Printable View
It's been My observation over the years that many sadists are in no way dominant and that many masochists are far from submissive, given the fact that many people equate the words sadism and dominance and masochism and submission and treat the two as being interchangeable how does one communicate the distinction with a new partner?
It's very true. Being a Dominant does not make One a Sadist, and being a submissive does not make one a masochist. There are many D/s couples whose relationships do not involve pain in any form. There are also many submissives who aren't masochists, that simply accept pain from their Dominant in an effort to please. They aren't receiving pleasure from that pain in any way, but they are instead receiving pleasure in the fact that they are able to please by serving in this manner. In my opinion, this is another topic that bears discussion and communication in any new lifestyle relationship. I think it's just part and parcel with learning to know and understand one another. As for making the distinction, I would think that it would be as simple as explaining that there is a difference between experiencing pleasure in the ability to be pleasing, and experiencing pleasure from pain. Good discussion topic!
By applying a contextual meaning to a word you influence the understanding. Sadism, to derive pleasure itself from inflicting consensual delight onto another lends itself to a direction of being dominant, as you are giving to another. Equally as a masochist you enjoy receiving the pleasure therefore taking it, submissively, subservient, taking it.
However, I also agree that it should not be presumed that as Dom/me you are automatically sadistic as sub you are masochistic. I think the level of personal dynamic determines how pleasure can be mutually experienced. Communication within the relationship is paramount, learning about each other, what is enjoyed by parties involved. As I understand it, a person can be both a sadist and a masochistic within both D/s personality traits it is the exchange of power that derives enjoyment. To make the distinction would be a matter of being honest, to give or receive is ultimately to experience and please each other in an individual manner
Sett
[QUOTE=Miss-Sett {Kuve};Sadism, to derive pleasure itself from inflicting consensual delight onto another lends itself to a direction of being dominant, as you are giving to another. Equally as a masochist you enjoy receiving the pleasure therefore taking it, submissively, subservient, taking it.
Sett[/QUOTE]
I disagree with this interpretation. Giving pain does not imply being dominant, being active in any way does not in itself imply domination. A therapist massaging an injury and causing pain is not therefore a dominant, nor is the patient a submissive. A dentist is not a dominant, nor is the patient a submissive. Necessarily, anyway ;-)
It is true that a sadist need not be dominant in any way whatsoever, and a masochist need not be submissive. I have seen people who could not find a partner 'do' each other as a favor, after discussing how.
I think most are probably a bit of each, but if you lean toward being much more dom than sadist or vice versa, you should definitely make it clear on so many words.
The word Sadism was first introduced into the English language in 1888, as noted by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It is the word coined to give name to the psychological character make-up of the Marquis de Sade, and is the result of a vast number of investigations and conferences held among medical and psychological professionals, as well as philosophers, theologians, sociologists, and anthropologists. It is a strict reference to the psychological pleasure derived from inflicting pain.
Sadism has nothing to do with the erotic, nor does it concern itself with inflicting “delight” of any kind. Sadism is strictly and specifically focused on administering pain to another being. Sadism does exist outside the realm of BDSM as well within. The difference between the two instances is consent. In the realm of BDSM, sadism is ONLY defined by the enjoyment of inflicting pain upon another person, and is strictly and specifically focused on the PLEASURE and JOY found in inflicting such pain. Sadism is expressed as a power exchange between the Sadist and his/her partner through consensual activity that involves inflicting pain upon the recipient. The Sadist may revel in the struggle of his victim. The Sadist may savor the flavor of suffering endured by the other party. The Sadist may find some form of erotic pleasure or satisfaction or fulfillment in this activity, however that is not the objective or goal. Such erotic pleasure is simply a secondary by-product. The sole purpose and goal of sadistic activity to the Sadist is the pleasure received by inflicting pain. There are many times in which a Sadist may choose to inflict pain for the sheer enjoyment of doing so, and there is no erotic engagement whatsoever in that infliction. And still none of this means that a Dominant must also be a Sadist. There are many Dominants who derive no pleasure at all from inflicting pain of any kind.
This is why it's important to be concrete and specific, because (as the debate between thir and Rose is demonstrating) people understand very different things by words like "sadist." Instead of saying "I'm a masochist," say "I get off on being hurt" (or, if you're still learning, "I get off on fantasies of being hurt.") Describe fantasies, tell what scenes you already know work for you, say what you've tried and what you want to try. Leave the psychological classifications for later when you're talking just for fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuve S
If it's hard to speak freely about your tastes, which is common enough, get hold of one of the BDSM Checklists that float around the Web, and you and the prospective playmate/partner fill them in together. The fact that someone (say) checks things involving dominance and control rather than those involving pain and bondage will tell you far more than trying to work out the distinctions between a sub, a bottom and a masochist.
Yes, good old Krafft-Ebbing, what do we not owe to him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crushers Rose
"Krafft-Ebing considered procreation the purpose of sexual desire and that any form of recreational sex was a perversion of the sex drive." Homo sexuality was a perversion, along with masturbation and sexually interested women, and a lot of other things.
A look at the norm-setters of that time and their influence would be an interesting thread but far from the topic of the OP.
Not true. bdsm sadists and masochists are definitely getting delight and sexual gratification from what they do. I know my partner gets a most definite erection and arousal from beating me, and I have personally seen masochists orgasm while being beaten.Quote:
Sadism has nothing to do with the erotic, nor does it concern itself with inflicting “delight” of any kind.
True, and as the words are used both to mean disturbed psychopaths and responsible human beings, it is important to distinguish between them, not least in communication between bdsm people where some might be new comers.Quote:
Sadism is strictly and specifically focused on administering pain to another being. Sadism does exist outside the realm of BDSM as well within.
Nope, there is a lot more difference than that, see above.Quote:
The difference between the two instances is consent.
It is hard to understand your definitions here, but I'll try to split them up like this:Quote:
In the realm of BDSM, sadism is ONLY defined by the enjoyment of inflicting pain upon another person, and is strictly and specifically focused on the PLEASURE and JOY found in inflicting such pain. Sadism is expressed as a power exchange between the Sadist and his/her partner through consensual activity that involves inflicting pain upon the recipient. The Sadist may revel in the struggle of his victim. The Sadist may savor the flavor of suffering endured by the other party. The Sadist may find some form of erotic pleasure or satisfaction or fulfillment in this activity, however that is not the objective or goal. Such erotic pleasure is simply a secondary by-product. The sole purpose and goal of sadistic activity to the Sadist is the pleasure received by inflicting pain. There are many times in which a Sadist may choose to inflict pain for the sheer enjoyment of doing so, and there is no erotic engagement whatsoever in that infliction. And still none of this means that a Dominant must also be a Sadist. There are many Dominants who derive no pleasure at all from inflicting pain of any kind.
No, as you said, one defining factor between bdsm sadism and 'classic' sadism is exactly that the person is also aware of the reactions of the partner. If the partner gets nothing from this activity, neither directly by being a masochist or indirectly by pleasing the Master/MIstress, the bdsm sadist will also get nothing from it.Quote:
In the realm of BDSM, sadism is ONLY defined by the enjoyment of inflicting pain upon another person, and is strictly and specifically focused on the PLEASURE and JOY found in inflicting such pain.
I suppose you can distinguish the pleasure of power play from erotic pleasure, and so in some instances the inflicting of pain can be a power rush without erotic feelings.Quote:
There are many times in which a Sadist may choose to inflict pain for the sheer enjoyment of doing so, and there is no erotic engagement whatsoever in that infliction.
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 have seen people whip each other simultaneously, there was zero power play involved, and I have seen people take turns beating each other or doing other things, purely as a give-and-take of pain/sensations, helping each other out in a friendly way.Quote:
Sadism is expressed as a power exchange between the Sadist and his/her partner through consensual activity that involves inflicting pain upon the recipient.
Also, what about people who are sadomasochists? Liking it both ways? With or without powerplay?
True. And a Sadist may not be a dominant either.Quote:
none of this means that a Dominant must also be a Sadist. There are many Dominants who derive no pleasure at all from inflicting pain of any kind
I do not quite understand what your point is with making such a distinction between erotic pain in sadism and other kinds of pleasure, but erotic pleasure is there for sure for many. Personally I find it more important to distinguish between those who cause harm and those who don't: non bdsm sadists are psychopaths and bdsm sadists are givers of pain in a consensual relationship with feelings and concern for the reactions of the partner. In communication this should be apparent.
And as for the power play: as I see in concerning the OPs question, the main thing is to say where you are with both power and sadism. Simply say it the way many bdsm people do, by negotiation before starting a relationship, and by getting to know each other. Few things are wrong here, the main thing is to make sure you have as good a match with each other as you can get, by way of completely open communication.
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 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.Quote:
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'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.
Labels are always constricting but it's a great place for people just meeting each other to start. Especially newbies.
It took me a long time to differentiate between Dominant / Top and Submissive / Bottom.
I am submissive but I don't submit to everyone.
However, I have wanted to experience kinky things. I had to work through seeing being single tailed by someone I wasn't in a relationship with NOT as submitting to him but more bottoming to him. I wanted to experience fire play -- it was a single experience of kinky play... not submission.
It didn't take me long to understand that playing with a sadist can be a surprise if you don't do your homework first... So - labels can be good, especially when getting to know someone prior to playing.
IT is all a matter of communications. Before entering into any level of serious play, there should be a considerable period of talk and exploration so that both parties are well aware of the understandings and expectations of the other person. Labels get thrown around, misused, changed with time and confused by in exact use. To be safe, you have to get behind the common labels and really explore the meanings and understand the concepts from the other persons point of view. Other than the obvious good outcomes that happen from this is the fact that you tend to learn alot about yourself as well as the lifestyle.
I think its a good idea adding your own message on there. Even if you dont use it but have it on you when youre out, it might help you feel more able to handle the situation if it arises.