True Control

[thir]

There is, however, a difference between a 'sadist' and a 'bully'. A sadist is still in control of themselves when they inflict pain, they do not do it to vent some frustration.

True, of course. But the expression here used was 'sadist'. Now that word can either mean something like a mentally deranged person, or, within a bdsm context, a person who gives pain to a partner who wants it or accepts it to please the Master/Mistress. I think most people in the life style understands this.

Milgram... of course the same experiment would probably be illegal now, just like the one that fed psychotropics to prison inmates to 'test what they did'. Migram's work is interesting in that it does cast doubt on the attitude to the 'standard Nurenberg defence' which is 'only following orders is no defence'.

It is interesting, isn't? It may explain some things, without excusing them. It does put questions to how far we should follow authorities, and how much we dare disobey them. And of course, to what extent we can recognize bad stuff, and to what extent we simply do not see it, either out of habit, or because others do not react either.

Three meals away from barbarism?

Quite :-). But I meant more than that: Do we see how civilized (or to what extent we know good from evil and react on it) if we get put in a situation where we can really do what we like? Either because no one would ever know, or because no one would have the power to interfere?
What would we do then?
Further, if the going got tough somehow, what would we do?


(About subs in general)

Maybe not helpless (protected in law if not by their own doing) but some are vulnerable. Most, however, are strong individuals who choose submission fully aware of what it means.

I agree. I just wanted to oppose the picture of the helpless subs who cannot but do what they are ordered, no matter the consequences. It was a rather general statement, or so I read it.