|
Aswad -> RE: Sadism vs. Violence (8/27/2010 9:06:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EastbourneCouple
I would say I am a sadist rather than just into pain play. Sadism is more than just infliction of pain - I will happily caused immense pain to consenting others, to the point where they cannot take any more but also verbally abuse them, degrade them and humiliate them. I have no limits other than those agreed between the consenting people.
An interesting question is, if you set aside discipline and/or morality, would you- at your core- appreciate going past the point where they cannot take any more, or inflicting your various forms of sadism on a non-consenting human being? That is a point which tells the "three faces of sadism" apart. The first 'face' is that activities where mutual desire and/or mutual satisfaction is a prerequisite to enjoyment. The second 'face' is the one where the activities are focal, and the feelings of the other party are secondary or irrelevant. The third 'face' is the one where the feelings of the other party are paramount, but where mutual desire/satisfaction is irrelevant or undesireable. If this third category occurs without attention to consent, or with significantly impaired functioning as a result, it is held to be pathological.
Personally, I fit all three categories, and I have no problem with that. I am not governed by my impulses, nor do I feel that they are threatening in any way. This was not always so. I did, for a time, distrust this side of myself, and kept it at a distance with various deflections and unnecessary mental scaffolding. Once I realized I only need to trust myself, I had no problem acknowledging and fully integrating this side of me. The third 'face', what one might call benign clinical sadism, is really no different than wanting something nice at the store that I can't afford: I could take it, but I won't. As I once put it, the monsters in the closet aren't scary with the lights on.
Prior to that realization, though, I was reluctant to mentally probe its extent, and it was difficult to set aside automatic moral objections and the human desire to see oneself in a particular way in order to honestly consider the hard questions: would you enjoy it without any consent, and would you enjoy going past what someone can take? For me, I eventually realized the answer to both was 'yes', and that this wouldn't change anything, other than that I would know myself a bit better for having dug around in the closet.
I have never been a pacifist, though, so I can't answer how that might affect the process of introspection, or how it might be relevant to the outcome. I do respect a pacifist who adheres to their espoused beliefs, but I do not understand the underlying mindset behind the stance of pacifism on a level that might allow me to empathize with it. This has not prevented me from seeking non-violent solutions to many situations I have been in where violence has been an option.
Violence is not a preferred tool for me, but it's still in my toolbox. Indeed, I have found that my acceptance of the nature and place of violence has made me avoid it in many situations where many of my peers with a... shall we say... less violent view of violence, would choose a violent course of action. I do not see violence as a way to subdue, intimidate, humiliate, or many of the other things it is used for on a daily basis. I see it as my commitment to end you without regard for the price paid to do so, where the generic 'you' can be a person, a threat, or a situation. Unless I am willing to make that commitment towards that end, then violence is just not an appropriate response for me.
I like to think that is the realistic middle road with regard to violence. As a pacifist, I must of course assume that you will disagree, and that is fine with me. I'm just framing myself to give you a better idea of where my take on your question is coming from, so that you can better judge my replies according to your own views. I do, however, encourage reflection on your reasons for choosing pacifism, and whether it might be the right answer to the wrong question, without meaning to imply that such is the case.
quote:
Your "alternative" option certainly intrigues me - my personality is certainly very different from my parents and even my sisters. I am very liberal whereas they are very conservative. I am not sure exactly why I have ended up so different from them, but always have been the black sheep of the family.
Inversions and reversals are fairly common. Take religion, for example. It is not uncommon to find strictly religious grandparents that have strictly atheist kids who, in turn, are the parents of religious children. It is usually a sign that one generation has been too strongly biased in one direction, prompting the pendulum to swing the other way in the offspring because the offspring will- during the formative years- lack another axis to evaluate along. That is a classic case of the right answer to the wrong question: the offspring observes a problem, but lacks the context to ask the right question, and thus assumes that the opposite solution must be the right one. Not really a conscious process, of course, but a pretty common chain of cause and effect nonetheless.
My parents have been pretty balanced overall, and I have not found very many areas where I am in significant disagreement with them, at least with regard to any questions that have had any bearing on my rearing and formative years. I never rebelled, because there was never anything to rebel about without becoming distinctly unreasonable in my own eyes. Preferences have diverged significantly on lots of points over the years, but relations have always been good.
Either way, it's well worth looking into what inherited social mores might or might not interfere with accurate introspection. Most of us will have plenty, and I am going to guess we all have at least some, though we can identify them, evaluate them, and unlearn them if we find them not to be to our liking for whatever reason.
quote:
I wasn't so much interested in defining "violence", but more making the point that people don't understand the fact that someone can be a pacifist but also enjoy being a sadist.
Seems perfectly logical for the two to coexist, whether in causal relation or independently of each other.
Why sadism is sometimes associated with violence, is another matter entirely.
Still understandable, but on a human level, not a rational one.
Health,
al-Aswad.
P.S.: For defining the word 'violence', it could be qualitatively pegged by a shameless plug for a Danish move (Armadillo; link to trailer, cf. picture) that has its premiére date today. Made off with an award at Cannes just now. It was made by a journalist with the balls to be on the front lines with the Danish advance troops in Afghanistan for weeks at a time with a bulletproof vest and a camera. The trailer is not as strong as the movie itself, but still gives a good idea of what it is to live with violence, adapted for a public audience without being redacted in the process. Many veterans of that campaign are taking their family and friends to see this movie to give them the closest thing they will come to experiencing what said vets have lived through, and thus understanding better what they can't put into words. In that sense, it pegs the qualitative aspect of what violence connotes, and we can leave out etymologies to focus on questions of quantity, reasons, and how obviously violence is distinct from what most of us know as sadism.
[image]local://upfiles/413868/C6259E08829B48468DFBDF736AE1D72B.jpg[/image]
Chances are your sub doesn't look like that after a spanking.
|
|
|
|
