Dom vs. Sadist

[the captians wench]

I never really seperated Sadism from dominence before I met a dear friend of mine. I have to admit that I met him early in my BDSM explorations and he helped me shed light on a few things, but I wanted to focas on this one in particular.

At the time I met him, I was still catagorizing things into nice neat little packages. I had never had sex with some one I scened with so the idea of pain mixing with pleasure was totally bizzar to me. I knew I enjoyed pain, I had many pain sessions by that time, but I wasn't sure that I liked the idea of mixing my pain with more conventional pleasurable sensations.

A. is more of a sentualist, however. Completely different than any man I had encountered before him, and well, still unlike any other I have engaged with. There was no doubt at all while we were together who was in charge, but the way he went about things did not involve the same methods as some one who enjoyed inflicting pain might use.

It's interesting to me that I always connected the two terms. "You can't be a dom with out being a sadist" type thing. But A. made it quite clear there is a difference, in many ways.

I'll elaborate as more comes into my own mind. For now I envite others to expand on this, compair and contrast as you like.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Dominant is a trait that all sadists have. I don't think Dominants are sadists though.


my own opinion.

 

[CutieMouse]

Dominant is a trait that all sadists have. I don't think Dominants are sadists though.


my own opinion.

Agrees with KC... but oh what a yummy combination when they are.

*chuckle*

 

[myinnerslut]

Dominant is a trait that all sadists have. I don't think Dominants are sadists though.


my own opinion.

i disagree. ive known some sadists who were not dominant. they just wanted to hurt people. i think you can have:

1. dominant
2. sadistic
or
3. dominant and sadistic

 

[Homburg]

Eh, I know some slaves that are sadistic, and get all kinds of jollies out of causing pain. They would prefer if it was done to them, but they dig causing it too. Yet there isn't what I would call a dominant bone in them.

I would say that there are some trappings of sadism that smack of dominance, but it does not have to be a deep-seated thing within the person giving pain.

 

[rida]

It is also my experience that the two things are not necessarily correlated, although they might seem so.
There is a strong cultural element to the connection, I believe, as many, at least on Lit) associate Dominance with "causing pain to your submissive".

To me Dominants enjoy the Power Unbalance being in their favor, while Sadists are into the enjoyment of inflicting pain.

As a case in point, here in Japan, they often use the S&M terminology to define themselves (female M, male M, female S or male S), but you rarely hear of people defining themselves as Dominant or submissive (unless they are foreigners or they have picked up the definition from the West).

 

[Kajira Callista]

Im thinking you need to dominate the person you are inflicting pain on in order to inflict it. And by saying that i do not mean to physically dominate.

 

[CutieMouse]

It is also my experience that the two things are not necessarily correlated, although they might seem so.
There is a strong cultural element to the connection, I believe, as many, at least on Lit) associate Dominance with "causing pain to your submissive".

To me Dominants enjoy the Power Unbalance being in their favor, while Sadists are into the enjoyment of inflicting pain.

Oh I don't think all dominants are sadists, just that (IMO) more often than not, sadists tend to have a healthy dominant streak in them... and I must admit when I very very first started looking into BDSM, I thought dominant was code word for sadist, too.

One can be dominant without being sadistic.
One can be sadistic without being dominant.
Sometimes the two collide, for which masochistic submissives are thankful.*









*Not all submissives are masochists.
Not all masochists are submissives.
Sometimes the two collide, for which sadistic dominants are thankful.

 

[BiBunny]

I'm a sadist. I'm not very dominant. Where does that leave me, I wonder?

I'm also a slave and a masochist, but not very submissive. Maybe I'm just a weirdo.

 

[Kajira Callista]

I'm a sadist. I'm not very dominant. Where does that leave me, I wonder?

I'm also a slave and a masochist, but not very submissive. Maybe I'm just a weirdo.

you can come here if you want. it is cold and im lonely

 

[the captians wench]

I'm a sadist. I'm not very dominant. Where does that leave me, I wonder?

I'm also a slave and a masochist, but not very submissive. Maybe I'm just a weirdo.

See, I do have a sadistic streak (tho I don't really identify as a sadist) but I'm not dominant, infact that trait is something I've been working heavily on as it's holding me back in my career.

It really is interesting to me when I see the difference, tho admididly I have not had the experience of playing with a non dominant sadist.

I often ponder which trait attracts me more, and could I live with one and not the other.

 

[BiBunny]

you can come here if you want. it is cold and im lonely

I am SO there.

See, I do have a sadistic streak (tho I don't really identify as a sadist) but I'm not dominant, infact that trait is something I've been working heavily on as it's holding me back in my career.

It really is interesting to me when I see the difference, tho admididly I have not had the experience of playing with a non dominant sadist.

I often ponder which trait attracts me more, and could I live with one and not the other.

The two things usually are all tangled up together, aren't they? The other problem is that so many who claim to be both are neither....

Anyway, I know that I can deal with a sadist who isn't dominant much better than I can deal with a dominant who isn't sadistic. In fact, I tend not to care much for most dominants. ("Most" being the operative word there.) As I've said before, most of the people who really interest me are switches. In switches, you can sometimes find sadistic, masochistic, and dominant but not submissive, or masochistic, sadistic, and submissive but not dominant. (Or, as Facebook would say, "it's complicated.")

It's actually an interesting concept.

 

[Puman]

I'm a sadist. I'm not very dominant. Where does that leave me, I wonder?

I'm also a slave and a masochist, but not very submissive. Maybe I'm just a weirdo.

It leaves you helping people like me feel less of a weirdo... thank you, dear.

I fall in the non-descript category of relationship which I loosely term... "just plain ol' kinky". We're neither submissive nor particularly dominant and have variably strong streaks of sadism and masochism.

We tried to place an ad for a third play partner/potential threesome. Wording that advert was extremely interesting..

 

[Puman]

....
Anyway, I know that I can deal with a sadist who isn't dominant much better than I can deal with a dominant who isn't sadistic. In fact, I tend not to care much for most dominants. ("Most" being the operative word there.) As I've said before, most of the people who really interest me are switches. In switches, you can sometimes find sadistic, masochistic, and dominant but not submissive, or masochistic, sadistic, and submissive but not dominant. (Or, as Facebook would say, "it's complicated.")

It's actually an interesting concept.

I like you better al the time!

 

[FantaSeaGirl]

I don't know how I would qualify myself & be sure that I have covered all my interests. And what if what I liked changed?

I am a submissive & developing a masochist streak. Personally, given that I feel submissive first I think I would prefer a straight Dominant over a straight Sadist if they felt they had to "label" themselves so srictly.

But I thik I am also a sadist... but not overly Dominant. I think I just like being "in control" when I inflict pain in the sense that the person I am doing it to is relaxed enough to trust my judgement & I know that I won't push them too far. But I don't need the power over their mind (apart from the endorphine high I cause), just the power of playing their senses until I have exhausted them & give them what they wanted.

Which causes me to ponder another question... If my aim is not to cause pain, not to inflict pain, but to play & build the senses in such a way that impact play & other texture play is an enjoyable sensation to someone who does not have a strong masochistic streak, then does that mean I am not a sadist? Or am I some sort of "sensual sadist" with "nurturing but not dominering" tendencies?

I figure I am just lucky to have recognized that I don't necessarily like "it" in the missionary position with the lights out of Friday night & I have decades more to come to figure out what I do like......

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I originally labeled myself as a Dominant, way back when (we're talking late 1960s, early 70s here, folks!), but gradually came to realize that a more accurate description/label for me is "Sadist with Dominant tendencies."

In other words, my main interest is in creating sensation (remember, even pleasurable sensations can be manipulated into pain, even as painful sensations can be manipulated into pleasure!) for my partner. In doing this, however, I have learned that my (natural or learned - whodahell knows?) tendency to dominate and/or lead others (NOT be domineering - that's a whole different ball of wax!) is a huge asset to being able to practice my sadism.

But then... my greatest enjoyment is applying a good hard spanking/paddling/flogging/cropping/caning/etc. to the point that the receiver suddenly finds herself unknowingly or involuntarily translating, in her brain, those painful sensations to pleasure and either reaching/approaching orgasm or sliding into that otherworldly mindset we call "subspace." Sometimes, though, I like to work from the other direction: Fuck, manipulate, vibrate, whatever, until she has had so many orgasms that she can't take any more and passes out or begs (and begs and begs) me to stop. That's fun for me, too.

So... are they the same? Not in my vocabulary... but they're often closely related or even interrelated.

 

[Kikori]

Sadism? Pleasure in causing pain. What kind of pain, though?
If my girlfriend likes the combination of a painful bite on the nipples and the pleasure of them being toyed with, that's an arousing physical pain.
If she doesn't and I bite, that's sadism in causing physical pain for my benefit alone.
And if there's no "benefit", that's just me wanting to hurt someone.
Even not physically, there are most definitely ways of hurting someone emotionally and mentally. That pain can be, and usually seems to be, done for fun today. Too many sadists to consider to throw the word around randomly, I think.

Dominance doesn't always involve sadism. Dominance is control, usually with consent, that gives both parties what they want assuming the roles of dominant and submissive are followed. The content of "what they want" can be anything from housework to exhibitionism, to doing new (and possibly uncomfortable) things to pain. When does sadism play a role? Idealistically, when masochism comes with it. In my opinion, a dominant should only cause any kind of pain that a submissive enjoys. Of course, it sometimes winds up pushing boundaries, but that's up to both parties on how far they will go or stand.

So, like I said. Idealistically, and for me, I would only want to link sadism from me to whatever a girl would masochistically enjoy. I don't like the idea of causing any pain that isn't pleasure at the same time.

 

[graceanne]

I'm a sadist. I'm not very dominant. Where does that leave me, I wonder?

I'm also a slave and a masochist, but not very submissive. Maybe I'm just a weirdo.

S'ok. None of us are exactly normal.

 

[IrisAlthea]

It leaves you helping people like me feel less of a weirdo... thank you, dear.

I fall in the non-descript category of relationship which I loosely term... "just plain ol' kinky". We're neither submissive nor particularly dominant and have variably strong streaks of sadism and masochism.

We tried to place an ad for a third play partner/potential threesome. Wording that advert was extremely interesting..

It does get complicated when you need to describe it to others, doesn´t it?

I think "just plain ol' kinky" is a good description though. It would probably be the best way to describe our relationship too.

 

[Primalex]

Sadism is merely epicaricacy on drugs.
Dominance is merely doing it your way.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

It's a fascinating differentiation.

One thing that occurred to me in thinking about it: I've met bottoms who are pretty damn dominant.

bj

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Sadism is merely epicaricacy on drugs.
Dominance is merely doing it your way.

Got to admit, you forced me to google a word. Good one. :: Locks it in his memory bank ::

 

[ecstaticsub]

Oh I don't think all dominants are sadists, just that (IMO) more often than not, sadists tend to have a healthy dominant streak in them... and I must admit when I very very first started looking into BDSM, I thought dominant was code word for sadist, too.

One can be dominant without being sadistic.
One can be sadistic without being dominant.
Sometimes the two collide, for which masochistic submissives are thankful.*




*Not all submissives are masochists.
Not all masochists are submissives.
Sometimes the two collide, for which sadistic dominants are thankful.

And sometimes the two don't collide for which both non-sadistic dominants and non-masochistic submissives are very thankful

But just because he is not a sadist and I am not a masochist doesn't mean we don't enjoy pain/impact play. We just get more into the control apects of the relationship.