== [citation needed] == 

 I had read somewhere that essentially many people that didn't have positive interactions with their caregivers in early childhood, only negative ones (heavy beatings could be one) become sadists and/or masochists. They have no choice but to love such parent(s) (they have no other options, unless this is a commune) so they confuse hurting with helping and get effed up arousal/romance styles. Like knives/electricity/burning/hanging/mutilation/crotch attacks/feces eating/slavery/butt fucking till the anus bleeds, or, in milder cases, lower amounts of suffering. (spectrum between normal romantic/sex relationships and inability to form them) This almost makes too much sense to need citation but (typical of "people sciences") Googling "causes of masochism" shows only hypotheses and this is not one of them. However, there are citations for at least 30% of child abuse victims abusing their children and masochists outnumbering sadists. And some sadists probably want to abuse their children but don't cause consenting masochists won't get them in trouble. I hypothesize that the relatively small S&M; research community's laissez faire-ness and inability to feel that Orwellian reversal of the injury-prevention drive of self preservation is perverse causes it to not think of this. Also the Google hits are all copied from what appears to be the DSM. Psychiatrists are often cold people who analyse humans like objects and many S&Ms; say giving pain is love (again the good is bad, bad is good Newspeak thing again) so a love-based theory is not really in their personality toolkit. 

 (Psychiatry is also almost the study of fucked up-ness (a guy who's vertical 24/7 — thinks he's a spillable glass of juice, afraid of people drinking him, lol) they must be jaded to effed up ppl..)  

 Anyway, the DSM hypotheses seem wishy-washy to me compared to the one I support (Freud's ones usually do too, and look how those turned out). Shouldn't there be a version of Occam's Razor that says that the social sciences theory that seems least mushy to non-wishy washy doctorates is most likely to be correct? 

 If I was misinterpreted, my main point was that I don't want to experience an intercourse that's more pleasurable than regular intercourse. I want to retain the ability to have intercourse with different kinds of people without it being second-best, not just the kinkier than average. 

 Also, I'm aware that women have different thresholds where pain starts and anus tightnesses and it doesn't hurt some. And that some female prostates are more sensitive than others. I'd still be concerned if she's 5'0" and being/practically demanding me to "pound my ass faster!". I'm now reminded that I generally fantasized anal sex with adult girls in 5th grade because I thought it was fairer. You know, a penis size to anus width thing. Peer girls were hotter, I imagined them with unusually loose anuses.