Delving the Psyche of Sadists

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[CutieMouse]

Re: A cpl of things I have learned

*****

 

[Pure]

RJ, it's a well articulated statement of one particular form of sadism/dominance. it would be well received on the other side of the fence, by those of a similar approach.

Solely from my warped and depraved point of view, while it does give due emphasis to the sub/maso's devotion and loyalty, it far too much conveys an impression of the *needs* of sadist/dom/me. And that is no doubt a 'plus' in the eyes of those I've mentioned above.

This is just my 2 cents, and with all due respect etc.,

J.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

[snip] it far too much conveys an impression of the *needs* of sadist/dom/me. [/snip]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, reading too much into, or reading things into this statement that entirely aren't there... but are you saying or implying that either
(A) a sadist/dom/me shouldn't have *needs,*
(B) those needs are permissible/acceptable/pick-your-term-for-okay, but shouldn't be conveyed/communicated,
or
(C) neither of the above?

 

[RJMasters]

Like a lot of women, I think I tend to fall in love with the person and adjust around that.

Ty. I find this statement very interesting.

 

[RJMasters]

Re: Re: A cpl of things I have learned

That all makes perfect sense to me, just from the sub side of things instead of the Dom side of things.

Ty CutieMouse.

Maybe I will go pro...I guess I should practice my flogging, caning, and other techniques if I do that.

Would definately have to go see Francisco for rope, Winston for flogging and caning...hmmm wonders if AA would show me some knife play techniques? I would have to get SD and Netz to help round out my knowledge...and hire EV as my coach.

After getting a signed certificate from each of them as I master certain things, I will open a studio in southern Cali...I will stock it with all the latest toys and such...and get all excited...and open my doors....

I can see the newspaper headlines now...

Local BDSM business man is sued for naming his BDSM studio after a well known chain of deli stores called "Subway"

Hmmm maybe I will wait awhile before going pro...so much to learn...

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[Caitlynne]

Re: Re: Re: A cpl of things I have learned

After getting a signed certificate from each of them as I master certain things, I will open a studio in southern Cali...I will stock it with all the latest toys and such...and get all excited...and open my doors....

Apparently you don't need any instruction in how to tease the So. Cali subs.

If you should ever open that shop, just let me know and I will be the first in line.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: A cpl of things I have learned

Ty CutieMouse.

Maybe I will go pro...I guess I should practice my flogging, caning, and other techniques if I do that.

Would definately have to go see Francisco for rope, Winston for flogging and caning...hmmm wonders if AA would show me some knife play techniques? I would have to get SD and Netz to help round out my knowledge...and hire EV as my coach.

After getting a signed certificate from each of them as I master certain things, I will open a studio in southern Cali...I will stock it with all the latest toys and such...and get all excited...and open my doors....

I can see the newspaper headlines now...

Local BDSM business man is sued for naming his BDSM studio after a well known chain of deli stores called "Subway"

Hmmm maybe I will wait awhile before going pro...so much to learn...

Nah Hommes ...call it "Subspace" ..

And when you get ready to open it let me know -- Been thinking about moving out west anyway..Gonna need a job - and should have my "Dark Apprentice" trained by then ...*Grin* Ever seen the lust on a subs face, while they are watching someone be worked on by two people that can mesh well???

 

[Pure]

Hi SirW,

I said,

RJ, it's a well articulated statement of one particular form of sadism/dominance. it would be well received on the other side of the fence, by those of a similar approach.

Solely from my warped and depraved point of view, while it does give due emphasis to the sub/maso's devotion and loyalty,

{{it far too much conveys an impression of the *needs* of sadist/dom/me. }} {{this part highlighted and commented on, below, by Sir W.}}

And that is no doubt a 'plus' in the eyes of those I've mentioned above.

Sir W, you said,

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, reading too much into, or reading things into this statement that entirely aren't there... but are you saying or implying that either
(A) a sadist/dom/me shouldn't have *needs,*
(B) those needs are permissible/acceptable/pick-your-term-for-okay, but shouldn't be conveyed/communicated,
or
(C) neither of the above?

First, I'm not discussing 'shoulds' or 'shouldn'ts', i.e. what some sadist (such as you) or sadists in general should do.

I'm describing something: 1) A kind of sadist who makes his/her needs quite obvious--communicated, in your term-- and enters them into a kind of barter. A reciprocity and relationship oriented sadist, as it were. S/he says, "You're meeting my needs so I undertake, as fair and square, to meet yours. I recognize an obligation to do so--to meet yours in the ways you expect-- since mine are being devotedly met." S/he is voluntarily involved in a complicated mesh of ties, mutual duties, obligations of which B is aware, and appreciates (indeed B may have co-written the contract).

I'm saying there are other kinds, in particular, there's a set of those SM occurrences where there is an asymmetry.

2) One example. A exercizes control and/or direction over B, and also sees to the humiliation of B, more or less on A's terms.

A says (in effect), "I'm doing as I wish and consider appropriate. I'm with you, but not tied or obligated in any of the ways you might consider. You're meeting my desires, and though I won't greatly harm or kill you, I do NOT recognize any general obligation, on my part, reciprocally, to meet yours in the ways you may expect, though it may occasionally please me to do so. "

{Note: It's assumed, for the sake of this example, that A is doing nothing illegal to B, such as assaulting, raping, kidnapping, murdering.}

{{ADDED: The two types are 'ideal types' or prototypes; think of
the Nun and the Vamp, as types of woman. There are gray areas and approximations to each type--e.g., Vamp-ish. There are possible persons in between the categories, and not every person fits one or the other.}

 

[Guest]

Hi SirW,

I said,

RJ, it's a well articulated statement of one particular form of sadism/dominance. it would be well received on the other side of the fence, by those of a similar approach.

Solely from my warped and depraved point of view, while it does give due emphasis to the sub/maso's devotion and loyalty,

{{it far too much conveys an impression of the *needs* of sadist/dom/me. }} {{this part highlighted and commented on, below, by Sir W.}}

And that is no doubt a 'plus' in the eyes of those I've mentioned above.

Sir W, you said,

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, reading too much into, or reading things into this statement that entirely aren't there... but are you saying or implying that either
(A) a sadist/dom/me shouldn't have *needs,*
(B) those needs are permissible/acceptable/pick-your-term-for-okay, but shouldn't be conveyed/communicated,
or
(C) neither of the above?

First, I'm not discussing 'shoulds' or 'shouldn'ts', i.e. what some sadist (such as you) or sadists in general should do.

I'm describing something: 1) A kind of sadist who makes his/her needs quite obvious--communicated, in your term-- and enters them into a kind of barter. A reciprocity and relationship oriented sadist, as it were. S/he says, "You're meeting my needs so I undertake, as fair and square, to meet yours. I recognize an obligation to do so--to meet yours in the ways you expect-- since mine are being devotedly met." S/he is voluntarily involved in a complicated mesh of ties, mutual duties, obligations of which B is aware, and appreciates (indeed B may have co-written the contract).

I'm saying there are other kinds, in particular, there's a set of those SM occurrences where there is an asymmetry. One example. A exercizes control and/or direction over B, and also sees to the humiliation of B, more or less on A's terms.

A says (in effect), "I'm doing as I wish and consider appropriate. I'm with you, but not tied or obligated in any of the ways you might consider. You're meeting my desires, and though I won't greatly harm or kill you, I do NOT recognize any general obligation, on my part, reciprocally, to meet yours in the ways you may expect, though it may occasionally please me to do so. "

{Note: It's assumed, for the sake of this example, that A is doing nothing illegal to B, such as assaulting, raping, kidnapping, murdering.}

hmmm I am not so sure that the two situations stated at the end there - are as exclusive of each other as that would imply... Did you mean them to be that way ..or am I just reading too much into it?

 

[CutieMouse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A cpl of things I have learned

*****

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A cpl of things I have learned

Damnit that's just shivery. Good shivery, but shivery.

*GRIN* Yeah..I've seen it ..And it is indeed...

That peculiar mixture of lust and fear that wars inside them...*sigh*

 

[s'lara]

Hi SirW,

I said,

RJ, it's a well articulated statement of one particular form of sadism/dominance. it would be well received on the other side of the fence, by those of a similar approach.

Solely from my warped and depraved point of view, while it does give due emphasis to the sub/maso's devotion and loyalty,

{{it far too much conveys an impression of the *needs* of sadist/dom/me. }} {{this part highlighted and commented on, below, by Sir W.}}

And that is no doubt a 'plus' in the eyes of those I've mentioned above.

Sir W, you said,

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, reading too much into, or reading things into this statement that entirely aren't there... but are you saying or implying that either
(A) a sadist/dom/me shouldn't have *needs,*
(B) those needs are permissible/acceptable/pick-your-term-for-okay, but shouldn't be conveyed/communicated,
or
(C) neither of the above?

First, I'm not discussing 'shoulds' or 'shouldn'ts', i.e. what some sadist (such as you) or sadists in general should do.

I'm describing something: 1) A kind of sadist who makes his/her needs quite obvious--communicated, in your term-- and enters them into a kind of barter. A reciprocity and relationship oriented sadist, as it were. S/he says, "You're meeting my needs so I undertake, as fair and square, to meet yours. I recognize an obligation to do so--to meet yours in the ways you expect-- since mine are being devotedly met." S/he is voluntarily involved in a complicated mesh of ties, mutual duties, obligations of which B is aware, and appreciates (indeed B may have co-written the contract).

I'm saying there are other kinds, in particular, there's a set of those SM occurrences where there is an asymmetry. One example. A exercizes control and/or direction over B, and also sees to the humiliation of B, more or less on A's terms.

A says (in effect), "I'm doing as I wish and consider appropriate. I'm with you, but not tied or obligated in any of the ways you might consider. You're meeting my desires, and though I won't greatly harm or kill you, I do NOT recognize any general obligation, on my part, reciprocally, to meet yours in the ways you may expect, though it may occasionally please me to do so. "

{Note: It's assumed, for the sake of this example, that A is doing nothing illegal to B, such as assaulting, raping, kidnapping, murdering.}

If i may put it simply, the needs of A are paramount and not subject to "i'll do for you, then you do for me." There is no obligation on the part of A to reciprocate/assauge/satisfy B. The "exchange" as it were is not necessarily existent on the part of A. A takes and gives when it suits A.

What Pure is describing is a relationship wherein the needs of B are unequivocally secondary and there is an outright acknowledgement on the part of A that His/Her "obligation" to feed the need in B, is not part of the deal. Period. Although, i have to mention that given the right masochist, this "no obligation to reciprocate" in its own way satisfies. Not on any terms set by us (masochists), but based solely on what A wants and there is masochistic pleasure in being denied. Think orgasm denial, but on a level of getting close to exploding, having A walk away satisfied and unconcerned by whether or not you made it as well. Quint mentioned something like this once and i've never forgotten it. Her T finished, she didn't, he walked away unconcerned and proceeded to get on the phone. That's one way to illustrate it on a sexual/emotional level, but as far as sadism is concerned, particularly as described by Pure, it's the same concept.

Lots of people engage in relationships of this type, even some on this board. Sometimes, what we don't address is the clinical, cold, and "no vaseline on the lens" look at SM and how this is kind of SM works in a D/s context.

For my part, that kind of A-->B relationship has appeal to the masosub in me, and most likely always will. Recent thoughts of this subject revealed that to be the case.

To be on the receiving end of this type of SM within D/s confines, in my opinion, does not necessarily condemn one to a place devoid of love or nurturing. i think those wants/needs can exist within that dynamic and it is a relationship where the lines are clearly drawn. As we like to say around here, as long as it works for those who are comfortable exisitng within those parameters, it's cool beans.

lara

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Hi SirW,

[snippage]First, I'm not discussing 'shoulds' or 'shouldn'ts', i.e. what some sadist (such as you) or sadists in general should do.

I'm describing something: 1) A kind of sadist who makes his/her needs quite obvious--communicated, in your term-- and enters them into a kind of barter. A reciprocity and relationship oriented sadist, as it were. S/he says, "You're meeting my needs so I undertake, as fair and square, to meet yours. I recognize an obligation to do so--to meet yours in the ways you expect-- since mine are being devotedly met." S/he is voluntarily involved in a complicated mesh of ties, mutual duties, obligations of which B is aware, and appreciates (indeed B may have co-written the contract).

I'm saying there are other kinds, in particular, there's a set of those SM occurrences where there is an asymmetry. One example. A exercizes control and/or direction over B, and also sees to the humiliation of B, more or less on A's terms.

A says (in effect), "I'm doing as I wish and consider appropriate. I'm with you, but not tied or obligated in any of the ways you might consider. You're meeting my desires, and though I won't greatly harm or kill you, I do NOT recognize any general obligation, on my part, reciprocally, to meet yours in the ways you may expect, though it may occasionally please me to do so. "

{Note: It's assumed, for the sake of this example, that A is doing nothing illegal to B, such as assaulting, raping, kidnapping, murdering.}

Thank you for the expansion and clarification. I get it now.

Edited to add what I forgot to put in the first time: And thank you, s'lara, for your thoughts. They helped my understanding.

 

[Caitlynne]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A cpl of things I have learned

Ever seen the lust on a subs face, while they are watching someone be worked on by two people that can mesh well???

Just thinking about that made me wet.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Re: Re: Re: A cpl of things I have learned

... wonders if AA would show me some knife play techniques?

If you seek marking techniques, i believe kittycat can tell you much about 'Cisco's talent. i do, however, have a rather wicked backhand from years spent on a racquetball court. If you enjoy spanking with a hand, i might be able to show you how to make your hand last longer moving up and down a subject's body.

 

[AvaAdore]

he went on his birthday and they wouldn't let him play without protective gear, but still...


Apparently the only hit that made him cry was getting popped in the hand. his knuckle was still swollen when he got home.

Have I mentioned yet that men are WIERD?

Men?

I'm not a man and I love paintball! They have a place in my neighbourhood that does it in a wooded area. Lots of trees and tall grass. Terrific.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A cpl of things I have learned

Just thinking about that made me wet.

*sigh* It's supposed to....

I'm saying there are other kinds, in particular, there's a set of those SM occurrences where there is an asymmetry. One example. A exercizes control and/or direction over B, and also sees to the humiliation of B, more or less on A's terms.

A says (in effect), "I'm doing as I wish and consider appropriate. I'm with you, but not tied or obligated in any of the ways you might consider. You're meeting my desires, and though I won't greatly harm or kill you, I do NOT recognize any general obligation, on my part, reciprocally, to meet yours in the ways you may expect, though it may occasionally please me to do so. "

{Note: It's assumed, for the sake of this example, that A is doing nothing illegal to B, such as assaulting, raping, kidnapping, murdering.}

There is something there, in the above, that is niggling at my mind..But I am going to have to have time to sit down and think about it.*sigh*

Men?

I'm not a man and I love paintball! They have a place in my neighbourhood that does it in a wooded area. Lots of trees and tall grass. Terrific.

First annual Literotica Paintball tournament??? *grin*
Guess that would mean I have to put the air cannon back together eh?

If nothing else ...Just imagine the team T-shirts..*grin*

 

[Pure]

Thanks lara, I think you grasp my points and those ideal 'types' excellently, and elaborate them with understanding and clarity (and without judgmentalism).

There are indeed persons who occasionally post here, who fit the second example from either side (from the doing or the 'done-to' side). Of course, as in a note I added to my posting, no one is a pure type, there are grays and approximations. Whether either side is 'pathological', 'sick' or even 'needs counselling' is debatable.

Just for the record, it's worth mentioning a third type, of criminology textbooks, even the popular press. They speak of "The Sadist." (at the extreme end, the one in a million, one finds a Leonard Lake, Bundy or Dahmer.)

Let's call this the 'criminal sadist': he or she feels compelled to exercize power over, terrify, traumatically reduce to abject sexual level, inflict serious or traumatic pain on, rape or (even, in some cases) kill in order to 'get off', be it a non sexual 'thrill', or a sexual one. But usually the power-seeking, in part, has a sexual aim.

IOW, a crime has to be committed, such as forcible confinement, or making a 'threat to life' for there to be adequate arousal. There are recognized subtypes depending on whether the power or the pain infliction is the main object. The above orientation is 'pathological' in the strict, psychiatric and social sense; 'sick', as it were, in a criminal way. There is no 'cure' or 'treatment' except advancing age.

Certain vicious, domestic abusers (i.e., those subject to prosecution for domestic violence) may fit as approximations to this type; typically they 'slide' into the category over a significant time period.

It's worth mentioning that this figure, esp insofar as he does not kill or inflict life threatening damage, is possibly of some attraction to certain persons. These persons would, similarly, be 'pathological cases'--'sick' so as to be victims, i.e., on the receiving end of crimes. (Sort of the Looking for Mr. Goodbar type, though I've not actually seen the movie.) Let's call that person the pathologically self destroying masochist or sub.

 

[Guest]

Ahhhh..
Thank you..The statement is much clearer now...Though I wonder...Does, or does not, Daumer fit into a seperate catagory?
The act of cannibalism being (moderately) rare?

 

[Pure]

Sounds right, EK (somewhat separate); i'd forgotten that little wrinkle.

 

[Guest]

Sounds right, EK (somewhat separate); i'd forgotten that little wrinkle.

*shrug* Coincedence...The day before I read that, I had a discussion relating to something along those lines...Due to a rerun episode of CSI...(Love that show)

 

[catalina_francisco]

I for one do not believe in only 2 or 3 types of sadist, like I do not believe there are only 2 or 3 types of personalities in life. When trying to make facsimiles we always try to simplify matters and characterize our subjects in such a way that we can try making a basic model. That however is an approach that has lead Freud and others to make conclusions about sadism that are not based on reality but on their own preconceptions.

If there is one thing I have learned in my short life it is that we are all individuals, and proclaiming wisdoms is a dangerous thing that should be left to prophets and holy men (or saints). Although I am a sadist I know that I can only speak out of my own experience. Every person’s experience and perceptions is based on their own life and reflects their own uniqueness and individuality.

We have to be very careful in putting people in little boxes and deciding the correct and incorrect way to act and behave toward others. It is the individual who has the right to decide their nature and it is the individual who decides what he or she is. Let’s not try to put everyone in a nice little box, boxes are created out of wood and before it was wood it was a tree, which was part of a forest. Enjoy the freedom of the woods and stop making boxes before you destroy the forest.

Sometimes it just feels good to feel the wind blowing through your hair, and sometimes it just feels good to know what you are, accepting that which is part of your personality and enjoying it. Too many definitions, too much logic, too much analytical thinking will only make links that are not correct and that we do not want to make or feel are part of us.

Serial killers is a subject that has nothing to do with BDSM, abuse has nothing to do with BDSM, murder, cannibalism, and mental illness are all subjects that although interesting to talk about and although may be interesting to fantasize about, they are not part of what I consider to be a BDSM sadist.

Francisco.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

... all subjects that although interesting to talk about and although may be interesting to fantasize about, they are not part of what I consider to be a BDSM sadist.

Francisco.

Unless you're Bytor, or someone with a vested interest in keeping the DSMV in print.