DominantJenny
Posts: 645
Joined: 4/6/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Steponme73 Sadism to me is defined as: Someone who gets sexual gratification out of causing pain or degradation to another. So with that said, that was the reason for my question. I don't have a problem with sadistic women. I read once in some study that said women could not be classified as sadistic because they did not have the right genes. I think that is hogwash. You can hurt people, torture people, degrade people without getting turned on. That to me is not being sadistic. You can be in control without hurting, torturing or degrading them. However, if the only way, or the preferred way to get your juices flowing is to inflict pain or degrade someone, then that is sadistic and I guess that was really my question. Is that what really gets you going? Or is it just the control of making someone obey you. I think if you get excited by just obedience of another to you then that is not sadistic that is control. I think that Aakasha has some great points and even better questions. Could you live without one or the other and if so which one? Any way, thank you all for posting. It was a great response and I appreciate it. Just to be very clear, I am definitely a sadist by that definition. And I agree, obviously, that that study is hogwash. I don't know that I could live without either, honestly. My personality is too naturally dominant and, even at my most vanilla, I'd always sneak some bit of sadism in, even if it was just a bite.
|