A case study in power, control and abuse

[Pure]

reply to jm

However, as a practical matter I find it enormously helpful to maintain a careful distinction in my mind between the urge to inflict pain that results in my own arousal, and the urge to inflict pain that is borne of impulses tied to anger, revenge, etc.

What works, for me, is to view one as a legitimate expression of my sadistic self and the other as unacceptable behavior that is beneath me. Sort of like a toddler throwing a tantrum, or an adolescent punching the wall when he doesn't get his own way.

i don't see this at all, jm.

taking the first, inflicting pain for my arousal is not necessarily 'legitimate expression of ...sadistic self', except in the trivial sense of 'genuine[frank, direct] expression of sadistic self'. do you mean to imply any social or moral legitimacy? the questions of harm and of the others' consent or complicity are left open--

i.e., in your sense, it appears {??} maybe it's 'legitimate' to kill someone so that i get off. {maybe you'll say, 'it's a sincere and noble expression of sadism, but of course it might be illegal'--i don't see the point.}

taking the second, inflicting pain from impulses borne of anger does not necessarily seem "unacceptable" or base or immoral. i think an angry act might NOT be that harmful, and indeed even be useful. angry acts are not necessarily without any controls or devastating. i can surely feel angry and discipline my child or dog without damaging them.

as a last point, who is to say the 'sadistic' self is not angry? why must it be cool or placid?

i must say, jm, this reminds me of this view that i want to challenge that the Dominant or Sadist [or combo] is necessarily a moral exemplar. you make sadism sort of like the scientist's search for truth (disinterested, dispassionate) as opposed to an egoist's way of getting off (hopefully without landing him or herself in jail).

 

[JMohegan]

i don't see this at all, jm.

I'm gonna take a stab in the dark here, Pure, and venture a guess that you have not spent much time on the Top side of *physical* SM play. That is a neutral statement, not a pejorative one.

I say this because I see very little real, practical understanding in what you have written on this thread for the turmoil that goes on inside the head of guy who physically hurts other people for pleasure. My apologies in advance if I am off the mark once again with regard to your posts.

When I say "as a practical matter..... what works for me", I am referencing the rules I establish for myself, which are impenetrable boundaries that I do not allow myself to cross.

The rules exist partly to placate my superego, and partly to help me maintain control over my sadist when I let him express himself.

Anger, IMO, acts like alcohol to a certain degree in its effect on a person's ability to control their own behavior. I mentioned earlier on this thread (in post 36) that my rules relating to anger, alcohol, and an audience are in place to help my inner Dom control my inner sadist.

I would like to emphasize here, once again, that my rules are not universal. Nor should they be. I am not talking about right vs. wrong in an ethical sense. I am only describing *what works for me*.

 

[Pure]

please clarify

"one" is the urge to inflict pain that results in my own arousal,

JM What works, for me, is to view one as a legitimate expression of my sadistic self.

P: i don't see what 'legitimacy' you are claiming. don't get evasive about what 'works for you.'

you've ensured that your 'sadist' is cool and collected, perhaps, but i think he still might be quite dangerous. if the 'cool' sadist [you] seriously harms someone for his pleasure, does that 'work for you'?

your angry person is considered childish, "punching the wall."
-------


jm said more fully

However, as a practical matter I find it enormously helpful to maintain a careful distinction in my mind between the urge to inflict pain that results in my own arousal, and the urge to inflict pain that is borne of impulses tied to anger, revenge, etc.

What works, for me, is to view one as a legitimate expression of my sadistic self and the other as unacceptable behavior that is beneath me. Sort of like a toddler throwing a tantrum, or an adolescent punching the wall when he doesn't get his own way.

 

[JMohegan]

Pure,

Let's try this again.

In post 101, you wrote the following.

i must say, jm, this reminds me of this view that i want to challenge that the Dominant or Sadist [or combo] is necessarily a moral exemplar. you make sadism sort of like the scientist's search for truth (disinterested, dispassionate) as opposed to an egoist's way of getting off (hopefully without landing him or herself in jail).

This, to me, summarizes your perspective on the discussion completely.

1 - You are interested in theories relating to D/s and SM rather than a discussion of practicalities. Sort of like the difference between a general discussion of the laws of physics, vs. a conversation about whether I should use a nail or a screw in this hole.

There's no problem with your perspective, of course, except that you seem to have a difficult time appreciating or even recognizing the practical challenges of what goes on in SM play.

2 - Once again, you ignore the superego in your focus here. "an egoist's way of getting off (hopefully without landing him or herself in jail)." Good lord, Pure. The superego exists and it can not be ignored, no matter how much you try.

don't get evasive about what 'works for you.'

When I discuss what works for me, I am discussing practicalities. Whether to use a nail or a screw in a hole. That's the distinction I made in post #100, when I wrote (to Marquis):

As an intellectual exercise, I see the value in what you are postulating here.

However, as a practical matter I find it enormously helpful to maintain a careful distinction in my mind between the urge to inflict pain that results in my own arousal, and the urge to inflict pain that is borne of impulses tied to anger, revenge, etc.

What works, for me, is to view one as a legitimate expression of my sadistic self and the other as unacceptable behavior that is beneath me. Sort of like a toddler throwing a tantrum, or an adolescent punching the wall when he doesn't get his own way.

Please read the red parts carefully. Hopefully this will clarify my intent.

I do not know every practicing sadist, of course. But I have known many. And they all fall into one of two groups. Those who have established a clear, firm barrier around their own behavior so they can roam at will behind it, and those who are in the process of figuring out where that barrier should be.

If I understand the comments on this thread correctly, Geoff (like me) has established his own barrier and Marquis is in the process of contemplating where his should be.

This is a practical barrier, not a moral one. As I said before, part of it is a nod to the superego, but part of it is a recognition of what you, as an individual, need to do in order to be able to maintain control.

If you are interested in the practical challenges that a sadist faces, read this post by Marquis carefully:

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=18660993&postcount=73

He was absolutely correct about the behavior of some submissives, and right on the money when he wrote this line:

A good Dom doesn't just keep an ear open for the safeword, you have to combine what you know about your subject with keen observation to determine how far things need to go.

Keep in mind, Pure, that all of this happens when the sadist *himself* is feeling an incredible rush of power, arousal, etc.

Add alcohol, and his judgment is impaired - not just about where to strike next with the crop, but also about what the heck is going on in the mind of his partner.

Add anger, and judgment is impaired too, IMO. This is a fairly basic human fact.

And btw, as an aside but a relevant point for this discussion, I would argue that the impulse to lash out in anger (verbally or physically), as well as the urge for revenge, are urges shared by all humans - not just sadists. So if you want to talk about that spectrum (anger, and the urge to react thereto), it is properly discussed as a separate matter from the spectrum relating to arousal through hurting another human being. Of course, the strands are intertwined in a particular individual (and that is Marquis's point). Fair enough. But if you are interested in that particular intellectual exercise, I find it less confusing to discuss the strands separately first, and then move on to a discussion of the way they intertwine in a specific person.

please clarify

Hopefully, I just did.

 

[Pure]

please answer this simple question

ok, jm, you are very practical and very moral and concerned with fencing your sadistic impulses with conscience, but you said,

However, as a practical matter I find it enormously helpful to maintain a careful distinction in my mind between the urge to inflict pain that results in my own arousal, and the urge to inflict pain that is borne of impulses tied to anger, revenge, etc.

What works, for me, is to view one as a legitimate expression of my sadistic self and the other as unacceptable behavior that is beneath me. Sort of like a toddler throwing a tantrum, or an adolescent punching the wall when he doesn't get his own way.

I understand that you want expressions of your sadism to be untinged by anger, desire for revenge, etc. Your reasons are commonly given at hundreds of sites. What 'works for you' is pretty standard, run of the mill guidelines.

BUT, why does inflicting pain for your sexual gratification seem to you to be 'legitimate expression of [your] sadistic self.'

It seems like a practical question, since, so far as I can see, were one of my friends to encounter you, you might view it as legitimate expression to coolly 'off' her so you can come on her face [provided you don't do so angrily, vengefully, etc.]. IT is a complete misreading to think that this thread was set up --or posted to by me-- as a purely theoretical exercize.

 

[RJMasters]

Altogether now...

Na, na na, na na na na, na

Narcissistic!

 

[satindesire]

Added in Edit: I don't know how much I'm welcome here to comment, as I'm not a Dom nor do I have any inkling of Sadistic tendencies, but I've been following the thread VERY closely and wanted to share a few thoughts.

This is a practical barrier, not a moral one. As I said before, part of it is a nod to the superego, but part of it is a recognition of what you, as an individual, need to do in order to be able to maintain control.

I think this is really important in a Sadist...whether Dom or not, knowing where your boundries lie and how far it's okay to go so that you don't end up irreversibly harming your partner(s) is really admirable. So many people have this fantasy that just whaling the tar out of someone is exciting, but not everyone likes that kind of stuff. Open communication as to where the line should be drawn...that's the purest kind of SSC I can think of.

Sadists who DON'T have limits scare the hell out of me.

However, as a practical matter I find it enormously helpful to maintain a careful distinction in my mind between the urge to inflict pain that results in my own arousal, and the urge to inflict pain that is borne of impulses tied to anger, revenge, etc.

Personally, I think that's beautiful. I want my Mister to hurt me because he loves me, not because he's angry at me. That would not make it a good pain, it would crush me...and probably break my heart. Don't you all remember what it was like to get a REAL spanking from your parent(s) when you were a kid? It was horrible! Not fun at all! Because you KNEW they were angry and disappointed in you and the pain was just PART of the real pain you felt inside.

If my Dom ever beat me when he was angry, I think it would ruin me for life.

 

[Kajira Callista]

A second of self realization

There is something very attractive about knowing that at a persons core exists this sadist who can beat the hell outta me and send me to the ER... or dare i say...possibly end my life.

I, at times, have been known to taunt that tiger. (no i'm not sammy i'm edgy...well i can be sammy, but that's another subject.)

Even more attractive is knowing the person won't do that because they are in control of me, the moment, and their sadist.

 

[CutieMouse]

There is something very attractive about knowing that at a persons core exists this sadist who can beat the hell outta me and send me to the ER... or dare i say...possible end my life.

I, at times, have been known to taunt that tiger. (no i'm not sammy i'm edgy...well i can be sammy, but that's another subject.)

Even more attractive is knowing the person won't do that because they are in control of me, the moment, and their sadist.

Brilliantly stated, KC.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Brilliantly stated, KC.

 

[cati]

A question

RJ Masters, who is the narcissist you are referring to?

 

[Pure]

response to satin,

hi satin,
you said,

S: Personally, I think that's beautiful. I want my Mister to hurt me because he loves me, not because he's angry at me. That would not make it a good pain, it would crush me...and probably break my heart. Don't you all remember what it was like to get a REAL spanking from your parent(s) when you were a kid? It was horrible! Not fun at all! Because you KNEW they were angry and disappointed in you and the pain was just PART of the real pain you felt inside.

If my Dom ever beat me when he was angry, I think it would ruin me for life.

P: i do see where you (and jmo) are coming from. a couple remarks, however:

it is often said that parents should not discipline when angry, for, in some persons, anger causes them to go overboard.

otoh, the parent who coolly gives you your punishment/consequences--for example, 100 strokes with the cane on the bare ass--is (also) pretty fear-inspiring, in my opinion.

by the same token, jmo's 'cool dom' who waits till any disturbing emotions subside, and then calmly inflicts whatever pain he chooses so he can get off, is by the same token, possibly fear inspiring, and possibly illegal. (love is beside the point; people have killed whom they love--some coolly, some in anger).

---
it seems that, according to some around here, anger is a cardinal sin for doms. they're to be like jesus or buddha and have risen above such a fleshly failing--at least in the bedroom or playroom. hmmm

 

[RJMasters]

RJ Masters, who is the narcissist you are referring to?

I didn't say narcissist, I said Narcissistic...in that many of the overtones of this discussion I feel fits.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

There is something very attractive about knowing that at a person's core exists this sadist who can beat the hell outta me and send me to the ER... or dare i say...possible end my life.

Even more attractive is knowing the person won't do that because they are in control of me, the moment, and their sadist.

Got to admire a sadistic dominant that mastered impulse control rather than act like a boy king.

 

[satindesire]

it seems that, according to some around here, anger is a cardinal sin for doms. they're to be like jesus or buddha and have risen above such a fleshly failing--at least in the bedroom or playroom. hmmm

No, anger is not a cardinal sin for Doms.

Physical punishment while angry for -Sadists- is a cardinal sin. Anyone who says less is walking the fine line between selfishness and selflessness. Sadists ENJOY punishment...that's walking close to the boundry enough, add ANGER to that and you're pushing his/her limits of what's safe and what's not.

SSC. Remember? Our motto?

Punishment is JUST that, my friend. It's not meant to inspire hard-ons or wet dripping vaginas. It's meant to deterr, to teach, and to prevent. If a Sadist punishes while angry, there is a HUGE risk that the 'lesson' that's supposed to be learned during/after punishment will fall by the wayside.

And who, tell me, really wants that?

Let me pose a question to YOU now.

Since you've been calmly picking apart everyone's posts, let me ask you...What exactly is YOUR personal stance on sadism, limits, and punishment while angry? You seem to have a rather cavalier attitude to this whole situation which I find to be quite...well, frankly...disturbing. And I'd like to see if I've either taken you wrong and need to have clarification, or taken you right and need to avoid further conversation with you.

 

[Pure]

hi satin,

i'm afraid you're changing the subject a bit;

jmo referred to "and the urge to inflict pain that is borne of impulses tied to anger, revenge, etc.''

and held that it's illegitimate or unbalanced or dangerous or ??

you say,
S: Physical punishment while angry for -Sadists- is a cardinal sin. Anyone who says less is walking the fine line between selfishness and selflessness. Sadists ENJOY punishment...that's walking close to the boundry enough, add ANGER to that and you're pushing his/her limits of what's safe and what's not.

SSC. Remember? Our motto?

P: It's good that you're distinguishing sadists and doms; that's important, imo.

but you've changed the topic to 'punishment' and somehow equated it with sadism.

"our motto" has its limits, as many respected persons have posted on that topic on the 'net and in this forum. consent, is of course, a legal requirement for many interactions, including simple fucking and simple fighting; i.e., it has nothing special to do with sadism, domination, deviant behavior, etc.

my own motto, addressing your question of limits of sadism [or other sexual deviations] is "play so that both/all may play another day." and this involves two very practical injunctions. play so as to 1) stay out of jail, and 2) stay, both, out of the ER.

you say,
You seem to have a rather cavalier attitude to this whole situation which I find to be quite...well, frankly...disturbing.

just read me correctly; then if it's disturbing, so be it. as both the marquis and i have said in half a dozen posts, to claim there is a basic (biological) impulse and desire, an amoral one, to dominate another, and that that's a commonality of some Doms, lets say, Netzach, and Mr. Norman, is not to hold up the latter as the exemplar. Nor, as another poster would have it, is it to advocate criminality, including murder.

as to the issue of hot vs. cool punishment [by parents, doms, sadists etc.], that probably deserves another thread. i would say, however, generally, that in 90% of adult people, 90% of the time, their anger is not particularly dangerous, i.e., it's expressed within legal bounds, which is just fine with me!

best,

j

 

[Pure]

comment on the "two groups"

jmo said, I do not know every practicing sadist, of course. But I have known many. And they all fall into one of two groups. Those who have established a clear, firm barrier around their own behavior so they can roam at will behind it, and those who are in the process of figuring out where that barrier should be.

i have known a few [consensual]sexual sadists, and have read what many of them say, here and elsewhere.

in my view, practicing deviants generally have a *very firm* sense of the legal boundaries, e.g. to do with consent. they, so to say "roam at will behind those boundaries."

marquis, in a very elegant posting, addressed the basic principles about *moral boundaries*. and i'd say that lots of us are, in your words, 'figuring those out.' i'm glad to be in this group and am wary of those who claim to act on crystal clear, objective moral principles.

 

[satindesire]

i'm afraid you're changing the subject a bit;

I hate to sound nitpicky, but that happens all the time in threads. It's an innocent tangent, a question in my own mind. I think that's allowable, isn't it? Or are you going to report me to the exposition police?

but you've changed the topic to 'punishment' and somehow equated it with sadism.

What's wrong with expressing myself in that way, honestly? Does it bother you THAT much? And to be honest with you, I think that it fits hand in hand with the subject matter of this thread in any case. Sadism and punishment fit together like a hand in the glove. I don't see why you're drawing a distinction between the two in that way. Sadists love to inflict pain. Pain is NOT always considered a sexy thing. Ergo, if it's not sexy, it must be something else. My mindset was "that other not-sexy thing must be punishment." Do you see where my mind was at when I typed it now?

marquis, in a very elegant posting, addressed the basic principles about *moral boundaries*. and i'd say that lots of us are, in your words, 'figuring those out.' i'm glad to be in this group and am wary of those who claim to act on crystal clear, objective moral principles.

And I'm glad to be with a Dom who doesn't claim to be proud of the fact that he doesn't know where to draw the line.

I guess in the end we'll agree to disagree, right?

 

[Pure]

hi satin,

you seem very snippy, but i gather you believe that a sexual sadist who acts, even a little bit, out of anger is dangerous and unsafe to be around. i wonder if you believe that angry people in general are dangerous.



regarding "punishment"; in this forum i usually understand it to refer to behavior that is *sometimes* undertaken by a dom or sadist to serve as a penalty for 'bad behavior' or to deter such behavior in future. this is in accord with the first m-w dictionary definition below.

you, in linking sadism to 'punishment' as hand to glove are apparently using the term in the second sense, below, inflicting something harsh or painful.

www.merriam-webster.com

//punish

Main Entry: pun·ish
Pronunciation: 'p&-nish
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English punisshen, from Anglo-French puniss-, stem of punir, from Latin punire, from poena penalty -- more at PAIN
transitive verb

1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation

2 a : to deal with roughly or harshly b : to inflict injury on : HURT //

 

[Marquis]

Yes, I respect her as an intelligent human being, capable of analyzing a situation based on the information she's been given. Garbage in, garbage out. If she's being deliberately misinformed, and possesses no avenues to determine this, she is capable of acting against her own best interests, following an unreasonable expectation intentionally fostered by another person.

It's a tough juggling game, what to reveal and when. Made all the more difficult by my ethical boundaries. Determining when there's a "need to know", versus the trust and rapport that makes sharing very personal information (like kinks) possible.

I suppose I prefer to err on the side of honesty. If others wish to interpret that as "paternalistic duties", so be it.

GIGO point taken, I still think a girl has more information available to her than just what you tell her. You could, for example, tell a girl you have two dicks and offer to make her dp fantasies come true single-handedly. I would have to question the intelligence of a girl who fell for this.

Likewise, I think most women realize that having sex with a man a few hours after you meet him is no guarantee of his emotional interest in you. Pointing that fact out in conversation doesn't just hurt your chances, it's a little like saying "yes" when a girl asks you if she "looks fat in those pants."*

This is much different than leading a girl on considerably, making plans you have no intent on keeping and feigning interest over several dates, all for the singular purpose of sexual conquest.

On a more personal note, the trust I offer a female is directly relative to the trust I want back from her. If I sense she has the potential to be something special, I am totally upfront about my relationship goals, my kinks and even my bipolar disorder. I still take everything she says with a grain of salt until I have reason to feel differently.


*Here's a tip in case you need it. If you ever get hit with this question, answer "no, not at all" or "no, but those other pants look even better." Any other answer is more honest than you have any right to be.

 

[Marquis]

Another possibility is that Norman's behavior is closer to that of an abusive employer using (and abusing) workers in the old silver mines of Central America, or a Dickensian factory in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

It seems possible (indeed, probable) that had a feasible alternative to a spouse or sexual partner presented itself, he would have dominated and abused him/her in a similar fashion.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I just don't understand how the word "intimacy" could be applied to a relationship in which the guy had so little regard for even the most basic physical & mental health of his partner. I accept what you are saying as theoretically possible, but it is simply beyond my power to comprehend.

Say, for example, Norman wins the Lottery.

Would he stop pimping his wife for chump change?

I'd guess so. Like you said, he was probably doing it for financial reasons, it's less likely that this was primarily a form of sexual expression for him, i.e. his kink (but not impossible).

Would he divorce his wife?

I'd guess not. 25 years is a long marriage, of any kind. I'd venture to believe that the two were extremely codependent. He might even stop beating her for a few weeks, which leads me to my next question.

Would he stop abusing her?

No, I don't think so. At least she'd be eating the expensive dog food out of a silver bowl.

As an intellectual exercise, I see the value in what you are postulating here.

However, as a practical matter I find it enormously helpful to maintain a careful distinction in my mind between the urge to inflict pain that results in my own arousal, and the urge to inflict pain that is borne of impulses tied to anger, revenge, etc.

What works, for me, is to view one as a legitimate expression of my sadistic self and the other as unacceptable behavior that is beneath me. Sort of like a toddler throwing a tantrum, or an adolescent punching the wall when he doesn't get his own way.

I'll leave this portion up to Pure, as I largely agree with his views on the matter.

 

[Marquis]

And btw, as an aside but a relevant point for this discussion, I would argue that the impulse to lash out in anger (verbally or physically), as well as the urge for revenge, are urges shared by all humans - not just sadists. So if you want to talk about that spectrum (anger, and the urge to react thereto), it is properly discussed as a separate matter from the spectrum relating to arousal through hurting another human being. Of course, the strands are intertwined in a particular individual (and that is Marquis's point). Fair enough. But if you are interested in that particular intellectual exercise, I find it less confusing to discuss the strands separately first, and then move on to a discussion of the way they intertwine in a specific person.

My pertinent feelings on anger, in a sentence:

Cruel master, great servant.

 

[RJMasters]

My pertinent feelings on anger, in a sentence:

Cruel master, great servant.

Do you think that maybe that is why you can identify with the guy in this case and even feel some pity towards him?

As far as Cruel master, great servant goes:

Cruelty leads often to rebellion. Being a cruel master does not in anyways ensure a great servant. That is a bunch of bullshit. And even if you want to take it to the notion where fear, created through the cruelity will make for an obedient servant, the servant will never have your intrests at heart and will fuck you over or be lazy whenever they can get away with it. Doesn't sound so great to me.

In truth it sounds to me like you should take care that they are locked up before you go to sleep at night, because they might just rebel against said cruelty and put 3 slugs into the back of your head while you sleep, or maybe just use a knife.

 

[JMohegan]

please answer this simple question

Sure.

BUT, why does inflicting pain for your sexual gratification seem to you to be 'legitimate expression of [your] sadistic self.'

Simply because I accept it as such. This is a personal decision that I make for myself, not for anyone else.

Behavior within the boundary that I establish for myself is legitimate in the sense that it is what I allow myself to do. Behavior outside the boundary is unacceptable to me, personally, for a host of different reasons.

Perhaps it will help if I make an analogy here. As a living being, Pure, you experience hunger. Let's call this an amoral urge to eat. If I asked you to list any firm rules that you lay down for yourself in governing how you eat, you might say:

- I do not steal food from restaurants or grocery stores, because I do not want to go to jail.

- I do not grab candy from kids on the street because even though the chance of incarceration is low, I would still feel like a schmuck for doing so.

- I do not eat peanuts, because of a personal allergy to the same.

- I never bring a bag of chips into my house, because if I eat one I know I will not be able to stop myself from eating the entire thing.

etc.

Taken together, these rules represent a practical boundary, created in part as a nod to your superego and in part to maintain control over your own personal health.

It seems like a practical question, since, so far as I can see, were one of my friends to encounter you, you might view it as legitimate expression to coolly 'off' her so you can come on her face [provided you don't do so angrily, vengefully, etc.].

We are discussing the practical boundaries that a sadist establishes to govern his own behavior when engaging in SM play.

Surely you do not mean to suggest that murder falls within any reasonable person's definition of the same.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I, at times, have been known to taunt that tiger. (no i'm not sammy i'm edgy...well i can be sammy, but that's another subject.)

Sorry, very quick hijack. I've read the term sammy before in other posts. What does it mean exactly?