quote:

ORIGINAL: myotherself

Here's an example. I once had a conversation with a sadistic partner. We'd had a pretty heavy session, and I was bruised from neck to knees. This is a potted version of the conversation:

Me: "why do you enjoy beating me, bruising me and making me cry and beg?"
Him: "because it gets me hard"
Me: "ok, but does that mean you don't love me?"
Him: "quite the opposite - I only do it because I love you. I know you enjoy this, I know you are enduring serious pain for me, and that makes me love you more"
Me: "so what are you thinking about while you're doing this?"
Him: "fucking you"
Me: "and what are you thinking about while you're fucking me?"
Him: "how much I love you"


So...no objectification, disconnect or detachment there!

quote:

One aspect of my own sexual sadism is the masochists' consensual sacrifice. When I know that what I am doing for my pleasure causes pain to my partner, it becomes a measure and expression of their love and passion to suffer for my pleasure. This “love” warms my heart and fuels my passion to greater heights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Here's an attempt at a rewrite that certainly will disappoint:



Sexual sadistic objectification, I think, represents a fundamental reversal of the standard objectification of the sexual partner. This standard objectification, in its modern form, entails using the sexual partner as a purely physical device from which to dissociate while mentally projecting one's living fantasies, whether of other women, men, or something else altogether. In this sense, sex merely extends masturbation from a solo act to a mutually solipsistic activity for two or more disconnected partners. (In modern times, this disconnection is then reinstantiated in the distance of the condom's thickness.) You masturbate inside of him or her, and this you call sex.

The objectification enacted by the sadist occurs much more ambiguously. In one sense, the sadist's joy demands that only he or she can resolve the tension he or she imposes. One might argue, then, that this form of objectification exceeds that of the standard sexual mode, that is, if we immediately relate objectification to one's position in relative power structures. We can also argue whether the sadist is unique in consciously addressing his or her partner as an object. Yet we miss here the crucial point, namely, that the sadist quite essentially produces his partner's failure as an object. That is to say, straightforwardly, that the sadist establishes his or her partner as an impossible object, or, rather, as not an object at all. In the case of heterosexual sadistic men, we arrive at what appears a rather unlikely and unexpected solution, the sadistic male suddenly representing an almost uncanny feminism where one would immediately expect the opposite, the most derivative misogyny.

What is more, the state of mind that the sadist attempts to manifest in the opposite sexual partner more often than not represents an engagement of his or her own state of mind displaced over time. So whereas the partner in the standard sexual mode serves as a sort of empty symbolic conduit through which to pursue strictly external fantasy coordinates, (just as money serves as an empty conduit through which to activate labor value), the submissive partner in the sadomasochistic mode becomes the endpoint itself, the ultimate object Herself, that is to say, the mutual simultaneous means and ends for engaging the humanity of one's experience in its extremities, in the emotional force of impossibly boundless human will facing impossible predicament.

The preceding analysis neglects to demonstrate that sadistic and standard objectification potentially represent two sides of the same coin, that is, two polarized effects of the same market society. We could proceed in arguing that the sadist's prototypical idea of the 'sex slave' is the exact opposite of an arguably more normative form, the prostitute, the other side of the same problem of value's representation. The sex slave is privately owned forever, while the prostitute is publicly for sale but just for the moment.

We see also that the sexual slave and the traditional wife bear a certain resemblance, the same permanence, as if the latter is simply a 'domesticated' form of the former.

Likewise, the prostitute exists as a gross extension of a bachelors' more notorious escapades, replacing women weekend after weekend. Again, the analogy with material goods holds up -- until you're ready to buy, it's best to rent.




I'm not anti-love. Although I've been toying with the idea (short circuit, eh?) that love proper does not exist, because existence should be relegated to 'stupid things' like chairs, tables, and that people transcend these things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist

When I saw the OP using some correct terms and concepts, it seemed like the point/counterpoint was going to be about objectification . . . then the train of thought seemed to get derailed.

If objectification was the point, then it is correct that not all sexual sadists objectify their consensual partners all the time. In fact, identifying with the masochist and humanizing them helps the empathy, the connection to their suffering. Heartless torture is dispassionate and more an extension and expression of domination than of sadism.

One aspect of my own sexual sadism is the masochists' consensual sacrifice. When I know that what I am doing for my pleasure causes pain to my partner, it becomes a measure and expression of their love and passion to suffer for my pleasure. This “love” warms my heart and fuels my passion to greater heights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: reynardfox

Boy, you need to make someone squeal more and think less.
The only reading you need to do is to analyse the damp patches on someone's panties, right before you rip them off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
But I also am quite aware how unsuccessful marriages tend to be, this observation only strengthening my indictment, if that's indeed what it is. I might suggest otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP


And why you think all vanilla men objectify the women they are having sex with mystifies me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
But I also am quite aware how unsuccessful marriages tend to be, this observation only strengthening my indictment, if that's indeed what it is. I might suggest otherwise.

Oh my god. Let me get this straight. You feel that marriages are "unsuccessful"?? I guess that would depend on how you judge "success", but what I can guarantee you is that MY marriage is quite successful thank you very much.reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: myotherself

Me: "and what are you thinking about while you're fucking me?"
Him: "how much I love you"


So...no objectification, disconnect or detachment there!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenixpower

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
But I also am quite aware how unsuccessful marriages tend to be, this observation only strengthening my indictment, if that's indeed what it is. I might suggest otherwise.

Oh my god. Let me get this straight. You feel that marriages are "unsuccessful"?? I guess that would depend on how you judge "success", but what I can guarantee you is that MY marriage is quite successful thank you very much.reality.

Furthermore it also depends on your own circle of people you know because whilst you can't (thankfully) influence others people marriage, I consider myself lucky that in the friendships my parents have (so the adults I was surrounded with as a kid) only had 2 split ups (and I can tell you, they know a heck of a lot of couples)...also in my personal life I only know 3 who are seperated...so I can't agree to "marriages are unsuccessful" and judge this as either being judgemental or bitter from your side.

Marriage takes work at times to keep it going and not all days are rosy and nice...however, does not mean that they have the tendency to be unsuccessful....thank goodness I don't feel that way about society...

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

Actually Phoenix, I was thinking in broader statistical terms. As I understand it, 50% of marriages end in divorce. That means that the other 50% do not result in divorce and extend to the lifetime of the participants. Let's remember two things:

a) When "till death do us part" was first written, the average lifespan was significantly shorter than it is now.
b) When "till death do us part" was first written, there were huge pressures to build and maintain a family structure... it was critical to survival in most cases.

So in a day and age when the structure is required to last maybe twice as long as it originally did and the outside pressure to make it succeed is dramatically reduced, it still works 50% of the time? I actually think of that as pretty damned good. So sue me.... I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

These sites and respective fora are all over the map. I am from back in the day when D/s was all about inspiring sexual submission...real time or there simply wasn't any...of either. We couldn't wear our desires and fetishes on our digital sleeves like we do on the net.

Same was true for sadism in that one uses deSade as an example and of course...we must. Sadism for deSade was...all about the sex yet I see many on the net now proclaim no...it too is about the mind and the pain...not the sex.

Almost all of this kinkroids is almost all about the sex. The pleasure is two fold, the pleasure of liberating agonies in the charity of my pain and...the sex.

As for the psychology of the sadist. He's out to eat and beat...for the meat. There need be no other issues except that it is all about...a pleasure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist

“fundamental reversal of the standard objectification of the sexual partner”

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

This pretty much reflects my thinking.

I don't think that vanilla sex so unconnected as is projected in the OP and I also, not all sexual sadists have the same degree of connectedness with their partners.

The key word is empathy. Empathy creates the connectedness. Empathy is what a sadist uses as the feedback loop from their partner and what gives them pleasure.

- LA

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957

~Fast Reply~
This thread is interesting to me, although i am neither a Sadist nor a masochist. But can someone, anyone, explain to me why a Sadist would enjoy inflicting pain on a non-masochist? i had Someone tell me at the last minute (a few hours before meeting Him in person) that He was Sadistic, and does that to all His s-types, whether they are masochists or not. i would really like to know why Some like that. Is it because non-masochists might scream and cry louder, or what? i'm not trying to be snotty or bitchy here, i honestly really want to know, and i'm hoping someone can enlighten me.....

~sweetsub~

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP


And why you think all vanilla men objectify the women they are having sex with mystifies me.

I think he's trying to convince himself and everyone else that all men have Narcissistic Personality Disorder and therefore he is normal and doesn't have a problem. Either that or the OP started this thread as a huge joke.