As someone who has been on the receiving end of both the sadist consensually deriving sexual pleasure from giving pain to another, and the I-get-off-on-your-fear-sadist, I can assure You, Denzark, that consent doesn't merely:
The only difference consent makes is it overcomes legal obstacles.
Ok. So perhaps part of this is that we have different definitions of what a sadist is? Am I talking about a Dom using sadism to teach and pleasure a submissive? (but doesn't that put him firmly in the definition of what a sexual sadist is?)


PurpleKnight said:
I see a line between a Dominant delivering pain to the pleasure of the submissive and a sadist using disobedience as an opportunity to push the submissive through a truly unpleasant and testing experience. Real sadism can be viewed as an evil thing due to the degree with which a sadist enjoys other peoples' misfortunes and discomfort. It can be cultured, however, to be used as a tool.
I agree... this sadism... what You call real sadism, is a bad thing. But the sadism I am asking about is the one where it is used for the good of both.
I have an issue, though, with the underlined part.
Using disobedience.... does the fact that obedience is where my enjoyment lies and disobedience is the absolute exception make me unsuitable for a sadist? I would totally disagree...

Just one more observation:
A true sadist wouldn't touch a masochist.
My experience was that being a masochist made me an ideal target for the bad kind of sadism. I was insecure, unsure of my own worth, emotionally needy. My need for pain was the gateway he used to get inside my head and see how far he could push me. When it breached consent, his true pleasure only started. Without a need for pain, I doubt I would have been such an easy target.