My point was that (I very strongly disagreed with the definition given above) by it's original definition, the concept had nothing to do with sex. I think that there are many things (about this lifestyle included) that, because of public opinion.. have become misconstrued as being all about sex and the erotic. In it's original sense, it had nothing to do the erotic. It was about the psychological pleasure that was being received. Pleasure comes in many forms. I made the distinction between the erotic and the non-erotic, because of the fact that it does still exist outside of a BDSM capacity and I firmly believe that many do not realize it. When we hear the word "sadist", most tend to connect it immediately with BDSM. When the word was first coined, it had nothing to do with BDSM .. it was coined in reference to psychological pleasure derived from the infliction of pain. I do agree with what you stated when you said that the distinction (between BDSM and non) was more than just consent (I was exhausted when I responded last night, and I think that I didn't finish thinking that through to completion). I'd say there's a lot of difference in intent as well.

I made the statement that Sadism had nothing to do with inflicting "delight" of any kind, because of the definition that Miss-Sett gave above. ("to derive pleasure itself from inflicting consensual delight onto another") Regardless of who does eventually derive delight from sadistic activities, whether that be the Sadist or the masochist.. a Sadist does not set out to inflict "delight", they set out to inflict pain. Not at any point would I ever say that a Sadist doesn't derive sexual pleasure at all, they very often do (Maestro certainly does as well). But that sexual pleasure starts/comes from where? It begins psychologically. They are first making a psychological connection between the pleasure and the pain. That's what I was referring to when I stated that erotic pleasure was a secondary by-product. A Sadist derives erotic pleasure from inflicting pain because of that psychological connection. I would even agree that (within a BDSM capacity) Sadists do derive pleasure and delight from the fact that their partner is experiencing pleasure from that pain, but I do see this as a product of (as you mentioned) their feelings and concern for the reactions of their partner.. rather than from that psychological connection that they are themselves making between pleasure and pain.

I whole-heartedly agree that "not every Sadist is a Dominant". I would disagree, however, that every non BDSM sadist is a psychopath. I was curious to see what Maestro Crusher (Master) thought of that concept, so I asked him for his thoughts. He made a very interesting point (and one that had me laughing). He pointed out that surely we all knew someone or had that one friend or relative who seemed to have a sadistic streak when they derived so much pleasure from making another human being squirm with discomfort. For instance, Maestro's father always seems to get tickled when we are all out to dinner together and he is able to get the waitress frustrated. (which actually gives rise to the thought that I wonder if it's possible for sadism to be a genetic trait, lol) I think that this concept allows us to more easily see how it's possible for people to be a sadomasochist. Sadism is something innately within us. I believe that it's a trait that you either have or you don't have. Some will realize and acknowledge they possess this trait and some won't, some will embrace it and some won't, some act on it and some won't.

I believe one should always be a bit careful with iron cast definitions with respect to something as organic, diverse and alive as bdsm.
I would never try to place iron cast definitions on BDSM itself (with the obvious exception of it's intended acronym). I always love the way that Maestro compares BDSM to a diamond. Just as with a diamond, BDSM has many facets. This is an extremely diverse lifestyle...We, each and every one, have different desires, dreams, goals, fears, interests, etc. This doesn't, however, mean that there aren't concrete definitions for something as specific as sadism. In my opinion, what we should not be trying to define (with the obvious exception being ourselves) is who belongs to what facet and how those facets apply to others. There may be a clear definition of the word "sadism".. but it would not be my place to define how sadism applies to someone else or how it relates to their relationship dynamic. For example.. someone may be a sadist who enjoys leaving bruises to be appreciated later, and then someone else may be a sadomasochist who enjoys giving as well as receiving pain, while still yet... there may be someone who simply enjoys the slide of emotion across a submissive's face in the midst of inner struggle.

I'd also like to thank you,.. I always enjoy the mental stimulation of a healthy debate. I've learned so much from them over the years, they are almost always enjoyable, and I always feel like I come away from one having learned something.