Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/6/2006 1:05:45 PM   
thetammyjo


Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyTantalize



quote:

I'm sorry but I'm laughing at the idea of me being a "service" anything.

I've had masochistic partners but my current slave of over 6 years is not a masochist in any sense or shape. When we do SM, when I hurt him and I do indeed hurt him (I promised not to harm him) its all for me in terms of the physical pleasure. He gets pleasure from making me happy.

Sorry that wasn't clearer.



Got'cha! Apologies, it just didn't come across that way. Many people enjoying "hurting" others because the "other" enjoys it or because they like "BDSM sadism" as you put it where another is made "happy" or to feel "pleasure" because of it, but others who might more appopriately fit the mold of the actual defintion of a sadist are those who truly deriving gratification, specifically sexual pleasure, from inflicting pain and cruelty whether or not the partner or victim retains ANY degree of pleasure or happiness from the act! Anyway, glad we cleared that up! *g*

All I know is that I am a Female Sadist - I just haven't made history yet!

*big grins*


I guess I still don't understand what you are saying.

Fox gets the same pleasure from serving when we do SM or when he brings me a glass of water or mows the lawn or brings himself to orgasm at my order -- ok, I think he gets a different kind of pleasure from coming too but my point is that he gets pleasure from pleasing me. If he didn't, he won't consent to be mine.

And I won't do SM with someone who doesn't consent. I think people only consent to things which they get something positive from if its really consent -- people allow many things because they don't feel they have a choice but I think consent is a choice.

Whether or not they get pleasure from the SM itself isn't important to me.

It is important that they aren't negatively affected by what I do. I consider it part of responsbility as a human being not just a dominant to try and make/help people have more positive lives.

_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to LadyTantalize)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/6/2006 1:52:26 PM   
LadyTantalize


Posts: 242
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

It is important that they aren't negatively affected by what I do. I consider it part of responsbility as a human being not just a dominant to try and make/help people have more positive lives.


Eeekks, just because I can garner immense gratification from inflicting pain upon another, whether they enjoy it or derive pleasure from it or not, does NOT equate that I am not a good human being or that I don't try to make positive impacts on the lives of others.

quote:

Fox gets the same pleasure from serving when we do SM or when he brings me a glass of water or mows the lawn or brings himself to orgasm at my order -- ok, I think he gets a different kind of pleasure from coming too but my point is that he gets pleasure from pleasing me. If he didn't, he won't consent to be mine.


First, I ask that you look outside the box of the usual "24/7, long-term relationship" in that periodic playpartners or even ProDomme Mistresses who exercise extreme acts of sadism combined with pre-and-post care of compassion and empathy can have a very POSITIVE effect on the lives of many submissives who are not involved in a relationship such as yours. Also, not EVERY submissive or slave gets pleasure from the same thing but some still DO CONSENT and engage in activities that bring them no "short-term" pleasure or happiness but might know there are long-term, therapuetic benefits. Not every scene, session or sadomasochistic activity is of the long-term variety and many can consent to what others deem bizarre or even negative when done in short-term increments. Consent does not equal getting pleasure. I think it's truly a rare few that actually get "pleasure from pain" just to please their Owner. In that regard, you are very lucky. I think many slaves do many tasks to please their Owners and get some pleasure from merely pleasing - most take pain because they want too and do get pleasure from it or because they have too because they must make that sacrifice in order to please their Owner. Making a sacrifice and deriving pleasure from pleasing another are quite different, in My humble opinion. I've had some consent to some very sadistic acts done short-term which they did not enjoy but were VERY CATHARGIC and healing for them in the long run. Some want to be tortured for the sake of pain that they do not enjoy, some for the sake of being tortured and with many those experiences CAN be cathargic and have positive, healing affects. Some just want to be made to cry. Some want to be forced and overpowered. Some want to be used with no regard, and granted that's negative in the long-term but can be very gratifying and even therapuetic in the short-term. Some want that ruthless degree of sadism in a scene but want love for long-term. Some forms of resistance play can seem very nonconsensual to the untrained eye and many enjoy that type of resistance and force - the inflicting of the pain hurts and they do NOT enjoy the pain, for the Owner or anyone, they suffer for various reasons and they fight back (resist) for various reasons - and in many of those instances, the act of force and resistance can be very POSITIVE while seeming very negative.

I've even a post here in My journal about being Dominant not being a license to abuse or use. Yet there are MANY who want that, they want to feel used and abused by a cruel person. Why there is even a profile here of a Domme who states "I use men".... granted this is a fantasy of many and for many should remain a fantasy, but I see no problem with walking in the gray areas of the fantastical such as extreme cruelty, extreme sadism, total use, etc., etc. - all done so without pleasure for the sub/slave and all done so consensually. Unfortunately, there are some who ARE heartless and do use people long-term without thought to the negative impact on their lives - those folks have emotional/mental problems and need counseling, in My humble opinion. I am referring to short-term periods of intense sadistic play in which the submissive garners no pleasure and no joy but merely endures such in either an effort to remain a part of the world of that particular Sadist, to prove something to themselves, to do some type of penance - oh, the list goes on and there are various reasons for various people - My point being that merely because a Sadist inflicts pain on a sub who does not derive pleasure from the pain or from pleasing does NOT equate that either party involved are bad or mentally ill or irresponsible or lacking in compassion or making a "negative impact".

I guess I'm not making very good points, but I hope I was able to at least reveal a bit of the flip side of the sadism coin of which I speak. Apologies for the rambling - usually I'm good at making My points, but as this one runs deep in the blood, I guess it's an emotional issue for Me so therefore I'm clouded in My explanations.

It's truly been a great discussion and I thank you for the interesting exchanges!!




_____________________________

Truly, Lady T.

Lady Tatiana Tantalize
Atlanta's Sadistic Southern Belle, Crossdressing Consultant, Punk-Rock Party Girl and Wicked SugarPuss
http://www.ladytantalize.net

"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages."
-Tennessee William

(in reply to thetammyjo)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/6/2006 4:32:46 PM   
thetammyjo


Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline
After reading your reply, LadyTantalize, I'd say we actually have the same criteria for why we do SM -- for ourselves first and foremost.

That's what I wasn't understanding. Why was my description of what I do "service" as opposed to BDSM sadism or sadism if you prefer (though I have known enough people who misunderstand BDSM to be careful about clarifing what I do as opposed to what a clincial sadist does. I've learned that just saying "I'm a sadist" can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings.)

The word sadist has several meanings and the OP wasn't specific about what he meant by it in my opinion. Thus we had murders and rapists and all sorts of people being listed off as examples of women sadists.

Later on, I believe it was RealOne, added that it had to be related to sexual arousal and the OPster agreed. If that's true, as I said before, we are seriously limited to when we can find these "sadists" because of the evidence we would need to determine if the motivation was sexual or something else. For example, the information I used in relationship to mistresses in Roman household wouldn't be appropriate anymore because I can't recall a single case where it is stated that she did it for sexual pleasure or for a sexual act -- its more being angry and being bitchy and getting back at things or being bored perhaps.



_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to LadyTantalize)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/6/2006 5:08:29 PM   
MichMasochist


Posts: 234
Joined: 12/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

After reading your reply, LadyTantalize, I'd say we actually have the same criteria for why we do SM -- for ourselves first and foremost.
.....clipped......
she did it for sexual pleasure or for a sexual act -- its more being angry and being bitchy and getting back at things or being bored perhaps.



If my opinion matters, the difference is as "the tammyjo" put it, indirectly, BDSM for sexual pleasure or a sex act is what our kinkiness is about. As a masochist that is what my version of kink is about.

Others who engage in such acts of sadism, or masochism, in the absents of pleasure is were the trouble is. And is one reason why BDSM has such a negative image in the perspective of the majority of the world. In my perspective as a newby to kinkiness, those who profess their interest, even enjoyment, in BDSM; and that they state they never engage in sex or sex acts while doing so is extremely disturbing to me.

With the ambiguity of the original post I thought all the replies were "on topic".


(in reply to thetammyjo)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/6/2006 6:49:36 PM   
yourMissTress


Posts: 1665
Joined: 6/14/2005
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
for anyone that has a question about women being sadistic...


http://www.collarchat.com/m_261299/tm.htm

_____________________________

Tress


"If you have to tell people that you are a lady, you are not." My Grandmother


(in reply to thetammyjo)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/6/2006 6:55:43 PM   
candystripper


Posts: 3486
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

You've made some very good points, TammyJo! Although this one I've not sorted through yet in Mind.....


quote:

There is also a huge difference, I would argue, between clincial sadism (which is an illness) and sadism in the BDSM sense.

TammyJo

I sort of think sadism is sadism, the illness lies within how it is controlled or lack thereof, contained, channeled and acted upon. But at the heart of it, still lies sadism - just My humble opinion.

LadyTantalizer


May i ask, what is "clinical sadism"?

candystripper

(in reply to LadyTantalize)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/7/2006 3:09:33 AM   
SubjectProperty


Posts: 57
Joined: 12/7/2005
Status: offline
Women have for thousands of years been thought of has submissive,slave like partners of men who exist to serve them and have their children. The reality is and always has been quite different. Yes there are indeed submissive slave like women,who serve both genders. But Women are in the main,intellectually,emotionally and physically stronger than men. If given the chance and permited to release their inner dominance for so long repressed by the false moralities of society,then they would show the world who was its true Owner and Mistress. Women make far better rulers than men because they are better leaders.Who is it that nurtures and brings up a family? Rarely does the man play any significant part in that process. Subjegation to Woman is honourable and also sensible.There is no shame in such whatsoever. Men would be far happier,society more peaceful,marriages more fruitful and fulfilling if only men cease the pretense that they are the natural rulers and dominants.

< Message edited by SubjectProperty -- 2/7/2006 3:10:30 AM >

(in reply to Unameme)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/7/2006 5:34:57 AM   
Unameme


Posts: 49
Joined: 10/6/2005
Status: offline
Hello,
Starting off this discussion,
I was personally puzzled as to difference in what appears
to be the Difference in Sadism between the Genders,
Male Sadism,
is frequently an
Abduction,/kidnapping
Restraint against will,
physical / emotional brutalization
torture,
Rape,
Sometimes murder,
Please I know Most all "Sadistic" Dom Males on this site aren't that way

All Dom Females who have responded who have called
themselves 'Sadistic" have all made note that thier
Sadism is consensual,
Whether "victim" submissive/mashochist or just willing participant
takes any pleasure in the Female Dom's enjoyment of Sadism,

So Do you think its Supply an Demand ?
Dom Females are in Demand an willing males are in Vast Supply ?

If willing males weren't in Vast Supply do you think
'Sadistic Females would then revert to the
Modus Operandi of Males of 'FORCED SUBMISSION'

Is Sadism different between Men and Woman then ?

I think it is, or is it ?

This is a Murky subject,

in love an peace Bluesmate




(in reply to MichMasochist)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/7/2006 7:36:53 AM   
MichMasochist


Posts: 234
Joined: 12/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper

quote:

You've made some very good points, TammyJo! Although this one I've not sorted through yet in Mind.....


quote:

There is also a huge difference, I would argue, between clincial sadism (which is an illness) and sadism in the BDSM sense.

TammyJo

I sort of think sadism is sadism, the illness lies within how it is controlled or lack thereof, contained, channeled and acted upon. But at the heart of it, still lies sadism - just My humble opinion.

LadyTantalizer


May i ask, what is "clinical sadism"?

candystripper





IMO the preceedant parties refference to clinical sadism would be, my guess, intended to reffer to either criminal or psychiatric?

IMHO the defference between "clinical", "BDSM" and "sexual sadism"

Sexual sado-masochism to me is a recurring, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, involving acts in which the physical suffering and humiliation of the willing victim. Which is sexually exciting to the persons involved. The acts of sado-masochism serve as foreplay to the sex act(s) themselves. In Sexual sado-masochism consent is manditory, limits are respected, and both parties achieve sexual gratification and enjoyment.

BDSM sado-masochism appears to be same as the above. However many of the person(s) professing their involvement in BDSM often, if not freely, state or otherwise admit that there is neither no sexually based interest nor sexual motive involved with their participation. In BDSM (sado-masochism) consent is manditory, limits are respected, and both parties achieve enjoyment in the absents of sexual gratification.

Clinical sado-masochism: (Text book definition)
Diagnostic criteria for 302.83 Sexual Masochism
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the
act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer.

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other
important areas of functioning.

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.

In general society, including medical professionals, considers sado-masochism an aberant, destructive, behavior. Mental disorder or insanity. Quoting: "Sado-masochist are dangerous." "Many people die from this or are serious crippled for life". "Participation can never be consensual, because of the nature or mental state of the masochist impares, or other wise precludes his' or hers' ability to give consent."






(in reply to candystripper)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/7/2006 9:04:43 AM   
thetammyjo


Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MichMasochist


quote:

ORIGINAL: candystripper

quote:

You've made some very good points, TammyJo! Although this one I've not sorted through yet in Mind.....


quote:

There is also a huge difference, I would argue, between clincial sadism (which is an illness) and sadism in the BDSM sense.

TammyJo

I sort of think sadism is sadism, the illness lies within how it is controlled or lack thereof, contained, channeled and acted upon. But at the heart of it, still lies sadism - just My humble opinion.

LadyTantalizer


May i ask, what is "clinical sadism"?

candystripper





IMO the preceedant parties refference to clinical sadism would be, my guess, intended to reffer to either criminal or psychiatric?

IMHO the defference between "clinical", "BDSM" and "sexual sadism"

Sexual sado-masochism to me is a recurring, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, involving acts in which the physical suffering and humiliation of the willing victim. Which is sexually exciting to the persons involved. The acts of sado-masochism serve as foreplay to the sex act(s) themselves. In Sexual sado-masochism consent is manditory, limits are respected, and both parties achieve sexual gratification and enjoyment.

BDSM sado-masochism appears to be same as the above. However many of the person(s) professing their involvement in BDSM often, if not freely, state or otherwise admit that there is neither no sexually based interest nor sexual motive involved with their participation. In BDSM (sado-masochism) consent is manditory, limits are respected, and both parties achieve enjoyment in the absents of sexual gratification.

Clinical sado-masochism: (Text book definition)
Diagnostic criteria for 302.83 Sexual Masochism
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the
act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer.

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other
important areas of functioning.

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.

In general society, including medical professionals, considers sado-masochism an aberant, destructive, behavior. Mental disorder or insanity. Quoting: "Sado-masochist are dangerous." "Many people die from this or are serious crippled for life". "Participation can never be consensual, because of the nature or mental state of the masochist impares, or other wise precludes his' or hers' ability to give consent."








Yes, I was referring to the DSM IV when I use the term clincial sadist -- I believe it is actually separated from masochism though a person may have both. It usually in medical and legal terms. More often the person has been caught and charged with a crime before it is found they suffer from the above (note its part of the definition that you are doing non-consensual things).

My understanding from Dr. Moser is that it took some work to get this concept of non-consent into the manual. I'm very glad they did because it is a huge difference in my opinion.


_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to MichMasochist)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/7/2006 9:18:30 AM   
LadyTantalize


Posts: 242
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Others who engage in such acts of sadism, or masochism, in the absents of pleasure is were the trouble is. And is one reason why BDSM has such a negative image in the perspective of the majority of the world. In my perspective as a newby to kinkiness, those who profess their interest, even enjoyment, in BDSM; and that they state they never engage in sex or sex acts while doing so is extremely disturbing to me.



Wow, what a statement. I think you really need to reassess the variations of BDSM, all within the confines of SCC, RISK and RACK, of course. Granted for many BDSM can have very erotic and even sexual overtones, but there are many mentally-sound, stable people who engage in sadomasochism, D/s and B&D who do NOT engage in actual sexual acts during BDSM - many engage in role-play for the adult fantasy fun and there is no sex - many slaves serve a Master/Mistress yet have another who is their lover or partner - what's so disturbing about all of those instances? It is not all about actual sex for everyone into BDSM and that, in no way, should be found disturbing. For many it's about a power exchange, or about a emotional, mental and physical release and in ALL instances within the realm of SCC, RISK and RACK, such BDSM activities can be very cathargic, therapuetic, healing, mind-expanding, uplifting and enlightening. Sorry, but BDSM is not always all about sex for every kinkster and that is not a bad thing, actually the opposite to Me - it's enlightening to experience more to such an intricate activity as BDSM - by associating it only with sex is so limiting - there's much more to it for many!

_____________________________

Truly, Lady T.

Lady Tatiana Tantalize
Atlanta's Sadistic Southern Belle, Crossdressing Consultant, Punk-Rock Party Girl and Wicked SugarPuss
http://www.ladytantalize.net

"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages."
-Tennessee William

(in reply to MichMasochist)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/7/2006 10:22:49 AM   
LadyTantalize


Posts: 242
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

After reading your reply, LadyTantalize, I'd say we actually have the same criteria for why we do SM -- for ourselves first and foremost.

That's what I wasn't understanding. Why was my description of what I do "service" as opposed to BDSM sadism or sadism if you prefer (though I have known enough people who misunderstand BDSM to be careful about clarifing what I do as opposed to what a clincial sadist does. I've learned that just saying "I'm a sadist" can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings.)

The word sadist has several meanings and the OP wasn't specific about what he meant by it in my opinion. Thus we had murders and rapists and all sorts of people being listed off as examples of women sadists.



Well, then we are both sadists of a different variety or the same - not sure anymore. *smiles*

Yes, I do it for myself first and foremost, but in some ways I think I have no choice. Granted, we all make choices. Yet, much like being born homosexual or with red hair, I do feel I was born this way, so learning that I was not a sicko and that I had a conscience, and to accept and properly channel my sadism has what has kept me sane!

Sadism is sadism to me, the lack of conscience while inacting it makes it criminal, in my opinion. Some are born sadistic then with a lack of proper bonding and nuturing, or a break in the psyche due to a traumatic event, or due to abuse and neglect they develop no conscience, others born sadistic but are shown love and compassion in their infancy and youth, and they evolve into "BDSM sadists" as you call them, or "consensual sadists", etc. , etc., while many still might retain some degree of inner turmoil over their sadistic streak and engage in nefarious yet legal methods of exacting it through vicarious means as case in point, many of the problematic types who find BDSM and use it maliciously. Yes, there are MANY variations but it's still variations of the same base. My original response was in seeing you say that basic sadism was different. I still think sadism is sadism, it is just channeled, resourced, and used in different manners hence creating the difference between clinical/criminal and BDSM types. To Me, clinical and criminal sadism involve psychopathy and a lack of conscience. "BDSM sadism" has compassion but can still be exacted with little mercy and thought for the pleasure of the receipient. But when you say that the ONLY time you engage in it is when another gets pleasure out of it, and insinuate that ALL other forms involving no pleasure for the subject are "clinical", I disagreed. There are times when sadism is exerted, still done with compassion, but with possibly less mercy, little thought of the pleasure of another -whatever way they are garnering it, and more intent for the Sadist's pleasure. (If that makes sense!)

Let's just say that I learned of the term at a very early age and have even engaged in therapy at various points in my life due to my proclivities, so I am quite familiar with being acknowledged as a sadist and all that the term implies. I too have learned that misunderstandings and even mis-labeling and negative connotations can arise from declaring oneself a sadist. Hell, I think I denied Mine for quite some time. But it's what I am, therefore I do tend to expound and qualify extensively in My descriptions of myself to others ("empathetic sadist, "compassionate sadist", "loving sadist") in order to dispell the myths and societal views of the term. I can scene on MANY levels and can gain pleasure from a variety of intensity from light fetish play to extreme scenes. But I do NOT want to misrepresent myself at all to anyone in that my sadism can be very intense if I allow it, and possibly will involve NO pleasure for the subject. I am very careful in my negotiations for "extreme sadistic play" and I do not "unleash the beast" unless I know the partner involved can handle that degree of sadistic intensity where there may be NO pleasure for them and they agree to consent to such.

I don't think I misunderstand BDSM. Granted I sometimes see things differently but I find often hear from others who see those sides as well - so I know I am not alone. But I do keep My mind open to learning and understanding more every day. I don't profess to having it all figured out, by any means.

And back to the original OP - yes, it's hard to ascertain the motivation unless we are in their shoes. Some on the various lists do not qualify at all, in my opinion, while others do even if their sadism is carried out vicariously. Many on the list were merely evil and cruel or were motivated by greed or power while others seemingly were motivated by sexual sadism such as Homolka. Bathory is a question here as her motivation was eternal youth, as is LaLaurie since she was a "professional". We can only guess as to their motivation but they were worth adding to the list, I think.

Again, what a stimulating conversation and I do appreciate being able to come at things from varying points of view while maintaing diplomacy and respect - sometimes that's rare on message boards, so I thank you!



_____________________________

Truly, Lady T.

Lady Tatiana Tantalize
Atlanta's Sadistic Southern Belle, Crossdressing Consultant, Punk-Rock Party Girl and Wicked SugarPuss
http://www.ladytantalize.net

"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages."
-Tennessee William

(in reply to thetammyjo)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/7/2006 10:55:22 AM   
thetammyjo


Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyTantalize


But when you say that the ONLY time you engage in it is when another gets pleasure out of it, and insinuate that ALL other forms involving no pleasure for the subject are "clinical", I disagreed. There are times when sadism is exerted, still done with compassion, but with possibly less mercy, little thought of the pleasure of another -whatever way they are garnering it, and more intent for the Sadist's pleasure. (If that makes sense!)




I didn't make myself clear then.

I do it when my partner consents -- my current slave gets no pleasure from pain or SM -- his pleasure comes from pleasing me. Consent here can be implied by his merely continuing to be my slave or as I say "there's the door, he knows how to use it and if free to do so". I don't, for example, ask him or even tell him before I slap him or grab him by the hair -- I just do it cause I want to. (Caveat -- if his glasses are on, I do tell him to remove them before I slap him)

I thought I defined clincial as being uncaring about the other person -- the motivation is negative not positive, the target is a simply a target not a person, not a submissive, not a slave.

For me consent (and yes, I have a specific way I judge this for myself) is one of the defining differences. Motivation is the other difference.

It is, as you said, a matter of choice and a matter of our nature. Isn't this true for all things in life? A combination of choice and innate ability or desire?

I can chose to do SM because I've been lucky enough to find information and others who feel this way. I chose to value other people enough to have consent and want it to be a positive experience. A clincial sadist doesn't want consent, doesn't care about the positive for anyone but him/herself -- choice? that's a legal/psychological issue that is debated. (I personally feel that feelings and desires are not choices; actions should be and if they aren't then that might warrent some self-reflection to learn more)

Please note that positive is not the same as pleasureable -- many things in life are difficult, are painful, are bloody well things we might never want to experience but they are positive for us and make us better individuals. I'd just hope that in a flogging session the positive might be more immediately noticeable than years down the line.

For example, I almost always say "good boy" to Fox after I've used him for my sadistic desires -- he says that makes him feel very very good. Another person might not want to hear that, they might want to be just shoved aside but I'm betting that inside being shoved aside or called some name is a positive thing for them. Each person is different.

This is all about me. I'm not better than anyone else but I do try to be the best me that I can be.

_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to LadyTantalize)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/7/2006 11:25:43 AM   
LadyTantalize


Posts: 242
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Unameme

So Do you think its Supply an Demand ?
Dom Females are in Demand an willing males are in Vast Supply ?

If willing males weren't in Vast Supply do you think
'Sadistic Females would then revert to the
Modus Operandi of Males of 'FORCED SUBMISSION'
Is Sadism different between Men and Woman then ?

I think it is, or is it ?

This is a Murky subject,

in love an peace Bluesmate


Great point about Supply and Demand; possibly very true!

I think possibly sadism can be different in men than in women - then again this dicussion has proven that sadism can very from individual to individual. But I do think that in women, sadism might "manifest" itself differently; as one poster mentioned, women tend to utilize their natural abilities of seduction more so and as opposed to the overt violence as seen coming from some males.

Truly a murky subject but a fascinating one. And thank you for creating the post!!


_____________________________

Truly, Lady T.

Lady Tatiana Tantalize
Atlanta's Sadistic Southern Belle, Crossdressing Consultant, Punk-Rock Party Girl and Wicked SugarPuss
http://www.ladytantalize.net

"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages."
-Tennessee William

(in reply to Unameme)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/10/2006 9:24:37 AM   
boy43


Posts: 44
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline
La Quintrala.

Catalina de los Ríos y Lisperguer, who is better known as “ la Quintrala” was born in Santiago around 1604, and died in 1665. Her parents were Gonzalo de los Ríos y Encío, and Catalina Lisperguer y Flores, naturals from Santiago. Her ancestors from both sides reached the “Conquista ” (colonization), amongst them Bartolomé Flores, who married the daughter of the chief<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

of Talagante, doña Elvira, great-grandmother of the Quintrala.


To comprehend the actions of why Catalina de los Ríos became part of the Chilean history, one must consider her upbringing, specially the personality of her mother and aunt, sisters Catalina and María Lisperguer respectfully. Furthermore, they were accused of trying to poison the governor Alonso de Ribera (1604), fact that apparently happened because Maria despised the marriage of Ribera with Beatriz de Córdoba. Sentenced to prison, Maria received sanctuary from Agustin priests, while Catalina was hidden, first by the Dominicans, and later on by the “Mercedarios”.

The ecclesiastic immunity and the powerful family and social connections of the sisters left the accusation without any effect. María, who was considered a witch and sorceress, married Juan de Añasco with whom she moved to Lima. Nothing else is known from her.


The destiny of her mother


Catalina Lipserguer married Gonzalo de los Ríos, rich inheritor of lands in la Ligua and Longotoma. It seems that after little married time, Catalina murdered a natural daughter of Gonzalo. About this subject, the Bishop Francisco González de Salcedo told the Consejo de Indias in 1633: "It was this madam Catalina cruel woman, because she killed with whippings a daughter of her husband, and likewise she murdered and Indian who supplied the herbs with which she desired to poison the water of the bottle from which the governor drank”. Catalina Lisperguer y Flores had two daughters: Águeda – married to the ambassador of Lima, Blas de Torres Altamirano - and Catalina.

The death of her father

La Ouintrala went down in history accused of having murdered her father with a poisoned chiken she offered him when he was ill, around 1622. The accusation made by her parental aunt never reached the courts, perhaps the family relations with the government had some effect on this. The impetuous and surprising personality of Catalina has been asossiated with a serious of crimes commited thoughout her life. She had been the murder of a Gentleman from la Orden de Malta, whom she invited to her bed where she killed him. Nonetheless, the responsibility of the crime was blamed on one of her slaves, who were hung in the “plaza” of Santiago. In another occasion as bishop Salcedo stated in his record: "She wanted to kill don Juan de la Fuente Loarte, headmaster of this holy Church and general vicar of this sanctuary, running after him with a knife because he had tried to put an end to her promiscuous actions”, which would have happened between 1625 and 1626, when Catalina was 23 or 24 years old.

Her marriage

As her grandmother’s wishes, who became her guardian since her parent’s death, Catalina married (on September of 1626) the gentleman and soldier Alonso Campofrío Carvajal, of little wealth. The bride took to her marriage a dote of 45.349 pesos, a large sum of money for the time. In 1643, Campofrío was chosen Mayor of Santiago replacing Juan Rodolfo Lisperguer y Solórzano, cousin of his wife fact, which shows the influence of the family.
After the marriage, the couple moved to the farmhouse of La Ligua. According to the historiographer Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna, the husband was no stranger to the malevolent actions of his wife, obtaining the better part as her accomplice. Alonso and Catalina had the vicar of the region assassinated, by a slave and cousin to Catalina, who curiously was religious.
The Campofrío de los Ríos couple had a son named like his father, but the child passed away at the age of 10. His father died around 1650, leaving Catalina a widow.

Owner

Catalina de los Ríos inherited the rich valleys of Longotoma and La Ligua, to which she added in 1615 vast lands from the department of Petorca, and others in San Juan de Cuyo on the other side of the Andes.
Since 1638 she enjoyed the distribution of Codegua Indian land, that had belonged to her sister, Agueda. It is supposed that Catalina, rich and ambitious ran personally the activities of her properties, mounted on hose back where she loved living with her husband since the town was hateful. According to tradition, in the farm of La Ligua was where she flogged and killed the Natives who worked for her and her slaves, with no mercy toward her victims.
As the legend goes, thanks to the contact Catalina de los Ríos had with her female slaves, they introduced her to the knowledge of black magic and other practices of the sort. The same thing would have happened to her mother, Catalina Lisperguer y Flores.


Other crimes

Towards 1634, Bishop Salcedo asked for an investigation of all 105 bloody events occurred in La Ligua, but it took 30 years to Justice to investigate and inform on these accusations. In fact, the Real Audiencia (Royal Audience) commissioned Francisco Millán to secretive constitute in La Ligua to hear claims of victims without the participation of Catalina, her nephew or her steward.

Having found proofs of the truth of the accusations, Judge Juan de la Peña Salazar moved to the farm and captured Catalina and took her to Santiago to bring her to Criminal Trial. This was not exempt of her names influence and her family relations to the judges, who in term favored the cause of the accused who in total had been charged for more than 40 crimes, as derived from the accusations. Catalina is used to commit such wrongdoing as accounted for in long proven criminal Causes pending in the Real Audiencia. Forty deaths are proven with signs of lashing and burning of her servants. Catalina had a Public record of crimes committed her whole lifelong against free people as Indians and other servants....".


Her death: Remorseful?

On May 10th. Catalina made her Will. All his fortune was donated to her soul so as to be rescued from Purgatory. She ordered too, twenty thousands masses against 20.000 pesos. After her burial other thousands masses should be officiated and 500 more for the soul of the Indians that had died because of her bad treatments.


Through other dispositions she favored some family members and close friends. Finally she donated 6.000 pesos to the Lord of Agony or Christ of May to continue with the Expiation Procession on each 13th. of May, when the Earthquake of same date was remembered. Her funeral was made with great Pomp that included 1000 candles for the Church. Dressed with Saint Augustine clothes, she was buried in that Orders Temple


(in reply to Unameme)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? - 2/13/2006 8:33:37 AM   
LadyTantalize


Posts: 242
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline

Another example!!


I've another example also.... I just finished reading a true crime book called "Rope Burns" which tells of Michelle Michaud. Again another example of "sadistic partners" but from my ascertation, Michelle definitely was NOT the victim but truly a sadistic perpretator.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/partners/team_two/5.html

_____________________________

Truly, Lady T.

Lady Tatiana Tantalize
Atlanta's Sadistic Southern Belle, Crossdressing Consultant, Punk-Rock Party Girl and Wicked SugarPuss
http://www.ladytantalize.net

"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages."
-Tennessee William

(in reply to boy43)
Profile   Post #: 56
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Woman Sadists throughout History ? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094