Sado-Masochism

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I have been thinking about moral sadism and masochism and have a couple question I wish to submit to those that read this.

They go as follows:

Do you think that most people share sadist and masochistic trates?

Do you think its possible for entire society to be sadistic/masochistic

Do you believe they have the same origins?

Thanks for your replies.

[Dimentio]

Society does have masochistic and sadistic traits, that is what is called "social hierarchies" which are prevalent in all pack animal-groups. Those who are labeled "inferior" do not have the same informal rights to take part of the social atmosphere.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I wouldnt consider a pack of animals a society. It would also be hard to prove that one animal has a willingness to submit to another animal because he feels Isolated and alone. I think you missed the point.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by The Crying [email protected] 11, 2007 05:47 pm
I wouldnt consider a pack of animals a society. It would also be hard to prove that one animal has a willingness to submit to another animal because he feels Isolated and alone. I think you missed the point.
Humans are a pack animal-group ^^

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:14 pm
Humans are a pack animal-group ^^
Ok... but if you were referring to humans in reply to my central question, why didnt you just say so? Because it sounded as if you were referring to zebras or tigers.

[gilhyle]

It is my observation that most people's character involves both a characteristic and a preferred way of relating to others and both usually involve some agrandisement of inter-personal power or some surrender of power - rarely total and often in complex ways.

Those are concepts of dominance and submission. THe concepts of sadism and masochism involve the additional complication of pain/discomfort.....and that is a much less general phenomenon, although I think it true for all of us that some level of discomfort is critical to our sense of good conscience.

However, when it comes to societies it seems to me that it is an excessively analogical form of thinking to call them either characteristically sadistic or characteristically masochistic. To do so reveals too little and hides too much.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

But wouldnt you say that a society that submits to fascism is a morally masochistic society? They are submitting their individual freedoms to be part of a so-called greater cause. Wouldnt this make them a masochostic society in theory?

[gilhyle]

Personally, I dont think that says much. It tells you nothing about the circumstances that led to fascism - classically, Germany in the 1930s is explained by reference to Versailles, weak economy, growth of CP etc. Its a good explanation, it tells me something. Telling me Germany was a masochistic society, tells me very little - particularly when you then have to call it a sadistic society cos of what then happened.

I repeat: the concept of masochism is being used here metaphorically, drwing an analogy between an individual (where the concept applies more or less literally) and society. THat analogy sometimes works (body politik) but often it tells you little and suggests a coherence about something called 'society' which hides the deep fissures of class.

[Cryotank Screams]

Damn, and I thought this would be a discussion on S&M, -_-.


Do you think that most people share sadist and masochistic trates?

Not necessarily, thought we do share and express some forms of symbolic sadism or masochism, or sometimes literal, I don't think society as a psychological collective has sadism, and or masochism imbued within it, while the argument could be made, what about negative and violent acts? That does happen yes, but it isn't motivated by a sure joy of the act, there is no sexual, or psychological thrill, this happens in isolated cases, such as the jeffery dahmers, albert fishs, and the ted bundys.


Do you think its possible for entire society to be sadistic/masochistic

No, because sadism, and masochism, applies to only a select few of individuals, and are meant to be viewed as extremes of the "norm," however can a society have some form of symbolic sadistic/masochistic rituals, or some such thing? Yes, however this would again not be outright sadism or masochism, because it applies only to a select few individuals in society.

The only way these terms can be applied to a entire societal-culture basis would be if you took the terms out of context and broaden the definition of them.


Do you believe they have the same origins?

No, and I think this is a common misconception, because if you read the works, and study the lives and actions of the people from where the terms originally derive you can see this, I mean Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, was quite the opposite of Marquis de Sade, I most respects so to a degree this would imply that masochists and sadists, while both related are separate in most regards, psychologically speaking; they are related but different.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Cryotank what you says makes alot of sense. The only reason I posed the question in the first place was because its talking about it in the book I am reading.

[gilhyle]

No I dont agree:


1. I dont agree that either sadism or masochism is motivated by 'a sure joy of the act'

2. I dont think we can talk effectively about a 'sexual or psychological thrill' as if both were similar concepts - the latter is a very much broader concept than the former. For example, when people go on roller coasters and scream with pleasure at the discomfort of the experience and feel a thrill, there is an experience which is not confined to a small minority of people, but which is clearly masochistic

3. I dont think that sadism and masochism apply only to a small number of people and it is possible to go through the broad range of situations in which many people voluntarily take on discomfort or even pain and see that many of those create a 'thrill' within us that we often are unwilling to admit.

4. While I accept that there is a common view that Masoch is different from De Sade, in my view it is clear from the works of each that psychological domination is not the key, the key for each person was the physical experience of pain, in each case - although this isnt always the case - whipping was critical. I reiterate that if we differentiate clearly between submissiveness and masochism (and on the other hand between sadism and dominating behaviour), we can more effectively see the link between sadism and masochism as the the manipulation of pain for ulterior psychological thrills.

[Cryotank Screams]

1. I dont agree that either sadism or masochism is motivated by 'a sure joy of the act'

Then you are taking the very words in question out of their context and definition, because that is the very definition of them, people who get pleasure from submission, and pain being afflicted upon them, and people who get pleasure from controlling the submissive body in question, and inflicting harm upon said individual, they are motivated purely by the joy of the act.

Leopold von Sacher-Masoch derived utter pleasure from being ruled over by a women, and this is by no means purely sexual, I mean just read the contracts he signed and had written up, he was motivated purely by the pleasure and joy of the act, as are all masochists and sadists.


2. I dont think we can talk effectively about a 'sexual or psychological thrill' as if both were similar concepts - the latter is a very much broader concept than the former.

Wrong, in this case they are intertwined and connected, because in sexual acts they receive a sexual thrill, and outside of the sexual arena, they get psychological thrills from the submission or domination, they are closely connected, within sadists and masochists.


For example, when people go on roller coasters and scream with pleasure at the discomfort of the experience and feel a thrill, there is an experience which is not confined to a small minority of people, but which is clearly masochistic

What they are experiencing is more eustress, they have control over the situation, it’s controlled stress environment, and not a truly masochistic thrill, they are not submitting themselves to anything, and place full control and authority into another, and totally having no control whatsoever on the situation, and they are not being inflicted with true fear, and pain, to attain sexual or psychological gratification; there is clear distinction between eustress, and the fun house-theme park thrills and chills, and truly masochistic pleasures and gratification.


3. I dont think that sadism and masochism apply only to a small number of people and it is possible to go through the broad range of situations in which many people voluntarily take on discomfort or even pain and see that many of those create a 'thrill' within us that we often are unwilling to admit.

The definitions fall into the extreme category, thus they are not “normal,” psychological traits a person would have, and thus can not be applied to a overall collective psychological body, though people will deviate from the middle line in this spectrum slightly, that doesn’t necessarily make them masochists, and sadists, because these terms specifically apply to strict individual types.

As for discomfort or pain on a community sized scale, this again is not masochism, but eustress, the people are not submitting to anything, they have a controlled stress environment, they are perfectly and consciously in control, and can withdraw at any point in time, and fully fit the definition of eustress.


4. While I accept that there is a common view that Masoch is different from De Sade, in my view it is clear from the works of each that psychological domination is not the key, the key for each person was the physical experience of pain, in each case - although this isnt always the case - whipping was critical. I reiterate that if we differentiate clearly between submissiveness and masochism (and on the other hand between sadism and dominating behaviour), we can more effectively see the link between sadism and masochism as the the manipulation of pain for ulterior psychological thrills.

This is not a common view, Sacher-Masoch made up contracts with his wives, and mistress stating, they had full and utter authority over them, even in some cases to the point of death, even in Venus in Furs, the main character Severin von Kusiemski, did the same thing, and this is acted out by the character in the most extreme cases, to which no weekend kinkster would submit to, nor would any ordinary person submit to for that matter, there is very much a clear difference, and this is a common misconception I feel, and that is that when people think of masochism, they either think of self-mutilation, eustress, or weekend kinkster looking for “alternative,” and darker form of sexual pleasure, to which none of them fully go into, when truly masochism goes much farther and deeper than this.

For example there is a major difference between suprasensuality, and regular sensuality.

The same goes for Sade, he firmly asserted his role, with apologetics, and again I feel the common misconception of sadism, is that people, think of weekend kinksters, who can lightly whip their lover with a ruler, or with a minor, and soft flogging device, or people who are generally just mean and cruel, however again as in the case of Sacher-Masoch, this is not the case, sadism, is much deeper, complex, and farther than this.

Both mean where not ruled by the pleasure of pain, rather they were ruled by a combination of pain, and the very terms the embody, they are both intertwined into the psychologically and sexual practices of the two, therefore pain was not the motivating experience, it was just one experience wrapped up into a larger package as it were.

They are linked by the need and necessity of the relation between the two; Sacher-Masoch the masochist needed his mistress Fanny Pistor Bogdanoff the made sadist, and Sade the sadist needed, Marie-Constance Quesnet the masochist.

In each instance the one needed the other to sustain the themselves, that is their connection, there is not connection other than this in my opinion.

[gilhyle]

I suspect there are two quite definite and different views of how human nature is to be analysed between our differences on this point. I'll come back in more detail on your post if I may when I have a bit more time. For the moment, I just thought I 'd post a quote I came across - this being the site it is:

"the revolutionary urge ..manifests itself paradoxically by presentation of the opposite, by the desire for more painful suffering and deper humilation....."

Theodor Reik Masochism in Sex and Society (1941)

[gilhyle]

Let me try to take your points in the order you followed:

Firstly on the idea of describing sadism/masochim as motivated by the search for the joy of the act. Many people in the S&M community, for example, would object to the definition to which you refer, although it is one commonly held in traditional psychology circles - though not one always followed by persons from within that discipline who have examined the S&M community in any detail. The problem is - and this problem is common to the description of many of all but the most simple of human activites - the desciption of it as done for the joy of the act just does not accord with the experience of many of those engaged in the activities conventionally described as either sadism or masochism - see we get to discuss S&M after all!!

To take the case of Sacher-Masoch it is true that there is an apparent physical pleasure in the experience of feeling pain, but the fact that that pain must be received in certain ways from a certain person dressed in a certain way suggests strongly that it is not the act itself which stimulates the positive response but the reading of the act by the recipient (since the recipient requires certain symbolic presences in addition to the experience of pain).

This conclusion is supported by the second more fundamental problem lies in the analysis of the terms. We just cannot talk of pain AS pleasure because terms loose their meaning if we do that. We must talk about the 'pleasure' as coming from the pain. Now, once we do that, we get ourselves into a position where it becomes quite problemtic that 'pleasure' rather than 'satisfaction' or 'release' or some other word is the correct term to use to describe what comes from the pain as a positive motivation towards the act.

Let us note here that you and I agree that Von Sacher-Masoch derived a positive motivation from the domination which was not in any simple way 'just sexual'; we differ in that I see sexuality in all daily motivation and I dont see 'pleasure' as an adequate term to describe what motivates this activity. I read you as talking about two possible motives, the pleasure of the act and the joy of the act. I take your term the joy of the act to mean the joy in the reflective awareness of having been or being involved in the act. If this is what you mean, I suggest it actually supports my argument that the concept of pleasure does not describe well what motivates the involvement, since to use the term 'pleasure' to describe a motivation which consists in a process of reflection rather than direct feeling already introduces an analogical element into the description. Would it not be better to take about satisfaction in reflection on the fact of being engaged in the act ?

I have talked at some length about this because there is an ideological anti-bdsm stance sometimes adopted within psychology which implicity denigrates bdsm by suggesting that it involves some sort of excessive pleasure seeking - the science here hides a surreptious repetition of the long established Church criticism of the libertine as in some sense 'abnormal' or degenerated.

That is point one

[gilhyle]

On point two, I think this illustrates that we may be talking, to a degree, at cross purposes. But let us use your terms:

Let us say that there is

1. the sexual thrill from the act itself

and

2. the Psychological thrill from submission and domination.

I think this distinction accords (or comes close) the distinction I was trying to make between sadism/masochism and domination/submission.

This may not quite work:

where you say the sexual thrill of the act and I say sadism/masochism, I think my term is more precise because it allows us to focus on the use of pain and discomfort to enhance or alter or mimic sexual sensations. Sometimes in S&M practices there is a patent sexual thrill - conventiona; sexual act which is merely dressed up in a BDSM context. Sometimes the sexual thrill takes the form of an action not socially recognised as a sexual activity or one which borders on the uncomfortable and the pleasurable. SOmetimes there is an action that is clearly painful and not directly pleasureable at all.

We need a categorisation which allows us to talk of all three. I think mine does; I thin yours does not.

[gilhyle]

At this point you introduce the concept of 'eustress'. This concept has the effect in your analysis of differentiating normal from abnormal behaviour. But the concept has to be analytically distinct....and it isnt.

For example, you suggest that those who engage in controlled stress remain in control. Actually, the people on the rollercoaster are not in control. they cant get off. By contrast, the 'pervert' tied up and whipped only has to issue his/her safe word for it all to stop. So control is not an effective differentiating point. In fact there is no 'clear distinction as you suggest.

If that is the case then you cant sustain your distinction between different 'strict individual types'.

[gilhyle]

Finally, you argue that De Sade and Sacher Masoch are linked by the need for another....but by nothing else.

I think it is clear from both cases that the actual pain was critical; they are also linked by that. I can talk more about that if it is an important point....my only point for the moment is that they are unlike most people in the degree of pain they rely on.

That said, i think even they are part of a continuity with everyone else, not a distinct personality type. What differentiates your analysis from mine is your constant emphasis on what differentiates different people, while my emphasis is on the similarity of human nature. I recall one of Marx's favourite sayings: nothin human is alien to me.

I wouldnt underestimate the pain some 'weekend kingsters' are willing to endure or wish to inflict, if I were you.

We all enter into contracts everyday where we surrender significant parts of our lives.

[SPK]

On the original question: Using ideas about S/M to describe or understand individual sexual practices or identities seems useful -- why does someone like to dress up in rubber and get their bottom slapped with a paddle? :lol: However, I'm dubious about using those ideas to understand broader social or political forces.

If revolutionaries decided, for example, that a given dictatorship is able to maintain power because an entire country is "masochistic", what does that mean? What would we do with that idea? How would that affect our practice? What would that mean for a revolutionary process? If, as another example, it was determined that one group of people oppress another because the first group is "sadistic", I would ask the same questions: what does that conclusion actually mean in terms of our everyday, concrete, material approach to revolutionary politics?

[gilhyle]

I agree : look at the Reik quote, which suggests that a thing can be manifested as its opposite - and that revolutionary urges are sadistic. Words loose their meaning