Definition of a sadist

[LallyH]

I'm completely ignorant of the wider bdsm world, so if the following question appears naive, then I am guilty as charged. But I would genuinely like to know the answer, if there is one.

When I use the term sadist in the bdsm sense, I mean someone who gets pleasure not only from inflicting pain on someone who wishes to receive it, but also from observing the pleasure the receiver enjoys. This is certainly true of my Dom: he is aroused when he begins to inflict pain (before I have responded) but his pleasure increases with my positive response.

However he refuses to accept the term Sadist in reference to himself because to him, it implies someone who enjoys inflicting pain on a completely unwilling subject and that the pleasure comes from observing the ensuing distress and terror. Dom and top is fine to him but sadist is out.

Now, it's all irrelevant between us really - we could call each other Pinky and
Perky and it wouldn't make any difference.

But it came into my mind again today when I read a post on another site where a sub had called time on a play that her Sadist (her term) was using on her because the pain was too much. He then told her that she could not call herself a true masochist because she was not prepared to take whatever level of pain that he, as a true sadist, wanted to give.

The obvious consensus was that he was an idiot and that she needed to be more careful in choosing a playmate in the future. But it struck me again that there was a big difference in the interpretation of this particular term.

So which one is right? If they are both valid I imagine it has implications for the sub. And I realise that there could be as many terms/definitions as people if every kink was categorised to the nth degree.

Any thoughts?

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I'm completely ignorant of the wider bdsm world, so if the following question appears naive, then I am guilty as charged. But I would genuinely like to know the answer, if there is one.

When I use the term sadist in the bdsm sense, I mean someone who gets pleasure not only from inflicting pain on someone who wishes to receive it, but also from observing the pleasure the receiver enjoys. This is certainly true of my Dom: he is aroused when he begins to inflict pain (before I have responded) but his pleasure increases with my positive response.

However he refuses to accept the term Sadist in reference to himself because to him, it implies someone who enjoys inflicting pain on a completely unwilling subject and that the pleasure comes from observing the ensuing distress and terror. Dom and top is fine to him but sadist is out.

Now, it's all irrelevant between us really - we could call each other Pinky and Perky and it wouldn't make any difference.

But it came into my mind again today when I read a post on another site where a sub had called time on a play that her Sadist (her term) was using on her because the pain was too much. He then told her that she could not call herself a true masochist because she was not prepared to take whatever level of pain that he, as a true sadist, wanted to give.

The obvious consensus was that he was an idiot and that she needed to be more careful in choosing a playmate in the future. But it struck me again that there was a big difference in the interpretation of this particular term.

So which one is right? If they are both valid I imagine it has implications for the sub. And I realise that there could be as many terms/definitions as people if every kink was categorised to the nth degree.

Any thoughts?

I label myself a Sadist. I do so because I like to provide pain (and pleasure, too) to a willing pyl of the feminine gender.

As for the sub/masochist whose Sadist said "she could not call herself a true masochist because she was not prepared to take whatever level of pain that he, as a true sadist, wanted to give," I'll agree with the general consensus that he's an idiot - and add that he's either an abuser or wants to be a Sadistic Master to a masochistic slave.

 

[LucyH]

I think it's perfectly valid to say you like something, and also say you only like it in certain circumstances.

I like ice cream. I also like hurting people.

But I don't like every kind of ice cream, nor do I have sadistic impulses toward everyone.

I don't like to eat ice cream when I'm already cold. I don't like hurting people if I'm preoccupied with something else.

If I eat a huge dish of ice cream, I get full and don't want more ice cream. Similarly, when I'm sated from BDSM escapades, I want to have a break and go do something else...like maybe have a dish of ice cream.

I don't steal ice cream. I don't assault people either.

If I knew someone really wanted their ice cream, but offered it to me to be polite or to try to please me, I wouldn't feel right taking it. If my partner doesn't want pain, I wouldn't feel right dishing it out.

It'd be just as silly to say I don't like ice cream because I don't want to eat all the ice cream all the time no matter what as it would be to say that I'm not a sadist because I don't want to hurt everyone, all the time, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[IrisAlthea]

To me, a sadist is a person who likes to inflict pain.
I don't think it distinguishes between those who prefer consent and those who don't or between those who prefer a victim that enjoys the pain and those who want someone who accepts the pain for other reasons.

Asshole and sadist aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[LallyH]

So are we saying that if someone designates themselves as a sadist, then it is reasonable for a prospective sub, for example, to expect this to indicate that they enjoy giving pain but will accept the limits of the receiver, and expect limits to be set? Is the pleasure of the receiver of any relevance to the sadist, or would that be expected to vary from person to person?

Sorry if the questions seem simplistic, but I'm really curious about how this works, as I have no sadistic feelings myself and I'm trying to understand more about it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

So are we saying that if someone designates themselves as a sadist, then it is reasonable for a prospective sub, for example, to expect this to indicate that they enjoy giving pain but will accept the limits of the receiver, and expect limits to be set?

Depends what you mean by "reasonable to expect".

If you mean, "ought a sadist to respect the receiver's limits", then yes.

If you mean "can a sub safely assume that somebody who calls themselves a sadist will respect their limits", then sadly, no. Some people are jerks, and some who play at BDSM don't have a good grasp of the ethics thereof.

 

[kiwi_submissive]

I am not a masochist by any stretch of the imagination however I have played with sadists and only once had an issue.

The sadists I have played with enjoy inflicting pain, it didn't matter to them that my levels of play were lower because they were still inflicting pain on me and getting the tears and begging that they wanted. In fact one said that it was great because it was alot less effort for him although I am sure he thought that I was slightly odd when I told him that a wet paper bag could take a better beating than me.

Any sadist that seems to think that there is only one level of play is a moron as far as I am concerned and I would never even consider playing with them. Not that that would worry a twue sadist of course.

 

[LallyH]

Depends what you mean by "reasonable to expect".

If you mean, "ought a sadist to respect the receiver's limits", then yes.

If you mean "can a sub safely assume that somebody who calls themselves a sadist will respect their limits", then sadly, no. Some people are jerks, and some who play at BDSM don't have a good grasp of the ethics thereof.

Yes, I did mean the former, so that's answered the question for me, thank you. That had been my understanding but I wondered if I was wrong.

And I'm very thankful I don't have to try to find a playmate other than husband and have to take the risk of misjudging someone's approach to this.

 

[DomKev]

I think the problem you're having comes from the two different ways of defining a sadist. On the one hand you have the bdsm concept of a sadist someone who takes pleasure from causing pain in a willing subject who consents. On the other the clinical concept of a sexual sadist who derives sexual pleasure from torturing someone. One is a kink the other is dangerous and potentially a serial killer, rapist or other criminal.

 

[LallyH]

I think the problem you're having comes from the two different ways of defining a sadist. On the one hand you have the bdsm concept of a sadist someone who takes pleasure from causing pain in a willing subject who consents. On the other the clinical concept of a sexual sadist who derives sexual pleasure from torturing someone. One is a kink the other is dangerous and potentially a serial killer, rapist or other criminal.

That's exactly it. I was wondering whether my interpretation, within purely a bdsm context, was erroneous and based on my limited experience with a loving Dom. I thought perhaps I was being somewhat romantic and naive, but from the advice on this thread, it's clearer for me. Thank you.

 

[Primalex]

However he refuses to accept the term Sadist in reference to himself because to him, it implies someone who enjoys inflicting pain on a completely unwilling subject and that the pleasure comes from observing the ensuing distress and terror. Dom and top is fine to him but sadist is out.

I would agree to this. Marquis de Sade was sentenced to death for his non consensual activities. These days people usually try to avoid a death sentence.

But it came into my mind again today when I read a post on another site where a sub had called time on a play that her Sadist (her term) was using on her because the pain was too much. He then told her that she could not call herself a true masochist because she was not prepared to take whatever level of pain that he, as a true sadist, wanted to give.

The obvious consensus was that he was an idiot and that she needed to be more careful in choosing a playmate in the future. But it struck me again that there was a big difference in the interpretation of this particular term.

I don't agree with this. He did stop. This shows that he was not an idiot. His opinion that a true masochist should accept any pain is as stupid or smart as the opinion of your Dom that he doesn't want to be labelled as a sadist. It's an opinion. People with similar opinions usually get along better than people who have different ones.

Any thoughts?

I define myself as heterosexual. Trying to draw a conclusion from this definition like whether I rape people, drink skimmed milk or have dark hair, is rather futile. There is no correlation. You could start categories:"heterosexuals with dark hair" and "heterosexuals with fair hair" and then you end up, as you recognized, in the nth degree of heterosexuality and get confused about the sheer amount of heterosexual deviations.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I would merely repeat exactly what Primalex just said, so instead, I'll say--

Ditto.

And for your intellectual amusement, refer you to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[LallyH]

I would agree to this. Marquis de Sade was sentenced to death for his non consensual activities. These days people usually try to avoid a death sentence.

I don't agree with this. He did stop. This shows that he was not an idiot. His opinion that a true masochist should accept any pain is as stupid or smart as the opinion of your Dom that he doesn't want to be labelled as a sadist. It's an opinion. People with similar opinions usually get along better than people who have different ones.

I define myself as heterosexual. Trying to draw a conclusion from this definition like whether I rape people, drink skimmed milk or have dark hair, is rather futile. There is no correlation. You could start categories:"heterosexuals with dark hair" and "heterosexuals with fair hair" and then you end up, as you recognized, in the nth degree of heterosexuality and get confused about the sheer amount of heterosexual deviations.

We don't have the death sentence in the UK so I don't think he's concerned on that score.

I didn't say that he'd refused to stop. The replies she got were concerned about his lack of respect for her stating her limits, and that this did not suit her.

If you said you were heterosexual, all I would conclude is that you mainly sleep with people of the opposite sex. My question was, if someone says they are a sadist, does this mean they seek the pleasure of those they are hurting.

 

[LallyH]

No True Scotsman" fallacy. [/URL]

My intellect is far too weak to understand that level of conceptuality

 

[Stella_Omega]

We don't have the death sentence in the UK so I don't think he's concerned on that score.

I didn't say that he'd refused to stop. The replies she got were concerned about his lack of respect for her stating her limits, and that this did not suit her.

If you said you were heterosexual, all I would conclude is that you mainly sleep with people of the opposite sex. My question was, if someone says they are a sadist, does this mean they seek the pleasure of those they are hurting.

Mostly, sadists get off on hurting someone. That's what "sadist" means. Hopefully, the someone gets off on being hurt. Hopefully, the two of them have approximately the same amount of hurt-desire. If they do, then the masochist will have pleasure. And so will the sadist. And all will be well.

If they don't, someone is going to be disappointed. And then depending on someone's social skills, something might be said about it.

 

[DVS]

I think we need to define the different types of sadists. Those of us who consider ourselves sadists in a BDSM context aren't pure sadists. This is my take on it, so others might not agree with me.

A pure sadist doesn't really care if his victim enjoys the pain he's inflicting. He just enjoys inflicting the pain and I think the fact that his victim complains or doesn't enjoy it thrills him even more. Marquis de Sade was a pure sadist and he didn't care who his victims were. He just wanted to inflict pain for the enjoyment of it.

In the safest SS&C or RACK terms, BDSM play must be safe and consensual or at least both parties must agree to the risks involved. That means we can't be considered a pure sadist like de Sade was. So, I call us social sadists. We still like to act the part though, and so we seek people who enjoy receiving pain. These people are called masochists. And just like we aren't pure sadists, they aren't pure masochists. I say this because we all have limits we must adhere to.

Of course, if you find someone who matches your desires, you have fewer limits to deal with, but an exact match is not often found. So, one participant or the other isn't allowed to inflict or receive as much as they prefer.

For me, I enjoy bondage a LOT and really prefer my victim to be bound when I inflict pain. I also prefer a little bit of acting on the victim's part to play the part of someone who is being held captive against their will, struggling against their bonds and complaining the whole time. This allows me to slip into the Marquis de Sade role a little bit and play the part of someone who isn't concerned about the victim, when ultimately, I really am.

I'm not a masochist, although I know there are people out there who enjoy the feeling of being bound and helpless. And while they might play the part like I ask, they also enjoy being taken close to their threshold limits of pain to allow them to feel a little bit like how a victim of Marquis de Sade might have felt. Yes, the kinky minds of some of us could fill a book, I'm sure.

 

[Primalex]

More interesting (for me) questions:

Are there different levels of sadism or are there merely different levels of egoism?

Do social sadists dislike non consensual sadism or is it merely their empathy that block the joy of it?

 

[IrisAlthea]

More interesting (for me) questions:

Are there different levels of sadism or are there merely different levels of egoism?

Do social sadists dislike non consensual sadism or is it merely their empathy that block the joy of it?

Different combinations of self-preservation and empathy for different persons, I think.

 

[LallyH]

I think we need to define the different types of sadists. Those of us who consider ourselves sadists in a BDSM context aren't pure sadists. This is my take on it, so others might not agree with me.

A pure sadist doesn't really care if his victim enjoys the pain he's inflicting. He just enjoys inflicting the pain and I think the fact that his victim complains or doesn't enjoy it thrills him even more. Marquis de Sade was a pure sadist and he didn't care who his victims were. He just wanted to inflict pain for the enjoyment of it.

In the safest SS&C or RACK terms, BDSM play must be safe and consensual or at least both parties must agree to the risks involved. That means we can't be considered a pure sadist like de Sade was. So, I call us social sadists. We still like to act the part though, and so we seek people who enjoy receiving pain. These people are called masochists. And just like we aren't pure sadists, they aren't pure masochists. I say this because we all have limits we must adhere to.

Of course, if you find someone who matches your desires, you have fewer limits to deal with, but an exact match is not often found. So, one participant or the other isn't allowed to inflict or receive as much as they prefer.

For me, I enjoy bondage a LOT and really prefer my victim to be bound when I inflict pain. I also prefer a little bit of acting on the victim's part to play the part of someone who is being held captive against their will, struggling against their bonds and complaining the whole time. This allows me to slip into the Marquis de Sade role a little bit and play the part of someone who isn't concerned about the victim, when ultimately, I really am.

I'm not a masochist, although I know there are people out there who enjoy the feeling of being bound and helpless. And while they might play the part like I ask, they also enjoy being taken close to their threshold limits of pain to allow them to feel a little bit like how a victim of Marquis de Sade might have felt. Yes, the kinky minds of some of us could fill a book, I'm sure.

Thanks for this - it had seemed to me that there must be different approaches to sadism even from my own limited experience. I can understand that some may be indifferent to the response of the receiver, and for others the response whether negative or positive (with all the other problems that can bring) is vital to their own level of satisfaction.

My Dom, who won't be called a sadist anyway and is the cause of all this debate, enjoys giving me pain, likes seeing the marks it leaves, wants me restrained while he's hurting me, is quite happy and unconcerned if I'm wailing my head off, but stops the second that I safe word. He is not interested in pain with a negative response, but will enjoy pain with either a positive or neutral response.

We've lived together for years so we know each very well. How do you find all this out with a stranger?

 

[DVS]

More interesting (for me) questions:

Are there different levels of sadism or are there merely different levels of egoism?

Do social sadists dislike non consensual sadism or is it merely their empathy that block the joy of it?

Why would I dislike someone else's perversions? What I might be concerned with is being grouped in with all sadists with the assumption that I won't abide be a safe word system when I will. If that's what you mean by non-consensual sadism, maybe I do.

I've never liked labels. Many times they can just confuse people. There are labels that I see as beneficial for a place to start, but when it comes down to the fine tuning of a personality, there just aren't enough labels for that.

Even saying I'm a social sadist isn't a label close enough to define me for who and what I am.

 

[DVS]

Thanks for this - it had seemed to me that there must be different approaches to sadism even from my own limited experience. I can understand that some may be indifferent to the response of the receiver, and for others the response whether negative or positive (with all the other problems that can bring) is vital to their own level of satisfaction.

My Dom, who won't be called a sadist anyway and is the cause of all this debate, enjoys giving me pain, likes seeing the marks it leaves, wants me restrained while he's hurting me, is quite happy and unconcerned if I'm wailing my head off, but stops the second that I safe word. He is not interested in pain with a negative response, but will enjoy pain with either a positive or neutral response.

We've lived together for years so we know each very well. How do you find all this out with a stranger?

I don't know if this was intended to be a rhetorical question, but if not, unfortunately I've found it to be next to impossible. Some people are lucky, but I haven't been.

 

[LallyH]

I don't know if this was intended to be a rhetorical question, but if not, unfortunately I've found it to be next to impossible. Some people are lucky, but I haven't been.

It was and it wasn't. I appreciate that it's as difficult a question as how does any relationship get off the ground.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks for this - it had seemed to me that there must be different approaches to sadism even from my own limited experience. I can understand that some may be indifferent to the response of the receiver, and for others the response whether negative or positive (with all the other problems that can bring) is vital to their own level of satisfaction.

My Dom, who won't be called a sadist anyway and is the cause of all this debate, enjoys giving me pain, likes seeing the marks it leaves, wants me restrained while he's hurting me, is quite happy and unconcerned if I'm wailing my head off, but stops the second that I safe word. He is not interested in pain with a negative response, but will enjoy pain with either a positive or neutral response.

We've lived together for years so we know each very well. How do you find all this out with a stranger?

By going slow at first. And a lot of communication. I mean-- one would hope...

 

[Primalex]

How do you find all this out with a stranger?

How do you find anything out?

a) Ask
b) Test

 

[LallyH]

How do you find anything out?

a) Ask
b) Test

Ask? Because people always tell the truth about themselves?
Test? Too late if you misjudge your playmate.
I'd add 'observe' to your list, but I know that would rarely be possible if your potential other doesn't play in public.

I've noticed from what I've read on this board that people are people, no matter what they prefer in the bedroom - there are those that are honest and trustworthy, and those that are liars and cheats. The problem I see is that in a sadist/masochist encounter, the physical risks taken by the bottom are potentially high and it is evident from this little thread that nothing definite can be inferred by the use of certain terminologies.

And it was pretty much a rhetorical question as I stated earlier.