Master/Mistress or Sadist?

[esclave_PP]

There have been some discussions here in BDSM talk where the behavior of tops has been discribed as sadistic or that the top was just out and out sadistic.

What are your feelings (tops and bottoms out there) about being a sadist for sadism's sake -- being a follower of the good old Marquis de Sade. Is it necessarily a bad thing if a Master/Mistress is sadistic? What if they didn't tell their sub/slave beforehand -- does the sadism then become abuse? How do you think sadists are viewed in our community?

Hopefully this post makes sense -- happy Saturday

 

[Bikewer]

I think you'd need a solid definition of the term. To most folks, a "true sadist" would be someone along the lines of a secret police torturer or a serial killer.

Although it might be said that persons like this have a sexual motivation, the results are hardly pleasant for the other party.

In the context of sexual dominance/submissive play, it's quite a different thing.

 

[esclave_PP]

Okay here is a definition to work with -- good point:

sadism ['seýdýzəm, 'sæ-]
noun the gaining of pleasure or sexual gratification from the infliction of pain and mental suffering on another person
See also: algolagnia
Compare: masochism
[ETYMOLOGY: 19th Century: from French, named after the Marquis de Sade]
'sadist noun
sadistic [sə'dýstýk] adjective
sa'distically adverb(ial)


1. sadist -- someone who obtains pleasure from inflicting pain or others

The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others

 

[Romany]

Originally posted by Bikewer

I think you'd need a solid definition of the term. To most folks, a "true sadist" would be someone along the lines of a secret police torturer or a serial killer.

Although it might be said that persons like this have a sexual motivation, the results are hardly pleasant for the other party.

In the context of sexual dominance/submissive play, it's quite a different thing.

My Master is a sadist, and I have to say I was shocked to see him any many others like him equated with serial killers!!! I was in an abusive marriage for 15 years, and life with Master is so far removed from that period of my life. My ex-husband was a complete and utter bastard, having no moral fibre whatsoever, who took pleasure in seeing me suffer, but nonetheless was not a sadist. Rather I would have said he was a sociopath.

Life with a sadist is so much more relaxed, because what he does to me to gain his sadistic pleasures has been agreed upon beforehand. Being a sadist, and needing his outlet, he would not dream of going as far as a serial killer! For one thing, a dead toy is no use to anyone.

Now that I am no longer in fear of my life I find myself relaxing when he exhibits his sadistic tendencies and drinking them in and enjoying them. So as for the results not being pleasant for the other party, again I have to disagree.

Master and I have a friend who is also a sadist. This friend is far deeper into sadism than Master is, but he also is not a b*****d. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a nicer person, if you looked real hard. He has shown himself to be a true friend, one who is there when he is needed.

Up sadism I say. long may it flourish!

 

[alonelygal]

.

 

[Quint]

Not a bad thing at all, in my book. Quite a necessary one, in fact. But that's what mutual need is all about.

 

[s'lara]

Not a bad thing at all, in my book. Quite a necessary one, in fact. But that's what mutual need is all about.

ditto.

One thing ... consent. Sadism worked for me (as a masochistic sub) as long as it was done with the knowledge that i'd consented to such treatment. Informed consent in particular.

Then, well, this is tough, but there is something attractive about enduring a sadistic act without the ability to prevent it from happening. That's more about a feeling of helplessness and the emotions associated with loss of power that make this kind of scenario appealing imo. At completely different subject though.

lara

 

[angela146]

I am a switch with my husband. I'm submissive about 10 times more often than he is, but...

When I'm dominant and in an SM mood, I am a sadist (as defined above, "someone who gains pleasure or sexual gratification from the infliction of pain and mental suffering on another person").

My husband and I worked into it over time.

Usually, when I have him over my lap, or over something else, I am getting off on the effect I have on him. It's difficult to admit to this, but I like reducing him tears and hearing him beg me to stop.

However, it only works because he is willing.

I couldn't do it to a guy who wasn't into it (except in fantasy).

I have a story on the way that reveals my sadistic side. It's waiting behind two that are already submitted but not up and one for Earth Day that will be submitted next week.

So, you'll have to wait.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Originally posted by Bikewer
I think you'd need a solid definition of the term. To most folks, a "true sadist" would be someone along the lines of a secret police torturer or a serial killer.

In the context of sexual dominance/submissive play, it's quite a different thing.

Originally posted by Romany
My Master is a sadist, and I have to say I was shocked to see him any many others like him equated with serial killers!!!

I think what Bikewer was referring to was something which at times bothers me too which is the free use of the word 'sadist' in discussion without defining, which often, especially by people who feel they have been abused, then becomes a one size fits all terminology. Though we use the descriptor 'sadist' in our community/lifestyle discussions, it is a different meaning to the clinical understanding of sadist who is someone who not only derives pleasure from inflicting suffering, but require the receiver to be non consensual and not enjoying the experience. This is the criteria from the DSM IV:

Diagnostic criteria for 302.84 Sexual Sadism

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person.

B. The person has acted on these urges with a nonconsenting person, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association

...if the receiver enjoys, the clinically defined sadist lose their pleasure principle, and believe me, they do not react well usually in that situation.

When placed as a question such as this thread, it becomes blurred as to whether a lifestyle sadist is operating consensually, especially when suggested it was not disclosed to the sub beforehand, or whether they are doing something which both enjoy and consent to. While it at times it does not have such problems, there are other times when it becomes a real issue. I have been in discussions where a submissive has decided the level of pain or suffering goes beyond their comfort zone then labels the Dominant a sadist, as in someone who seeks to abuse which is just not the case. This is why the defining needs to be clear at all times.

As to my Dominant, he is definately a sadist as defined within lifestyle context, and will not derive any pleasure from knowing he is inflicting suffering on anyone who does not consent. That does not mean I have to enjoy it totally, just I consent...which now is not as big an issue as we are in TPE so he no longer requires individual consent. He was open about his sadistic pleasure before becoming committed, as was I about my need for that type Dominant. It suits both of us well. If I were not that way inclined, and he had not disclosed his tastes and then enacted on them without consent I would think it definately was abuse.

I am not sure the sadistic Dominant is always viewed that well by those who do not appreciate that level of play. Once again, this is often, though not always, frowned upon by a misunderstanding of the defined meaning of the term, mistakenly being seen as someone who is about to rape and pillage whoever crosses their path!! Sometimes it is just a point people who do not share it cannot understand or believe another would willingly submit to and enjoy. It is IMO a defined taste, but no less authentic or relevant than the Dominant who does not enjoy the extremes. All comes down to taste, desire, and needs...each unique in our own makeup, and each as valueable as the next.

Catalina

 

[Esclava]

IMO, any Dom who is not honest about Their sadistic nature with a sub - before comitting to a relationship, becomes the equivalent of Hanibal Lecter without a face mask. They will eat right through the spirit, will and soul of a sub that does not have a masochistic nature. It is unfair to both for the Dom to demand submission to limits that were not honestly discussed. Telling a sub, "Spanking is an incredible turn on for me" and neglecting to tell them that the "spanking" will be accomplished with a corse-grained sandpaper covered, leather flogger - are two entirely different things!

The Sado-Dom will enjoy it much more than the non-maso sub being made to submit. It is not a pretty situation and one that is incredibly difficult to end. But I am proof that it does end and, as a survivor, can say the damage does not have to be irreparable.

One can be a Sadist, but not an abuser. The key words that must be paid attention to are honesty and consensual. If either of those are missing. The relationship is doomed to fail from the start. One can only hope that it can be ended before serious emotional trauma occurs.

Just my opinion - that's all.

Esclava

 

[Netzach]

what if you discover a sadistic nature only after you gain a submissive?

Not everything can be spelled out in great big neon letters at the start of a relationship. If it's possible for a submissive to crave infinitely more intense sensation, over time, being trained to convert pain to pleasure, being trained towards becoming a painslut...why would it not be possible for a Dominant or Top to find the same tendency, to want to dish out more and more?

I'm not sadistically where I was when I began playing, and I'm not sadistically where I want to WIND UP playing. (Yes, it's hard for me to put a needle through a nipple, a dick, or labia, but dammit I'll get over it!)

 

[cellis]

We are well matched and I know that He has needs that I fulfill for Him...

I sometimes tease Him about being particularly sadistic... There are times when His need is greater than mine... and I am most happy to fulfill His needs.

Truly, inspite of the issues we have to deal with, His need to be the Master takes president over everything else.

His needs to inflict, to be dominate, to exert control are at times great... and that is fine with me... I long only to serve Him...

 

[Esclava]

what if you discover a sadistic nature only after you gain a submissive?

Not everything can be spelled out in great big neon letters at the start of a relationship. If it's possible for a submissive to crave infinitely more intense sensation, over time, being trained to convert pain to pleasure, being trained towards becoming a painslut...why would it not be possible for a Dominant or Top to find the same tendency, to want to dish out more and more?

I'm not sadistically where I was when I began playing, and I'm not sadistically where I want to WIND UP playing. (Yes, it's hard for me to put a needle through a nipple, a dick, or labia, but dammit I'll get over it!)

Granted that such things are possible. My concern is what happens when the sadistic nature of the Dom increases at a much faster rate than the sub's craving for more intense sensation. I don't believe that, even with the best training in the world, you can train someone to submit to something their innate nature tells them is detrimental to their health. No matter how much they want to please the Dom, they will find themselves using their safeword much more often as self protection. So, where does that leave the sub? Forced to submit to a Dom in a relationship that can only cause the sub harm - emotionally and physically? When the Dom asks why the safe word is used so often and the sub says because I didn't consent to whatever the "more intense sensation" act was - is the Dom going to care? ...

It goes right back to trust. The Dom has to trust the sub to tell Them they really feel in danger or feel they are being injured. But if the Dom disregards that and tries to train them to be a painslut because it is what the Dom wants, the sub will rebel - not might - absolutely WILL rebel (Which only makes everything worse).

So, my question remains - What happens to the sub being forced to submit to a Dom who is "discovering" that their sadistic nature is increasing - but the sub's masochistic nature is not?

Esclava

 

[cellis]

Granted that such things are possible. My concern is what happens when the sadistic nature of the Dom increases at a much faster rate than the sub's craving for more intense sensation. I don't believe that, even with the best training in the world, you can train someone to submit to something their innate nature tells them is detrimental to their health. No matter how much they want to please the Dom, they will find themselves using their safeword much more often as self protection. So, where does that leave the sub? Forced to submit to a Dom in a relationship that can only cause the sub harm - emotionally and physically? When the Dom asks why the safe word is used so often and the sub says because I didn't consent to whatever the "more intense sensation" act was - is the Dom going to care? ...

It goes right back to trust. The Dom has to trust the sub to tell Them they really feel in danger or feel they are being injured. But if the Dom disregards that and tries to train them to be a painslut because it is what the Dom wants, the sub will rebel - not might - absolutely WILL rebel (Which only makes everything worse).

So, my question remains - What happens to the sub being forced to submit to a Dom who is "discovering" that their sadistic nature is increasing - but the sub's is not?

Esclava

This is where I consider myself lucky. We started this journey together. I had always been kinky and He had another sub whom He released.

He was very careful with me.... where I would have rushed in... and placed myself in potential danger, I am grateful for Himsel for being patient with me and taking His time.

 

[Netzach]

Granted that such things are possible. My concern is what happens when the sadistic nature of the Dom increases at a much faster rate than the sub's craving for more intense sensation. I don't believe that, even with the best training in the world, you can train someone to submit to something their innate nature tells them is detrimental to their health. No matter how much they want to please the Dom, they will find themselves using their safeword much more often as self protection. So, where does that leave the sub? Forced to submit to a Dom in a relationship that can only cause the sub harm - emotionally and physically? When the Dom asks why the safe word is used so often and the sub says because I didn't consent to whatever the "more intense sensation" act was - is the Dom going to care? ...

I think your own negative experience is creating a "one and only" version of a way for this situation to play out. While obviously, this was a bad situation for you, to have mis-matched painplay interests on the part of a Dominant and submissive, it's not necessarily going to be "a relationship that can only cause the sub harm- emotionally and physically."

When I met M, and G, and every male sub I eventually played with and came to call mine each one at an initial sit down claimed "not to be into heavy pain."

On getting to know M better, I discovered that self-catheterization, solo-uerthral play, solo piercing with a safety pin, and solo ball stretching with 12 pound weights was part of his autoerotic past. Similar stories pertain to every other "I don't care for heavy pain" sub.

Heavy pain is relative.

It goes right back to trust. The Dom has to trust the sub to tell Them they really feel in danger or feel they are being injured. But if the Dom disregards that and tries to train them to be a painslut because it is what the Dom wants, the sub will rebel - not might - absolutely WILL rebel (Which only makes everything worse).
I don't think most erotic sadists will disregard a response like that, that just makes someone a fool. I think a Dominant sadistic top will view that response as critical information. They may encourage the sub to press on, if the danger is imagined, as it sometimes is, usually with postitive encouragement. (I've certainly done this....come on, two more, you can do it...) Does that make me clinical? Maybe....
the Sadistic Top may stop the activity, and, if any actual danger, emotional or otherwise, rather than discomfort or displeasure, is bubbling to the top ....they definitely SHOULD do this. But assuming that a Top who enjoys pain automatically would be sociopathic or selfish enough to no longer care what the effect is on the other person, seems a mistake. Personally I don't care if someone's whining and bitching and even crying --when I know that those reactions are sought after and acceptable outcomes to them. When I know that those reactions show that something unacceptable is going on, I can't fathom not stopping or checking in.

So, my question remains - What happens to the sub being forced to submit to a Dom who is "discovering" that their sadistic nature is increasing - but the sub's masochistic nature is not?

Esclava

I think in most relationships any incompatibility goes along certain paths. Someone gives in to someone else's wishes, and if it's a D/s relationship, I say the sub communicates what level of pain or kinds of pain they feel are emotionally and physically damaging to them in a good long talk and then trusts that the Dominant will see to their safety and develop their pain interests in ways that don't damage (ie. slowly, ie. backing down a notch for a time, then slowly building...) If they can't trust this, then there's a big problem in the first place with trust and trustworthiness. If it's less of a D/s relationship and more Top/bottom then I would imagine that there'd be a compromise, or the Top would back off a bit out of respect, or the two would chart a course together for the bottom to build up painplay skills (assuming the bottom wants to develop, which is often the case) If no agreement can be reached, or if the Top or bottom is so inflexible that there is a total impasse, or if the sub can't feel safe, then the relationship is probably at an end.

 

[trodas]

Well, enought and well said, Netzatch Painlevels and pushing limits speeds are very very individual. But back from the bad Esclava experience (sorry for this), to the main tread question.
I would like present my feelings about it, since i do believe that i should rate myself (or better borrow the rating that telling me most of girls i ever has, since one is best judged by others - but of course only these, who know me, because from look - hell, i looking so innocent and young and harmless ) as sadist.
Not dominant, but sadist.
I like inflicting pain in certaing, pleasuring for the sub, ways - however i don't getting the part of domination. It simply did not says a word to me. I understand that someone need it, i do understand that someone need even 24/7 D/S life, but i can't provide it.
So, when i skip the domination part, what is left from the dominant?
A sadist, IMHO.

That's who Im.

 

[Esclava]

Thank you for the information, Net. I needed a response from a Dom to help me understand what happened so it doesn't happen again.

Many happy times with those who serve you.

My sincerest apologies for offending you, trodas.

Esclava

 

[Etoile]

I believe someone mentioned that dominants are not true sadists because their subs like what they're doing. True sadists are supposed to be doing something that the victim dislikes. I disagree with this - sadism is about inflicting pain (of any kind), not about whether the victim likes it or not.

 

[Quint]

I believe someone mentioned that dominants are not true sadists because their subs like what they're doing. True sadists are supposed to be doing something that the victim dislikes. I disagree with this - sadism is about inflicting pain (of any kind), not about whether the victim likes it or not.

I'd agree, but then it comes down to the question of "is it pain if the recipient enjoys it?" And if the answer to that is no, how can the inflicter consider himself a sadist? I know that for me, the second question is moot because pain IS pain to me, but I think I'm in the minority of pain-receivers; most people I've read here say that pain is sensation. I don't know if I consider that masochism or their partners' actions sadism at that point. *shrugs*

 

[Pure]

Master or Sadist?

The question sounds like:

Executive or Golfer?

 

[Esclava]

Master or Sadist?

The question sounds like:

Executive or Golfer?

Is it not possible that there are Executives that are Golfers?

IMO (anything but humble) O, a sadist inflicts pain for the pleasure they receive from inflicting it. A masochist submits to and endures pain for the pleasure they receive from it. Put those two together and you've got a match made in Heaven. Let one or the other not correspond, you've got a match made in the deepest recesses of Hell that could possibly exist.

Esclava

 

[trodas]

Etoile - good point Sadist should (at least taken the description) realy inflict pain to victims, that don't want it.
So he do it agains their will. But because my actions are consensual and Im not even capable of hurting someone much against their will (at least Im sure that I did not enjoy it...), therefore Im not sadist.

Hmmm, damn, Im lost again into the question who Im!

 

[catalina_francisco]

I believe someone mentioned that dominants are not true sadists because their subs like what they're doing. True sadists are supposed to be doing something that the victim dislikes. I disagree with this - sadism is about inflicting pain (of any kind), not about whether the victim likes it or not.

This is where the issues arise in discussing sadists and sadism, and the need to define if it is not clear what interpretation is being discussed. A clinical sadist does not choose a consenting participant (as the DSM IV definition I posted earlier), and derives pleasure from creating suffering, which in psychological terms usually interprets as the victim not enjoying the act.

I think in general, we accept Dominants who identify as sadists are not saying they are clinical sadists, but do find pleasure in inflicting pain/suffering on a consenting participant. Of course, there are going to be those who may cross lines where they go beyond the consent line, and beyond whether their partner enjoys the suffering or not, but then they are usually labelled as abusers.

Perhaps an exception, though blurry, may exist in the TPE relationship where consent is given in blanket form such as Master and I have. There are times, few but still existent, where he may inflict an act which causes suffering and/or pain he is aware I am not enjoying. They are few, but are not seen as abusive by me as I have consented in my submission which as he often points out as a reminder of what I voluntarily submitted to, allows him this liberty without need to qualify it.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Trodas said,

Etoile - good point Sadist should (at least taken the description) realy inflict pain to victims, that don't want it.
So he do it agains their will. But because my actions are consensual and Im not even capable of hurting someone much against their will (at least Im sure that I did not enjoy it...), therefore Im not sadist.

I'm not sure Etoile meant this, for she said,

- sadism is about inflicting pain (of any kind), not about whether the victim likes it or not.

But I'll let her decide the matter, of course.

Trodas, your sadist, by definition, is doing something illegal.

Etoile's sadist is, by my reading, neutral-- may or not be illegal.
I agree with this approach, although one would have to add, to inflicting pain, "Such inflicting being sexually arousing to the inflictor."

Think of 'sadist' as like the terms, 'fucker' 'cornholer' 'sodomizer'; the reference is to a kind of act. And the act is neutral, in the law. Whether a 'fucker' is doing something illegal is a matter of consent, roughly speaking. So a 'fucker' may be a rapist, but is not necessarily.

As to Catalina's efforts to define a 'clinical sadist'--

A clinical sadist does not choose a consenting participant (as the DSM IV definition I posted earlier), and derives pleasure from creating suffering, which in psychological terms usually interprets as the victim not enjoying the act.

they are ill founded (as are Bikewer's), although I appreciate the complexity of the issues she's addressing, and the distinction she's trying to make, which is relevant to the DS and SM communities.

There is no such thing, as "clinical sadist" as referenced to DSM IV. Her proposal--with respect-- is not, as claimed, a proposal based on DSM IV, which says,

"Sexual Sadism involves acts (real, not simulated) in which the individual derives sexual excitement form the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim." {{A second criterion simply establishing clinical relevance is given as B. on the same page.}}

This bolded part, above, is quoted by Catalina as Criterion A. for Sexual Sadism, but she apparently reads something illegal into it. Criterion B, which she also quotes, does not indicate the act is necessarily illegal. Nor together do they imply that.

This is quite clearly a definition that's legally neutral, as is Etoile's or what I suggested; also Malcah, Romany, Quint, lara and others. That a sadist is not necessary a law breaker, according to DSM, or a violator of consent, is clear in the following passage.

"Others act on sadistic sexual urges with a consenting partner (who may have sexual masochism) who willingly suffer pain and humiliation. Still others with Sexual Sadism act on their sadistic urges with non-consenting victims." (p. 530 DSM IV)

In summary, the DSM IV sexual sadist does not necessarily break the law.

J.

P.S. Of the deviancies ("paraphilias") enumerated in DSM IV, some are, likewise, described in legally neutral terms, as is 'sexual sadism'--e.g., fetishism, sexual masochism. Others (as acted out) are necessarily illegal by definition, e.g., pedophila, or frotteurism (rubbing against *nonconsenting* strangers).