you as I told you?” I whisper in your ear. “Yes… I think so.” I have reached the last button. I pull your blouse off your skirt and peel it down your arms. Your eyes, like mine, wander over your white skin in the mirror. You are being obedient. You like being obedient. I pull a strap of your bra down your shoulder. The breast that I uncover is as perfect as I imagined it, neither big nor small, crowned by a rosy nipple that is already awakening. I run my fingertip over it, gently, barely brushing it, and it wrinkles and stretches as if reaching for my finger. “Are you looking, little mouse? Do you see how pretty you are? “Please…” you say. You don't know if you are asking me to continue or to stop. Your hands open and close at your sides. I wonder if you can really see yourself as I see you, so beautiful, so innocent, so young. For months, I've been desiring you in my dreams, and now I'm finally going to have you. I want to see you naked, exposed to my greedy gaze. I want to run my fingertips over every inch of your skin. But that's not enough for me. I want to get into your mind, make you feel what I want you to feel: trust and fear, pleasure and pain. I finish taking off your bra. But you, rebelling, cover your breasts with your hands. “That won't do, little mouse. I'm going to make sure that this doesn't happen again.” I say it softly, which I know scares you most. Alarmed, you remove your hands from your breasts, but you know it's too late. Your nervous eyes chase mine. I open my travel bag and take out a soft red hemp rope. It gives off that obscene smell. I take your hands and clasp your wrists behind your neck. The rope loops around them quickly, then I run the ends in opposite directions up your forearms, then between your hands, before I tie them firmly. When I'm done, your arms are solidly bound. Your breasts rise proudly. I plant my hands on them and fondle them unceremoniously. They are mine now. I pinch your nipples, brush them, twist them. You try to pull away, but I won't let you. “Look at you, little mouse,” I whisper in your ear. “Watch what I do to you.” I unzip your skirt, which falls to the ground and gathers at your feet. Your legs are white, like two marble columns. Your pubis is a dark shadow under your panties. You look at yourself in the mirror with my eyes, as you nervously try to figure out where I'm going to touch you next. But instead I gather you in my arms and take you to the bed, sitting you on my lap. I kiss you. It’s our first kiss. Our lips barely touch. “I'm going to spank you. But don't worry, it won't hurt… At first. Then it will, but you’ll like it. You’ll want it to hurt. While I spank you, I will explain things that can only be understood when you are across a man's lap with your bottom up in the air, feeling the sting of the slaps on your cheeks. When we are done, I'll take you back to the mirror to show you your red bottom. Are you afraid?” “Yes. Quite.” “Well, it’s not so bad, you’ll see. Shall we start?” Without waiting for your answer, I flip you over. You find yourself face down over my legs, your cheek resting on the rope that binds your arms. “Now, be a nice girl and lift your bottom! Relax your back… Yes, like that! Lift your butt a bit higher, don't be ashamed… Your breathing is ragged. You quiver like a flan. You anticipate the first slap, but instead I massage your neck again, then your back, until you relax. Your bottom arches over my thighs, curving insolently. You are wearing white cotton panties, good girl panties, which, however, do not cover the crease between the thigh and the butt, and the white skin just above it. That's where I spank you first, lightly. A jolt courses through your body. You gasp. Then your body relaxes again. I know what you're thinking. That it didn't hurt. That you liked it. That it would have been better if it’d hurt, because liking my spanking makes you more vulnerable. Taking advantage of your confusion, I give you a similar slap on your other buttock. Then I continue spanking you on your white panties, alternating between the cheeks. “Let me explain something, Beatriz,” I say as I spank you with that even rhythm that means that it’s going to last for a while. “The submissive must surrender to the dominant. Do you know what that means? You do not answer. You don't want to talk to me while I spank you. It's too humiliating. I give you a couple of hard slaps. “I’ve asked you a question, Beatriz! Answer me!” “Oh! Yes! Of course I know what it means! It means that I have to obey you… Isn’t that what I'm doing?” “Not exactly, little mouse. Surrendering means putting yourself at my disposal. Giving me your body to enjoy. Until now, I have not asked you to do anything for me. Everything I asked you to do was to teach you to enjoy yourself. I have been spoiling you… You must be the most pampered submissive in the world!” I give you a couple of hard slaps to emphasize the message. “I've even left your panties on, but now the time has come for you to be naked for me. You understand?” "Yes." You answer quickly this time. “I guess you are going to pull them down.” “No. You are the one who is going to pull them down. I'm going to untie your arms so that you can show me your beautiful booty.” Embarrassed, you hide your face in your armpit. I undo the knots that bind your arms. When I'm done, you stretch them. But you keep hiding your face in the quilt. “Are you ready?” You turn your face. It’s red. “Please do not ask me to do that. You pull them down.” “No, Beatriz… Don't you say you're so submissive, so obedient? Well, then obey me. Obedience is demonstrated by doing the hard stuff.” You are not moving. I spank you again, making each slap slightly harder than the previous one, so you understand that you will not be able to postpone the inevitable. Finally, your shaking hands go down your sides, grab the elastic at the waist, and pull your panties down to your thighs. In the process, you arch your hips, sticking your ass out and showing me the little brown button on your anus. You try to hide it by squeezing your buttocks, which have acquired a nice rosy color. I caress them. The spanking has warmed your skin and made it smooth as velvet. “That’s a good girl! Now I can enjoy looking at your bottom as I spank it.” You move your hips in time with the slaps. You are excited, I know. But you squeeze your buttocks again. “Look, Beatriz, I’m done with this nonsense! It's okay if I see your anus. I told you that to be submissive you have to offer yourself to me.” “Sorry… I can't help it. I am very embarrassed.” “Well, too bad! No more excuses.” I grab your panties and pull them off your feet. “Spread your legs wide. I want to take a good look at you.” “No, please!” Grabbing your hips, I lift your bottom and begin to spank it for real. Alarmed, you lift your face from the quilt. “It stings, doesn’t it? Well, if you want me to stop, you know what you have to do.” You spread your thighs wide. Your pussy opens too, the swollen labia split to show the moisture inside you. We are both panting. I can smell you. Your ass is so hot I can feel it on my face. “That’s much better,” I gasp. My fingers run across your burning bottom, but do not stop there. They brush your anus and dive into the moisture of your sex. When the tip of my finger reaches your clit, you spread your legs even further and arch your hips, offering yourself completely to me. “Nice! So at last we find the truth: you are a slut. I suppose you want me to continue.” “Please! Please!” you moan. “I don’t think so. You continue.” “What?” “You hear me. Put your fingers on your clit and show me how you get yourself off.” “No, please! I can't!” I know I am close to the limit… You are about to say your safeword. That will break the spell, now that we are so close. I stroke your clit again until I feel your body relax. “It’s okay, little mouse. Surrender. Let yourself go.” “Yes! I’m trying!” “Then obey me. Give me your pleasure. Show me how you pleasure yourself. You've come quite far, don't let me down now.” You bury your face in the quilt again. But your hand slides under your belly. I see your fingers peep out between your lips. Timidly at first, then more decisively, you start to rub your clit with circular movements. “Very good, little mouse! Don't stop. And don't close your legs, I want to see how you move those fingers.” You groan. You have tilted your head on the bed to breathe easier. Your eyes are closed. Your cheeks are flushed. I resume the spanking. As soon as you feel it, you tremble with pleasure. Your fingers move more greedily. “So now you like the spanking, don’t you?” I'm deliberately hitting you lightly. You snort with frustration. “Please…” you complain. “Please what? “Please… harder!” “Ah! So that’s it, right? You need a good spanking while you play with yourself. You are such a dirty girl!” I'm hitting you hard, trying to find the point that satisfies you without hurting you too much. You grunt and rock your hips with the rhythm of your fingers. I adjust the slaps to the same beat. We both begin to dance a dance of pleasure and pain. My cock has been hard for a while. I want to rub it against your hip, but I give up my pleasure to pay full attention to yours. “Please! Please! Can I cum now?” “Of course, little mouse! Cum for me! As you approach your climax, I spank you with rhythmic, energetic blows, raising my hand high in the air to increase the drama. You scream. I don’t know if it is from pain or from pleasure. You don't know yourself. Your finger has acquired a frenzied rhythm. You cum, finally, screaming and pressing your belly against my thighs. I don't stop spanking you until your limp body on my lap announces that your orgasm has ended. (Part 2) Copyright 2021 Hermes Solenzol

A special encounter between a submissive newbie and a dominant expert enough to pleasure her in exquisitely perverse ways. (Part 1) I lay by your side, hugging you. You hug me back and hide your face in my shoulder. I know that the orgasm has left you relaxed and satisfied, that it has pushed away your resistance and your fears. But I also know that you are confused and surprised that you have come this far. "I'm very proud of you, little mouse," I whisper in your ear while I stroke your hair. "I know that it has been hard to obey me... But it has been worth it, hasn't it?" For all answer you rub your nose against my shoulder. "You have been a good girl, Beatriz." I run my hand down your back and caress your butt, enjoying how soft and hot the spanking has left it. You are still pressed against me. Your breathing, which I feel as a warm draft on my shoulder, has become calm and regular. You must have fallen asleep. I like having you naked by my side. I think about the things I will do to you next. I wonder if you'll be able to go all the way. "Weren't you going to show me how red you've made my butt?" you say suddenly. So you aren't asleep, after all. I take you in my arms again and place you in front of the mirror, choosing the right angle so that you can see your behind. "Well, it's not all that red!" you say with a giggle. "No… It's more like blushing. But don't worry, I'll give it another round later." "What are you going to do to me now?" "I want you to kneel here, in front of the mirror." You smile. You like that position: sitting on your heels, upright, your hands on your thighs, palms up. I pick the red rope from the bed. I fold your arms behind your back, fingers pointing in opposite directions, and tie them as before. You are immobilized. You watch your tits in the mirror. "Knees apart, little mouse," I whisper in your ear. You obey right away and smile. You like that position a lot. I know. I make a ponytail with your hair in my fist and I amuse myself tugging at it to make you raise your chin. I take a nipple between my fingers and I caress it, pinch it and twist it until becomes erect. I do the same with your other nipple. You begin to writhe, but you are well bound and do not dare to leave your position. Your breathing has become agitated. I don't need to touch you to know how wet you are. I take a leather mask out of my bag and use it to cover your eyes. You remain very still, expectant. I take a few steps behind you and I begin to undress. I take off my shoes. I unbutton my shirt. I know you can hear the soft brush of my fingers against the clothes, imagining what I'm doing… But not quite, because you've never seen me naked. The sound of me unzipping my pants is unmistakable. I can see how you shudder when you hear it. Neither of us say anything. The silence is intense, taut, underscored by the distant noises from the street. This time I take out of my bag is a small vibrator. I kneel behind you. Close enough that you can feel the heat of my body on your back. Far enough that my skin doesn't touch yours. I turn on the vibrator. Before you recognize the sound, I've got it between your pussy lips. You take it with a startle and a gasp. At first you resist the pleasure that I impose on you, writhing, moaning. I know that you are tempted of closing your thighs, but you resist that impulse to avoid the painful slap on your leg that your disobedience would have cost you. Little by little, my skin comes in contact with yours: the arm that holds the vibrator touches your side, my knees push against your buttocks and your feet, my chest brushes your back, and my hard cock slips into your tied hands. You know what it is. You know that if you close your hand you can take it, but you pretend not to notice, while the vibrator inflicts its sweet torment on you. I look at you in the mirror, spying on every gesture of your face, the irregular rhythm of your breathing that makes your tits vibrate like custards. You are getting closer. Behind the mask that blindfolds you, you feel safe, hidden, free to abandon yourself to the wild images that invade your imagination. With my other hand I caress your nipple. That takes you to the edge of the cliff. I wait another second... And manage to remove the vibrator in time to keep you from cumming. "Nooo!" you say with a groan of frustration. "Come on, come on, little mouse! What do you want, to be able to cum all the time? Good submissives come only with permission. You know that." "Please, please!" you implore. "Please, what?" I wait patiently while you formulate your plea. "Please… Let me cum!" "You may cum, but not with the vibrator... Are you going to be good, Beatriz?" "I don't know! What do you want me to do?" I whisper in your ear: "I want you to answer this question. Do you want me to make love to you, or to fuck you?" You remain silent for a while. I hear your heavy breathing. "I don't know… What's the difference?" "I could untie you, take you to bed, and make love to you as a lover. Or I can fuck you like a submissive." "And how would that be?" "I'm not going to tell you. Submissives are not owe any explanations." This time your silence is shorter than I anticipated. "I want to be your submissive. I want you to fuck me like a submissive… But it scares me." "Don't worry. Everything will be fine." I help you get up. I leave you sitting on the bed while I get everything ready. I place a chair sideways in front of the mirror. I unroll a condom over my erection. You keep still, deprived of sight by the blindfold. Wondering about the sounds that you hear. Wondering what will come next. Carefully, I lay you face down on the chair, facing the mirror. I force you to open your legs and slide the vibrator back between your lips. But, as soon as the pleasure starts to make you shake, I take it back and spank your bottom, hard. I repeat this several times, until that alternating pleasure and pain drives you crazy. You complain. With one hand planted firmly on your tied hands, I slide inside you. Slowly, relentlessly, to show you that I possess you when I want and how I want, until my belly finally touches your reddened buttocks. I start pumping you slowly. Even though your agitated breath betrays you, you don't want to give me the satisfaction of a moan, of bouncing your hips to the rhythm that I impose on you. I grab the vibrator and place it on your clit. That finally unleashes the storm. You give a little cry and stretch out your legs, your feet looking for purchase on the ground, not knowing if you want to fight the hard cock that pierces or give yourself to it. I let go of your hands, I slap your ass, and I start fucking you unceremoniously. While my left hand continues to torture you with the vibrator, with my right hand I rip off your blindfold and grab your hair to force you to raise your face and look at yourself in the mirror. To look u both in the mirror. This is how you see me naked for the first time. But you can't see me completely, because part of me is inside you, buried in your red bottom to give you your final lesson in submission. "Look at you, little mouse! Look what I do to you! You see? This is how a submissive gets fucked!" You try to close your eyes, but I open them again with a yank of your hair. Your eyes, sleepy with pleasure, look in the mirror to see your back, your hands tied, my belly pumping you, the growing pleasure reflected in my eyes. Then you close your eyes again and I can't keep you from doing that anymore, because I can see in the mirror the waves of pleasure coursing through your body while I feel your pussy clenching spasmodically my cock. I bury myself completely in you and, finally, I abandon myself to my pleasure. I have returned you to the bed and untied your hands. Safe in now your nakedness, you rest your head on my shoulder and place your thigh on my belly. I gently stroke your hair. "Clearly, Beatriz, you are totally spoiled." You lift your head from my shoulder to look at me in alarm. "Why? Did I do something wrong?" "You were quite good… But you should have asked for permission before cumming." "But it's just that I… With everything you were doing to me… How was I going to…? I could not…" You drop your head on my shoulder, frustrated. "You're right," you finally admit. "I haven't been a good submissive. I only think about cumming and that's not right. You spoil me." "I was just kidding, little mouse! If I'd wanted you to ask for permission, I would have reminded you. Don't worry, you've been a good submissive. Did you have fun?" "It was great!" "That's what's important. We will take in your submission lessons again, some other time." "You know what? I'm glad that I chose that you fucked me. Making love wouldn't have been half as fun. I'd like you to treat me as a submissive. I want you to fuck me unceremoniously and leave my butt red and hot. As it's now." "I'll be happy to do that, little mouse." "But I don't want to stop being your spoiled submissive. I want you to pamper me and make me enjoy until I can no longer resist. I want you to take me by the hand and lead me to the place where I have no choice but to give myself to you, as we have done today." Copyright 2021 Hermes Solenzol.

Is it cruelty? Or a desire to dominate? Or a quest for pleasure? The difference between sadism and cruelty You may use the words ‘sadism’ and ‘cruelty’ as synonyms. Most people do. However, I will show you here that they mean completely different things. Cruelty is to make people suffer with lack of empathy and dehumanization. Sadism is to derive pleasure from pain in a shared, erotic experience. The word ‘sadist’ comes from the name of Donatien de Sade, better known as the Marquis de Sade, French aristocrat, nihilistic philosopher and writer. He enjoyed inflicting and receiving erotic pain in the form of floggings, canning, whippings and rough sex. The Marquis de Sade was, in fact, both a sadist and a masochist - what modern people into BDSM would call a ‘switch’. Although most of the things he did would be considered consensual, even by today’s strict standards, Donatien was prosecuted for them and spent long years in jail. He wrote many of his novels during that time. When The Bastille was assaulted during the French Revolution, he was one of the prisoners locked inside. The confusion of sadism with cruelty derives from the confusing of pain with suffering, something that I discussed in another article, Pain Is Not Suffering. A survey for sadists in Fetlife.com You may wonder what is my evidence for what I said above. There are very few scientific studies on sadomasochism, and even those do not directly address the question of what motivates sadists to do what they do. Sadomasochism is one of the three facets of BDSM. The other two are bondage and dominance/submission. There is a lot of overlap between them. Sadomasochism is an erotic activity in which one partner - the sadist or top - inflicts pain on the other - the masochist or bottom. The pain is usually physical, but it can also be emotional in the form of humiliation and mind-fucking. Physical pain can be divided between impact (spanking, flogging, paddling, caning, etc.) and non-impact (clamps, needles, hot wax, hot peppers, figging, fire play, etc.). Rough sex and orgasm control are also considered forms of sadomasochism. There are millions of people who engage in sadomasochism. Fetlife.com has become a gathering place for many of them, a sort of kinky Facebook. So, I posted in Fetlife two surveys to find out what motivates masochists and sadists to engage in sadomasochistic play. The results of my survey of masochists can be seen in this article in Medium. Hypotheses I designed the questions of my survey to test the following hypotheses: Sadists inflict pain only to masochists who desire the pain and see it as a positive experience. Sadists do not inflict pain out of cruelty, that is, to cause suffering. Sadists empathize with the masochists: they seek to feel their pain. Sadists derive a sense of power and control from the pain they inflict. Sadists inflict pain to dominate, discipline and punish the masochist. Sadists seek mental experiences like altered states of consciousness (‘top space’), catharsis and transcendence. Survey design Riding on the popularity of my survey of masochists, I posted another one in Fetlife directed at sadists: A Survey for Sadists/Tops/Doms: Why Do You Inflict Pain? By pain I meant any form of pain in a BDSM context, but not real-world punishments or pain in sports, without an erotic or fetish meaning. Since the label ‘sadist’ carries a lot of stigma, I asked for responses from tops, rope riggers and doms - anybody who gives pain in any way in BDSM. A mistake of the masochist’s survey was that it included very few options. So in this one I listed 18 different possibilities for enjoying inflicting pain. As controls, I included unlikely responses, like indifference: doing it for no reason at all. One of the options was ‘other’, inviting the responders to provide their own reasons in a comment. Each option was defined by a keyword - for example, ‘empathy’ - followed by a short explanation of what it meant. People were asked to choose the option even if the description was only a partial match for their experience. These keywords and their explanations are listed below. The responders could choose as many of the options as they wanted. I randomized the order of the options, so it could not affect the preference of the responders. I used this randomizer. There was no control group. Because of the survey depends on people volunteering their answers, there is no group of non-sadists to compare with. Results I compiled the responses in a spreadsheet, added the number of responders for each option, and calculated the percentage relative to the total number of responders. Below, I rank the 18 options from the ones with most responders to the ones with less. After each keyword, I include, in quotes, the explanation that I gave it in the survey. Further down are the number of responders for that option and the percentage obtained by dividing that number by 56, the total number of responses. I end by giving my interpretation of the result. 1 - Pleasure “You play with bottoms who are masochistic and derive pleasure from pain. You enjoy sharing that pleasure. It’s really great if they orgasm from the pain.” Responses - 44 Percentage - 79% This is a large majority of responders, indeed! It refutes the popular belief that sadists want to make other people suffer. Sadist know that pain is a source of pleasure for masochists and enjoy sharing that experience. This also shows that consent is essential for sadists: if the bottom is not enjoying the experience, they cannot enjoy it, either. Apart from the obvious ethical considerations. 2 - Connection “Giving a bottom pain helps you establish intimacy and connection with him/her.” Responses - 36 Percentage - 64% This is closely related to the previous option. Unlike a cruel person, who is emotionally detached and dehumanizes people, the sadist seeks connection and intimacy with the bottom. A sadomasochistic scene is an intimate, shared experience, just like sex. 3 - Looks “You pay close attention to your bottoms and enjoy the way they express pain with facial expressions, moans, curses and body movements. You love red bottoms, bruises, rope marks and other signs of what you have done to them.” Responses - 35 Percentage - 63% This option shifts the attention to what sadists feel, why they enjoy the infliction of pain. They like what pains looks like. The way pain shows in how the masochist reacts to it. And also the traces it leaves as redness and marks on the skin. In this there is a connection with the masochists, too, because they also enjoy these manifestations of pain. Facial expressions, moans and struggle are forms of communication, ways for the masochists to share their experience with the top. 4 - Top space “Inflicting pain brings you to an altered state of consciousness that is joyful. It may be a feeling of centering, focus and enhanced attention. Or it may be dream-like. Giving pain frees you from daily worries and quiets your mind.” Responses - 34 Percentage - 61% While sub space is a popular topic in BDSM, not much is said about top space, a parallel altered state of consciousness experienced by a sadist when inflicting pain. The fact that so many responders identified top space as one of the reasons why they like to inflict pain indicates that a sadomasochistic scene creates a special mental state in both the top and the bottom. Given the focus of the top in controlling the scene, it is unlikely that top space is an endorphin-driven, dreamy state like sub space. However, this remains to be established. 5 - Power “Being able to give pain to people is empowering for you. It’s very heady to feel that you have control over their feelings and their attention. You take inflicting pain as a challenge, where you try to push your limits and the limits of the bottom.” Responses - 33 Percentage - 59% A large percentage of responders identified the feeling of power as one of their motivations for inflicting pain. This is the converse of the elation that submissives feel in giving up control. It is possible that this feeling of power contributes to top space. 6 - Sub space “You like to put bottoms in that altered state of consciousness where they feel like floating and dreaming. You feel pleasure by seeing how much they enjoy it.” Responses - 31 Percentage - 55% In the survey of masochists, sub space ranked as one of the main reasons why they like pain. Since sadist want to pleasure masochists, it is understandable that they enjoy putting them in sub space. 7 - Domination “When bottoms receive pain from you, they show you that they submit and surrender. You enjoy how vulnerable the bottom becomes when in pain. You use pain to enforce obedience.” Responses - 30 Percentage - 54% Sadomasochism and dominance/submission are considered two different components of BDSM. People who engage in one of them do not necessarily like the other. However, there is considerable overlap, as shown by this high number of sadists who selected domination as one of the reasons why they like to inflict pain. This is consistent with their identification of power as one of the main reasons for wanting to inflict pain. 8 - Healing “Giving your bottom pain helps her/him relieve chronic pain, depression, anxiety, past trauma or other unhealthy state.” Responses - 22 Percentage - 39% This is the first option for which the number of responders dipped below 50%. This is understandable, since only a few masochists are likely to have these disorders. 9 - Mind fucking “You use pain to put people in a mental state of confusion, defeat and surrender.” Responses - 20 Percentage - 36% Outside BDSM, mind fucking is a form of psychological abuse consisting of messing with the sense of reality of a person. However, in BDSM it is done consensually for fun and personal exploration. However, it is an edgy activity, so it’s not surprising that only a minority of sadists selected it. All things considered, 36% is a fairly large number. 10 - Reverse catharsis “Pain brings out of the bottom emotions like anger, sadness, joy, indignation, shame and guilt, so he/she can process them and get rid of them. You enjoy this process.” Responses - 19 Percentage - 34% Catharsis means ‘cleansing’ in Greek. It’s a psychologically healing phenomenon in which bottled-up emotions are allowed to manifest themselves, usually as crying and laughing. A sadomasochistic scene could elicit catharsis in either the top or the bottom. Since this is a survey of tops, I called their experience ‘catharsis’ and the bottom’s ‘reverse catharsis’. This survey reveals that 34% of sadists expect their bottoms to undergo catharsis, but not so much themselves—only 18% identified their own catharsis as a reason for inflicting pain. 11 - Discipline “You use pain to train somebody to withstand it, to submit, or for some other form of discipline.” Responses - 17 Percentage - 30% Discipline is one facet of dominance/submission. One form of discipline is to train the submissive to endure pain for the enjoyment of the dominant, or as a way to demonstrate their dedication. As we can see, a minority of sadists use pain this way. 12 - Empathy “When you inflict pain, you imagine what it feels like and you enjoy that sensation. You put yourself in the place of the bottom to enjoy the experience from their point of view. You like pain for its own sake. Pain is great. It fascinates you.” Responses - 15 Percentage - 27% I expected more sadists to select this option, because I thought that experiencing pain vicariously through the masochist was a large part of the motivation of the sadist. This could mean that the sadist is a covert masochist, like the Marquis de Sade. In my description, I also suggested a fascination for pain as motivation for wanting to inflict it. The survey shows that this is the case only for a minority of sadists. 13 - Punishment “You use pain to punish people for their wrongdoings or disobedience. Or you do scenes in which you pretend to punish somebody. The idea of punishment turns you on.” Responses - 13 Percentage - 23% Punishment is another big component of dominance/submission. Some people have a ‘punishment fetish’: they find it erotic to be punished or to punish others. The survey reveals that punishing only motivates a small percentage of sadists. 14 - Catharsis “Inflicting pain on others brings out emotions like anger, sadness, joy, indignation, shame and guilt, so you can process them and get rid of them. You feel cleansed after a scene in which you inflicted pain.” Responses - 10 Percentage - 18% Only a small number of sadists inflict pain as a way to release their own emotions. In contrast, 34% of them expect their bottoms to experience catharsis during a scene. 15 - Cruelty “You like to make people suffer. It’s great that BDSM allows you to express your dark side. You do not try to feel what they are feeling, but rather dissociate from them.” Responses - 10 Percentage - 18% My hypothesis is that sadism is different from cruelty. A sadist derives pleasure from inflicting pain, but not because pain causes suffering. This survey shows that a large majority of sadists inflict pain only when it pleases the masochist. A cruel person, on the other hand, wants to cause suffering. The small number of people who chose this option confirmed my hypothesis. Still, 10 people chose it. Perhaps they do not appreciate the difference between pain and suffering. However, given the explanation that I gave, it seems that a small number of sadists do want to express a dark, cruel side of their mind. Conversely, there might be ‘emotional masochists’ who want to experience, not just physical pain, but negative emotions that could be considered suffering. 16 - Other “Please describe things you like about inflicting pain that are different from the other ones listed here.” Responses - 9 Percentage - 16% Given their small number, I will just quote or paraphrase their responses: “Helps with my chronic pain.” “For the sake of kink - it's fun to do something different, something ‘wrong’, something non-vanilla.” Trust: I like that the masochists trust me to take them on their own journey. To test the toys and the furniture that I make. To get “a feeling that all is right with the world” and life is better. Contrast: “Tenderness, closeness, cuddling, caregiving, and all the other soft and gentle actions feel much better after pain/discomfort/humiliation.” “A disciplined practice like impact topping has helped with controlling impulsive behavior that has often been a problem in the past through creating an atmosphere and immediate responsibility for my actions.” “My partners are my art.” My own submission - Giving pain is my service to the masochist. 17 - Transcendence “Giving pain brings down your ego. It gives you a feeling of humility and liberation from personal limits. It’s a mystical experience.” Responses - 6 Percentage - 11% Mysticism and search for a transcendent experience appeals to some kinksters, particularly those with lots of experience. Although they are few, the survey reveals that they do exist. 18 - Indifference “You don’t really care how bottoms feel when you beat them or give them pain. You just do it.” Responses - 1 Percentage - 2% I included this option as a control, a way to check that the responders were paying attention and could not opt for “all of the above”. It also tested the hypothesis that sadists do have motivations for inflicting pain. The one person who selected this option also selected 9 others, including sub space, top space, catharsis and reverse catharsis, things that seem incompatible with an attitude of indifference. Interpretation The preferred options could be grouped into three clusters. Centered on the masochist. In order of preference, this includes pleasure (1), connection (2), sub space (6), healing (8) and reverse catharsis (10). In these options, the sadist’s motivation is to pleasure, heal and fulfill the desires of the masochist. By and large, these are the main motivations declared by the sadists. Centered on the sadist. This includes looks (3), top space (4), power (5), empathy (12), catharsis (14) and transcendence (17). The sadist is motivated by his own pleasure and state of mind. Although ranking less than the first cluster, it still includes several options chosen by more than 50% of the tops. Dominating the masochist. This includes domination (7), mind-fucking (9), discipline (1) and punishment (13). Here the emphasis is on the ability of the sadists to control the masochists, influencing their thoughts, emotions and behavior. It denotes a certain overlap of sadomasochism with dominance/submission. Although less preferred than the other two clusters, these options are still substantial. The responses strongly support hypotheses 1 and 2. Sadists only inflict pain on masochists who desire it, and do it to pleasure the masochist. Sadists do not inflict pain to cause suffering. Hypothesis 3 - that sadists empathize with masochists seeking to feel their pain - was not supported by the results. Only 27% of the responders selected this option. Hypotheses 4, 5 and 6 are valid for some of the responders. Conclusion In summary, sadists like to inflict pain to provide a positive experience for the masochists and for themselves. This experience is not just pleasure, but also involves connection, altered states of consciousness, catharsis and healing. In addition, the desire to dominate and control others motivates a type of sadists.

A 50-year-old struggle about porn, BDSM, and prostitution that still rages on In support of feminism I am a feminist. However, I feel that I need to qualify this by saying that I support sex-positive feminism and I oppose radical feminism. Feminism is one of the most righteous and successful social movements in history. In its century and a half of existence it has gotten women the right to vote incorporated women into the workforce defended the rights of women in the workplace gave them access to all professions and political power, granted them the right to control their body, their sexuality, and reproduction defended them against violence and sexual abuse among other things. That women should enjoy equal rights to men is a no-brainer. It derives from the most basic principles of justice. It is also clear that men stand to benefit from that equality. We all stand to gain from the triumph of feminism. The fight for equality is not over. Much remains to be done, particularly in the developing world. Still, recognizing past successes gives us hope that complete equality is achievable and that we will get there sooner rather than later. The dark side of feminism All that needed to be said because this article is about the dark side of feminism. Nothing of what I will say here should be construed to deny that achieving equality is a worthy and important goal. However, like in any other human enterprise, mistakes are made. People, even with good intentions, hijack good social movements to further nasty goals. The 70s was an interesting decade, often forgotten in comparison with the enormous energy and the earth-shattering social changes of the 60s. A lot of those changes were deepened, cleaned, and consolidated in the 70s. However, the love and positivity of the 60s turned to anger and negativity in the 70s. That’s what happened to feminism. Some feminists decided that it was necessary to push back against the sexual liberation of the 60s. At that time, contraceptives had become publicly available, freeing women from the fear of getting pregnant. Now they could have sex for fun, just like men had been doing. These academic feminists cautioned that sexual liberation was an evil in disguise. It hid the fact that women were being exploited by men. This was especially clear in three evil things: pornography, sadomasochism, and prostitution. Because it initially targeted pornography, this form of feminism was labeled anti-pornography feminism. More recently, people who embrace this ideology have chosen the label of Radical Feminism. Never mind that they have often allied themselves with repressive forms of conservativism and religious intolerance. Although radical feminism does not always overlap with anti-porn feminism, that’s the label that I will use in this article. On the other side, we have Sex-Positive Feminism. A careful look at the history of feminism in the last 50 years reveals that it has been split between these two camps. Some may argue that this division was a phenomenon of second-wave feminism. I used to think so, but after reading articles and comments against pornography and sex work, I concluded that the Feminist Sex Wars still rage on today. They include wars on sexual intercourse, pornography, BDSM, sex work, and trans women. The war on sexual intercourse: ‘Penetration is rape’ The quote ‘penetration is rape’ is attributed to Andrea Dworkin, a famous radical feminist, in her book Intercourse. She later denied having written that. The problem is that she used such convoluted language that it can be interpreted either way. It hardly matters because some radical feminists continue to state to this day that penetration is rape. Others get all tied up in rhetorical knots about it. Where does this outrageous statement come from? Radical feminists see penis-in-vagina (PIV) intercourse as an act of domination of women by men. Alternatively, they claim that men see PIV as an act of domination. It doesn’t matter what men think, they don’t get a say in the matter. Radical feminists know better what is inside men’s heads. The rejection of intercourse started as a criticism of Freud’s idea that PIV was a sign of mature sexuality, while oral and anal sex denoted being stuck in some stage of childhood. Psychoanalysis is not grounded on empirical observations, so it has a lot of made-up ideas like that. Radical feminists latched on to this and took the opposite position. For them, the only politically correct pleasure for women was from the clitoris, either as masturbation or as oral sex. Men want PIV because it pleasures them, not the woman. Or perhaps because they want to relegate women to a reproductive function. Women who enjoyed fucking had to be reeducated in types of sexuality that do not serve to appease the male desire. The war on pornography Radical feminists condemn pornography, arguing that it only serves the pleasure of men and involves the exploitation of women. For them, the porn actress is an exploited woman, led to do this type of work by social circumstances that impoverish her. They argue that women’s sexuality is such that if they could really choose, women would never expose their bodies for the pleasure of men. Of course, men also appear in porn, but radical feminism doesn’t care about them. In the 70s, the main activity of radical feminism was to initiate campaigns to prohibit and punish pornography, in many cases allying itself with the most reactionary Right in pursuit of this objective. These arguments against pornography have been superseded today because the attitude of women about porn has gone through a profound change. While in the 70s women did not watch much porn, their consumption of it has been steadily increasing. Therefore, it is no longer true that porn is exclusively for the pleasure of men. Even more surprising was the tremendous increase in amateur porn done by women. Contrary to what is claimed by radical feminists, many women are exhibitionists who enjoy showing their bodies and being watched while doing sexual acts. In Felife.com, for example, you can find thousands of amateur nude pictures and sex videos posted by women. Recently, many young women sought to monetize their exhibitionism by posting their videos in places like OnlyFans. This has erased the boundary between exhibitionism and sex work. Therefore, porn does not necessarily exploit women. It can be seen as another way for women to express their sexuality. The war on BDSM For radical feminism, sadomasochism is the clearest demonstration that male sexuality is full of violence towards women. According to it, while most men repress their violent instincts, sadomasochists act openly on them. They degrade, mistreat and humiliate their ‘victims’ and, by extension, all women. Radical feminists overlook the fact that a considerable number of men are masochistic or submissive. Conversely, many women are sadistic or dominant. Men and women can also be switches, people that alternate between topping and bottoming roles. Radical feminism tried to explain the fact that many women enthusiastically engage in BDSM by saying that they have internalized the sexual violence of the male. Alternatively, women may be re-enacting the violence that they have suffered in the past. They explain male submission as a response of some men to feelings of guilt generated by their own sexual violence. All this reeks of paternalism and condescension. Radical feminists presume to know the minds of BDSM practitioners better than they do. These explanations are vigorously rejected by the large and well-organized BDSM community. Scientific research shows that BDSM is healthy and different from violence. One study showed that BDSM practitioners were as mentally healthy as the general population. A survey of 975 men and 1,046 women in the USA showed that more than 30% had engaged in spanking, 20% in bondage and 13% in whipping, and that 8% had attended BDSM parties. Every generation discovers BDSM through their own movie. It was Story of O in the 70s, Nine and a Half Weeks in the 80s, Secretary in the 2000s, and 50 Shades of Grey in the 2010s. With each one, the social acceptance of BDSM steadily increased. Sadomasochism has gone from being the obvious target of radical feminists to being a subject they prefer to avoid. The war on prostitution Largely defeated on the pornography and BDSM fronts (never mind intercourse), radical feminists focused on prostitution. They see the prostitute as an exploited woman who would never choose that job if she didn’t find herself in a situation of extreme poverty or even slavery. They have achieved big successes with their relentless identification of prostitution with sex trafficking. However, the standard narrative of sex trafficking is largely a myth created to support anti-prostitution laws. It tells us that women in poor countries are kidnapped by force, sold by their relatives, or deceived by a pimp, and then taken to a developed country to be prostituted. See the new Netflix series Sky Rojo for an example of this narrative. It erases the sex workers that do it voluntarily and who try to speak for themselves through their own organizations. The reality is far more complex and largely unknown. There are almost no studies on the percentage of prostitutes that are sex trafficked, probably because they are suppressed so that they do not reveal inconvenient truths. The only study I could find was by the United Nations Office On Drugs and Crime and showed that about 20% of the prostitutes in Europe could be considered victims of exploitation. But even that 20% are not the sex slaves that they are portrayed to be. The underlying reality is that of millions of women in poor countries who live in such unsafe and miserable conditions that they would do anything to migrate to Europe or the USA. Once here, some turn to prostitution to survive or to pay the debts incurred to enter illegally. So, yes, there is human trafficking, but instead of consisting of kidnapped women, is of people willing to spend all their resources and risk their lives to get here. And, yes, there is the exploitation of women, but it is not limited to sex. Immigrant women work in inhuman conditions in the garment industry, as maids, cleaners, etc. Sex work only looks different through the puritanical view that there is something sacred about sex. We should worry more about the worldwide system of economic injustice than about the titillating narrative of sex trafficking. In any case, the best way to avoid sexual exploitation is to decriminalize sex work. This would give these women the same protection as any other worker. It would also help to identify and protect those doing it involuntarily. The biggest success of radical feminism against prostitution is in the Nordic Model, so-called because it was initially adopted in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland. It was later taken by Canada, France, Ireland, and Israel. It consists of the criminalization of the clients and not the sex workers themselves. It is opposed by Amnesty International. The model is considered successful because it has led to a fall in prostitution in these countries, but in that regard, it may not be different from standard prohibition like the one in the USA. Sex workers argue that the model still prosecutes them and forces them to engage in high-risk activities. Similarly, the SESTA/FOSTA laws passed in 2018 in the USA substantially decreased the safety of sex workers by eliminating ways they could check their clients online. Today, prostitutes have organized in many countries to combat the paternalistic attitude of radical feminists. Many new forms of sex work have appeared in later years: escorts, sugar babies, professional dominatrices, and financial domination. It is no longer clear what is prostitution and what is not. The war on trans women: Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism (TERF) Behind all these anti-sex ideas, there is a background of contempt for male sexuality, even hatred of men. Male sexuality is considered inherently domineering and violent, and therefore hurtful to women. There is also a whiff of the conservative idea that men’s sexuality needs to be confined inside marriage. When transsexuality came to the foreground in the 2000s, a group of radical feminists declared that people transitioning from male to female were not women. They wanted to exclude them from women’s spaces and deny them the benefits of transgender rights legislation. Blogger Viv Smythe popularized the term Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism (TERF), which has gained widespread acceptance. In 2020, the Feminist Party of Spain, a radical feminist organization, was expelled from the coalition Unidas Podemos (now governing with the socialists) because of its TERF ideology. The push-back: the birth of sex-positive feminism Opposition to radical feminism began in the late 1970s and early 1980s on the West Coast of the United States. Feminist journalist Ellen Willis was one of the first to denounce it for its puritanism, authoritarianism, and threat to free expression. The controversy spread quickly. Nevertheless, radical feminism achieved an important victory in October 1980. The National Organization for Women (NOW) adopted their ideology by declaring that the ‘Big Four’ — pedophilia, pornography, sadomasochism, and sex in public — are acts of exploitation, violence, and invasion of privacy. However, sadomasochists had been organizing. The Eulenspiegel Society of New York appeared in 1971 and the Society of Janus of San Francisco in 1974. Samois was a lesbian BDSM group spun off the Society of Janus. It included the famous writer Patrick Califia (then Pat Califia). A group of radical feminists from San Francisco, “Women Against Violence in Pornography and Media”, attacked Samois and organized pickets against them. Samois’ lesbians were not cowered and began the first battles of the Sex Wars. During the 80s, new BDSM organizations appeared in all major American cities: Black Rose in Washington, DC, Threshold in Los Angeles, People Exchanging Power in Houston. It was a long struggle, which raged through the 80s and persists until today. Radical feminists enjoyed the backing of NOW and the support of feminists departments of many American universities. However, sex-positive feminists were more successful in communicating with the wider public. Their message was more in tune with the American spirit of liberty and free expression. Sex-positive feminists like Carol Queen, Susie Bright, Judith Levine and Patrick Califia wrote funny, popular books, full of sexy anecdotes, while the books of radical feminists were tiresome tirades in postmodern jargon. Stores like Good Vibrations popularized sex toys for women. Today, podcasts like the Savage Lovecast promote sex-positive culture throughout the world. Will the Sex Wars ever end? Most young people today have never heard of the Sex Wars and the struggle between radical feminism and sex-positive feminism. Both types of feminism share many goals (contraception, abortion rights, protection of women against violence, fair employment laws), but their differences on sex issues are so profound that we could well talk about two different feminisms. Many people support one while being adamantly opposed to the other. Although the sex-positive culture appeared inside feminism, by now it has become its own movement. It joins LGTB movements, BDSM organizations, and other forms of alternative sexuality. Many people inside these movements cannot coexist with radical feminists. Radical feminism is becoming increasingly unpopular, but it still advances its goals by disguising itself as regular feminism. Radical feminists are in positions of power: in the media, as professors of feminists studies in universities, as high-ranking officials in government. For example, in 2018, sex workers in Spain tried to unionize to defend their rights, forming the union OTRAS. The union was declared illegal by Magdalena Valerio, the Minister of Work of the interim socialist government. The Spanish socialists of the PSOE — currently in power — have adopted the ‘abolitionist’ ideology of radical feminism in favor of the prohibition of sex work. Feminists often sweep under the rug their differences with radical feminists, hindering progress in the sex-positive issues of the Sex Wars. To avoid confrontation, middle-of-the-road positions are forged. On pornography, they pretend that there are good kinds and bad kinds of pornography. On intercourse, they ignore the multiplicity of female orgasms and defend the supremacy of the clitoris. Sex workers are being thrown under the bus. Trans women are marginalized. Radical feminists are not softening their position. They are doubling down. For a while, their hatred of men was kept undercover, a vague subtext of their contempt for male sexuality. But now it is coming to the surface. People are not shying away from hate speech, like saying “men are trash” or even openly declaring that they hate men. Let’s hope that the Sex Wars do not turn into a War of the Sexes. Meanwhile, conservatives are laughing at the division among progressives and preparing Trump’s Second Coming. Feminism was never about women fighting against men and much less about hating men. It was about progressives, women and men, fighting against the patriarchy. The patriarchy is not men. It is “a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property” (Wikipedia). Although that system primarily oppresses women, in the long run, it does not benefit men, either. When we start identifying the patriarchy with men, the core values of feminism are lost. In a war of half of humanity against the other half, there can be no winners.

There is a bumpy road ahead, but we will make it. We live in interesting times, as the proverbial Chinese curse says. We are so enthralled by what is happening every day that we fail to take the long view. And those who do, it’s often to predict the imminent end of humanity, if not the entire planet. What is lacking is a rational and sober look at where the planet is going. Predictions are difficult, especially when they are about the future, someone said. Nevertheless, I will take the risk and speculate about what will happen in the next few decades. Ukraine and Russia The Ukrainian War is the main historical event these days. The good news is that the Ukrainians seem to be winning, against all predictions. The bad news is that this threatens to trigger a nuclear war, which I consider the only true existential threat to the future of Humanity. I won’t dwell too much on what would happen in the event of nuclear war. We went over this scenario countless times during the Cold War. Destruction of all major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Millions dying from radiation poisoning. Global starvation triggered by nuclear winter - the blocking of sunlight and heat produced by the huge mass of smoke and dust injected into the atmosphere. Civilization may survive in a few countries in the Southern Hemisphere: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. But, eventually, nuclear winter and radiation poisoning will reach them, too. If the Russian refrain to use nukes, then it’s likely that Ukraine will win. It may reconquer all of its territory, or it may be forced to give some of it to Russia in a last-hour peace agreement. In any case, over the long run, this war would bring a new era of prosperity to Ukraine and long years of slow decline to Russia. Ukraine has discovered a new national identity and pride. They will continue the rush of creativity and innovation that they had to develop to defeat the Russian. Proud citizenship and democracy will be great instruments to finish root out corruption. They will promptly integrate into the European Union and become a huge asset for the EU. Russia will end the war with its army in shambles. But it is much worse than that. A young generation of men (and quite a few women) would have been either killed in battle or sent into exile. The latter will include the most creative and enterprising individuals. Coupled with its dismal natality rate, this would deprive Russia of the human resources it needs to grow. Science and technology will wither because of the huge brain drain. Besides, Russia will become an international pariah for generations to come. Ukraine will seal its borders with Russia with artillery, bunkers and mines to prevent another invasion. Other EU countries may follow suit. Europe will never again make the mistake of buying gas and oil from Russia, embracing quick de-carbonization instead. Commerce with the rest of the world will continue, but will consist mostly of selling then agricultural products, mineral ores and petroleum. That’s the hallmark of a Third World country. The best hope for Russia will be to mend fences with its neighbors. The ideal outcome would be to stop the sanctions and re-establish commerce in exchange for Russia completely eliminating its nuclear arsenal. Then it would make sense for the USA to get rid of most of its nukes as well, perhaps to achieve parity with China. Maybe Russia will eventually become a member of the EU, who knows? China I don’t think that China will replace the USA as the leader of the world. The good news for China is that it will likely become a prosperous country with a thriving middle class. That is, if it manages to stay the course set by Deng Xiaoping: putting the well-being of its citizens above any imperialistic or ideological dreams. The bad news is that an authoritarian regime does not have the resources for self-criticism and correcting the course. It is also vulnerable to corruption. Although the Chinese Red Army is more powerful than the Russian Federation Army. I think the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party are learning the lesson from the Ukrainian War: wars of aggression and conquest have no place in the 21st Century. They just don’t make sense economically. Neocolonialism and exploitation of poor countries can be done in other, much clever ways. The USA and the UK have been showing the way for a long, long time. And the Chinese have started to learn. Invading Taiwan just doesn’t make sense. It would result in the economic isolation of China, something that it cannot afford if it wants to prosper. There is another, deeper reason. The absorption of Hong-Kong taught the Chinese a lesson about not killing the hen that laid the golden eggs. Hong-Kong derived its value as a center of world finances but, once it was dragged into the Chinese system, it became just an overbuilt chain of small islands with an inconvenient, over-educated and restless population. Likewise, Taiwan is of more value to China as it is now: an industrialized country with a lot of creativity and innovation, who may become a great commercial partner. The future of China lies in building good commercial relationships with its neighbors and old enemies: South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Just like the key to the prosperity of Europe was establishing strong alliances between former historical enemies. The other reason China will not become the “world power” is its natality rate. And that’s a good thing. Limiting population growth was a wise decision - although it was done the wrong way with the one-child policy. The way things are now, China has got a population that is stable and small enough to feed and make prosperous. But not young and large enough to sustain a conquering army. Europe I believe in Europe. But I may be biased - I have an EU passport. I predict a future for Europe similar to that of China. It will never be a “world power” but it will be one of the best places in the world to live, with a stable population, nice income distribution, a widespread middle class and almost no poverty. The EU will continue to integrate and develop a common identity. The rise of the Far Right is a bump in the road. It is driven mainly by the threat to national identity and European culture triggered by immigration, mostly the one from Islamic countries. It is also a reaction to the irrationality of Postmodernist Left and its contempt for European culture. I think things will eventually stabilize in a European identity that will be secular, egalitarian, scientific, and based on the values of the Enlightenment. The United Kingdom has a tough choice to make. It will either reverse the Brexit and reintegrate into the EU, or be left behind the new era of European prosperity. It may lose Scotland - which will become a new country of the EU - and Northern Ireland - which may finally unify with the Irish Republic or become its own country inside the EU. It won’t make much difference, in the long run. The United States The good news is that the Ukrainian War and the Biden Presidency have restored the USA to its place as the word military superpower. The bad news is that the Trump Presidency and the refusal of a large part of the Republican Party to accept Biden’s victory in the last election have completely undermined the political foundations of the USA. The next two elections - the mid-terms next month and the 2024 presidential election - will determine if the USA will continue to be a prosperous, powerful and democratic country or devolve into a corrupt dictatorship. The latter would represent a global threat because the USA will eventually be tempted to use its unmatched military power to resolve its internal problems and prey on the rest of the world. Much like Russia is doing right now. On the other hands, reasonably good outcomes for the Democrats in the elections will provide the chance to repair the electoral system, deal with the authoritarian Supreme Court, and force the Republicans to clean their house of undesirable politicians. In the long run, I think that the USA will need to fix its key structural problems that keep it from functioning effectively: the unelected Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the undemocratic Senate in a paralyzing war with Congress, and the excessive power of the President. The alternative would be giving more power to the States, a move that may be good socially and economically, but will undermine the military and diplomatic power of the USA. The rest of the world Developed countries like Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and New Zealand will continue on a trajectory similar to Europe. Negative population growth will dampen economic expansion but will increase equality and create a prosperous middle class. The balance between capitalism and socialism will swing to the latter, as the focus changes from producing goods to providing services. South and Central America will continue to democratize and prosper. It will establish strong economical bonds with Europe due to the languages these countries share with Portugal and Spain. These countries will increasingly adopt the European political model and establish their own political unions. The Islamic world faces an uncertain future due to its population growth and religious politics. De-carbonization will deprive countries like Saudi Arabia of their main source of income, and alternatives have not been developed. Eventually, countries like Iran, Algeria, Morocco and Egypt will secularize. The loss of power by the clerical elites may lead to a swing to widespread rejection of Islam, similar to the rejection of Catholicism in Spain after the Franco dictatorship. India is in a similar situation. It has the largest population in the world, and it keeps growing. It will be heavily affected by climate change, which spells disasters. The theocratic government of Modi shows the country is moving in the wrong direction to solve its impending problems. Africa is slowly doing better, but its future is the most uncertain. Perhaps the path for these nations is completely different from the one followed by the industrialized world. I don't know enough about African politics to venture any predictions. Climate crisis The good news is that the developed world is de-carbonizing at a fast pace and developing alternative energy resources. The Ukraine War has accelerated and incentivized this process by showing the many dangers of relying on fossil fuels. The bad news is that it’s too late. A huge amount of CO2 has already been injected into the atmosphere. We are probably going to surpass the 1.5 C and likely the 2 C global temperature increases. Therefore, we are going to need new technologies in order to not just stop injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but to deal with the impeding climate catastrophes. Apart from large tragedies, mainly amongst the world poorest, we face the extinction of many species and irreversible damage to the world's rain forest, coral reefs and other valuable ecosystems. However, there are reasons for optimism. The way forward is more science and technology, not less. Trying to retreat into a Luddite utopia will only make things worse. We need to fix the damage that we have done already. Nuclear fusion may be just around the corner. A new source of cheap, abundant energy will not just provide an alternative to fossil fuels, it would enable new technologies to put away all that pesky excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Even without fusion energy, developing new technologies for renewable energy may lead us to the energy surplus that we need to bring the biosphere to a new balance. There may not be just one solution, but a combination a multiple technologies and policies that will get us out of hot water. The road ahead is going to be a bumpy one. There will be much suffering, and it will be concentrated on the poor and powerless. But we will make it. There will be reversals, but we will continue to progress to a world that is less violent, more just, more egalitarian and more prosperous than ever. Copyright 2022 Hermes Solenzol.

Masochism activates areas of the cortex involved in empathy, emotions and self-awareness You don’t come across scientific papers about the neuroscience of masochism very often. In fact, BDSM is still a taboo subject in science. Researchers only work on issues for which they can get funding. In the USA, Congress has been reluctant to give money to government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to do research on sex, much less on “perversions” like BDSM. That’s why I got so excited when I found this study, done in Germany by scientists from Heidelberg University: Contextual modulation of pain in masochists: involvement of the parietal operculum and insula. S. Kamping, J. Andoh, I. C. Bomba, M. Diers, E. Diesch and H. Flor. Pain 2016, Vol. 157 Issue 2, Pages 445-45. PDF. They used functional magnetic resonance (fMRI), a powerful brain imaging technique, to compare the brains of masochists and non-masochists. A clever experimental design combining fMRI with masochistic images and pain let them reach some interesting conclusions. Questions about masochism Here are some questions answered by this study: Are masochist less sensitive to pain? Does a masochist’s brain respond to BDSM pain (for example, a spanking?) and other forms of pain the same way? Are there brain areas specifically activated by masochism? Is masochism addictive? Experimental design There were 32 participants in the study: 16 masochists and 16 non-masochists (controls). The masochists were 8 men and 8 women, while the controls were 4 men and 12 women. The masochists were recruited through the internet and in local BDSM meetings. They were further screened using a questionnaire about masochistic activities: they had to consider themselves masochists, prefer the submissive (bottom) role, and more than 50% of their sexual activity had to involve pain. Excluded from the study were people with mental disorders or chronic pain, and those for whom masochist behavior caused “clinically significant distress” or impaired their social functioning. These exclusion criteria are reasonable, but they may have biased some of the conclusions of the study. For example, I found that masochists with chronic pain successfully use sadomasochism to control the pain caused by their disease - see my survey of 136 masochists. These people seem to be less sensitive to pain than non-masochists, contrary to one of the findings of the study. The painful stimulus was a laser light applied to the dorsal part of the hand. This produced an intense “pinprick-like” pain of short duration. Participants rated the subjective intensity of the pain using a scale of 0 (no pain) through 10 (“worst pain imaginable”). Laser intensities that gave pain ratings of 3 to 4 were used in the rest of the study. Another component of the study was masochistic pictures, which were used to evoke erotic feelings in the participants (masochists and controls). Apparently, the scientists didn’t trust themselves to choose the most exciting BDSM pictures, so they recruited 18 additional masochists to pick the 10 best ones. Additionally, three other sets of 10 pictures were used, evoking neutral, positive and negative emotions, respectively. Pictures were selected for their arousal and valence. In this context, arousal means how much an image captures our attention. Valence refers to whether the picture evokes in us attractiveness (we like it) or averseness (we dislike it). Joy and sexual arousal are emotions with positive valence, whereas fear, sadness, disgust and anger have negative valence. In this study, it was expected that a masochistic picture like a flogging would have positive valence for masochists and negative valence for controls. It would be interesting to know how this is reflected in the activation of different brain areas. The main part of the study consisted of using functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) to image the brain of the subjects while they were viewing the pictures through goggles and received the painful laser stimulation on the hand. fMRI is based on the fact that when neurons in a brain area are more active, there is more blood flow to that area. Powerful magnetic fields and radiofrequency pulses are used to locate molecules of hemoglobin carrying oxygen in the blood. This way, areas of the brain with increased and decreased blood flow can be identified while the brain does things like feeling pain or getting sexually aroused. Increases and decreases in the blood flow tell us which areas of the brain are more and less active, respectively. Unlike positron emission tomography (PET) and other brain imaging techniques, fMRI does not require injecting substances to the participants. However, the subjects have to be held immobile inside a huge apparatus that produces the magnetic fields. The fMRI results are shown in tridimensional images of the brain in which brain activity is color-coded: yellow, orange and red show increasing activity, whereas cyan and blue show decreasing brain activity. Grays mean no changes. A primer about brain areas To understand the fMRI images, we need to know a bit about the brain areas involved in pain and emotion. So please bear with me while I run you through the brain anatomy that is important for the results of this study. Cortex means ‘crust’ and is the outer layer of the brain. It is overdeveloped in humans, giving us our extraordinary thinking capacities. During the evolution of apes and hominids, it grew so much that the only way it could get wrapped inside the skull was by developing numerous wrinkles, called gyri. Each gyrus is separated from the next one by a groove called a sulcus. Apart from them, there are three deep crevices in the cortex, called fissures. The deepest one runs from front to back and divides the brain into the right and left hemispheres. Inside this fissure there are two portions of cortex facing each other. Its deepest part, forming an arch around the center of the brain, is the cingulate cortex. The front part of the cingulate cortex is the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which is in charge of making decisions (Engstrom et al., 2014). As we will see, it’s important in pain and masochism. A second fissure is the central sulcus, which cuts around the sides of the cortex and divides it into frontal and posterior cortex. Roughly speaking, anything forward of the central sulcus has to do with action and anything backwards it has to do with sensation. Thus, the vertical gyrus just forward from the central sulcus - the anterior central gyrus - is the primary motor cortex, which contains a map of all the muscles in the body and executes the last step in processing movement. The vertical gyrus just back from the central sulcus - the posterior central gyrus - is the somatosensory cortex, which contains a map of the whole surface of our skin and is where all tactile and pain sensations terminate. The somatosensory cortex is where we feel where pain is located in the body. The third fissure is the lateral sulcus, which runs front to back on the side of the brain. The cortex continues inside this fissure and expands inside each hemisphere, forming an island of cortex, which is why it is called the insula - which is Latin for island (Gogolla, 2017). The area of cortex around and inside the lateral sulcus is called the operculum. As we will see, it plays an important role in masochism. The insula is a fascinating brain area because it is where a bunch of our emotions come together. It is responsible for the salience of our sensations: how much a sensation matter to us. For example, pain, itch and sexual pleasure are sensations with high salience. In humans, the anterior part of the insula is much bigger than in other mammals, even the apes. During human evolution, the function of the anterior insula became different between the brain hemispheres (Craig, 2011). While the posterior insula tells us how we feel at each moment, the right anterior insula is able to imagine how we would feel under certain circumstances (Craig, 2009). It is able to create hypothetical feelings. Hence, it is crucial for empathy - imagining how another person feels - and theory of mind - representing the mental state of another person. The unpleasantness of pain is processed by the insula, whereas the location of pain is determined by the somatosensory cortex. The drive to do something about the pain comes from the ACC. Pain sensations from the body travel up the spinal cord and enter the brain, making relays in an area of the brain stem called the parabrachial nucleus, which connects with the amygdala, the part of the brain responsible for fear and anxiety. The pain pathways continue to the thalamus, which is an area in the center of the brain that serves as a relay for all our sensations, except smell. In the thalamus, pain neurons make synapses with neurons going to three areas of the cortex: the somatosensory cortex (where is the pain?), the insula (how bad is the pain?), and the ACC (what am I going to do about the pain?). I tried to condense that as much as possible, but we need this information to make sense of the findings of this study on masochism. Hey, who said that neuroscience was easy? Some interesting findings about the masochists The masochists showed interest in masochism when they were 17 years old, on average. The earliest was at just 7 years of age and the latest was at 36. Their first masochist activity was when they were 25, on average, with the earliest again happening at 7 and the latest at 47. This shows that masochistic desires can appear during childhood, even before full-blown sexual desire develops during puberty. A lot of people become masochists when they are teenagers. However, some come to it later in life, perhaps because they are introduced to BDSM by their lovers. Responses to masochist pictures Masochistic pictures produced similar levels of arousal (excitement) in masochists (4.3 ± 1.4) and controls (4.2 ± 1.8), on a scale from 1 to 9. However, they had positive valence (attraction) in masochists (6.2 ± 0.9) and negative valence (rejection) in the controls (3.4 ± 1.2), again on a scale from 1 to 9. Masochists also liked more the images that were more arousing, as shown by a high correlation between the arousal and the valence of the images. All the other images (neutral, positive and negative) were rated similarly for arousal and valence by the masochists and the controls. This confirms the assumption of the investigators that masochists like to watch things like floggings or canings, while other people dislike these images. Still, these images are equally impactful to everybody. Masochists dislike pain outside an erotic context When pain was applied without showing any pictures, masochists and controls rated the pain similarly for its intensity and unpleasantness. Without pictures, fMRI showed similar activation of the brain by the pain stimulus in masochists and controls. In both groups, pain activated the brain areas involved in pain: thalamus, primary somatosensory cortex, insula, operculum and ACC. These areas were activated to the same degree in masochists and controls. This refutes the popular belief that masochists like any kind of pain, in any circumstances. Masochists only like pain when delivered in an erotic setting. Brain areas activated by masochistic images In this part of the study, the participants were shown masochistic images without the pain stimulus to see what brain areas were activated. The masochists showed a higher activation of the right ACC and the right anterior insula in response to these images. I find this fascinating. It shows that what the masochists are doing is imagining the feelings of the submissive partner in the picture using their right anterior insula. The activation of the ACC perhaps represents their desire to be in that situation. Masochistic images decrease pain in masochists In this experiment, participants received the laser pain stimulus while viewing the masochistic images. They were asked to rate the intensity and unpleasantness of the pain. Masochists reported less pain intensity (2.2 ± 1.5) than the controls (3.5 ± 2). They also reported the pain as being less unpleasant (1.6 ± 1.2) than the controls (3.2 ± 2.3). These decreases in pain intensity and unpleasantness were as strong as the effect of opioids like morphine. Therefore, when they are able to eroticize pain, masochists feel pain as being less intense. This indicates that they activate the pain inhibitory pathways that connect the brain stem with the spinal cord, probably the ones that use endorphins. The decrease of pain unpleasantness probably has a different mechanism. This was explored using fMRI in the next experiment. Brain responses to combinations of masochistic images and pain Doing fMRI while viewing of masochists images and enduring pain stimulation showed differences between masochists and controls in the activated brain areas. Masochists showed a higher activation of the operculum - the part of the cortex next to the insula -, the superior frontal gyrus and the middle frontal gyrus, two areas of the frontal cortex. The superior frontal gyrus is involved in self-awareness. In masochists, there was also less functional connectivity between the operculum and the insula, motor cortex, right thalamus and right ACC. This did not happen in the controls. Since the motor cortex and the ACC are involved in the planning of actions, this could mean that masochists do not feel a need to respond to pain. Negative signals from the operculum to the insula may represent the decreased unpleasantness of pain in the masochists. One surprising negative finding was that fMRI showed that in the masochists there was no activation of the reward pathway of the ventral striatum. This pathway connects the ventral tegmental area (VTA) with the nucleus accumbens, where it releases dopamine. It has been wrongly considered the pleasure pathway, because animals and humans compulsively stimulate it when implanted with electrodes in it. It is also the part of the brain where drugs like opioids and cocaine produce addiction. Today, we know that this pathway does not produce pleasure, but motivation and responses to rewards (Salamone and Correa, 2012). In any case, the fact that this reward pathway is not activated by masochism shows that it is not addictive. Conclusions The take-home message is that masochism is an erotic activity that depends on the fetishization of certain relationships, situations, objects and actions. In this BDSM setting, the responses of masochists to pain are dramatically changed, so that they feel less pain and find it less unpleasant (and likely pleasant). This validates the experiences of masochists when they talk about a BDSM “scene” and “sub space” - an altered state of consciousness brought about by experiencing pain in this setting. The masochistic experience is not similar to the effect of opioids and other drugs, and does not produce addiction, because it does not activate the dopamine pathway of the striatum (VTA to nucleus accumbens) that mediates the effects of addictive drugs. Instead, it involves the activation of cortical areas of the brain that mediate emotions, empathy, feelings and self-awareness. Therefore, masochism is a complex cognitive and emotional experience anchored in a certain culture and values, and which drives intimate and profound relationships.