Noah
Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BayouSub
Noah, I agree with you that words can have different meanings. However, the meaning of an english word is what is generally accepted by English speakers.
If you believe that words, including sadist and masochist, have multiple meanings, why is the entire rest of your post put in terms of "the" meaning?
It can't be generally true that: "the meaning of an english word is what is generally accepted by English speakers." Why not? Consider the word "gay" It was once generally taken to refer to a mood. Then it took on another meaning which was very clearly not generally accepted by English speakers. It already had its new meaning long before it was generally accepted. If it hadn't already had its new meaning then the new meaning never could have been generally accepted. Do you see?
If general acceptance is a requirement before a word can have meaning then English must be absolutely static, the meanings of words can never evolve or otherwise change. This isn't the case.
Your theory of meaning also fails in other respects. Here is an example of one.
Let's say we do a very careful scientific poll and discover that people generally, when asked what "carburetor" means, respond with: "some part of an engine". Would this mean that the subset of English speakers who understand the function and operation of carburetors are wrong in thinking that word means something much more specific than "a part of an engine"? No.
General Acceptance is an important idea but in itself a terribly flawed criterion for meaning.
quote:
My post was in response to MstressPassion who stated (discussing Havelock Ellis):
quote:
The sadist is concerned with the sexual pleasure of their "victim" & they do not wish to exclude their pleasure & many sadists regard that pleasure as essential to his/her own satisfaction.
If we accept this, then the definition of sadism would include ...
Look. You're already off the rails here regardless of how you finish this sentence. As you very briefly acknowleged above, words have multiple meanings. There is no "the" definition of "sadist" unless you want to specify that you are only now talking about one among several currently or previously in use, and to give an account of which sense you have in mind.
quote:
...a person who wants to give their victim sexual pleasure. Do you think that English speakers generally think that a sadist is interested in giving his/her victims pleasure?
Like you, I can only guess what "English speakers generally think." If I told ten people taken at random at a swingers convention that Mr. A is into S&M, and, more specifically he's the Sadist, not the Masochist when he engages in S&M, would you really be surprised if they tended to envision Mr. A as a guy into consensual kinky sex rather than as someone who deserves to be diagnosed as mentally ill, as your preferred definition would hold?
quote:
In fact, being concerned with a victim's pleasure seems to be the opposite of sadism as I understand it.
Right. And I thought the point of your participation in this thread was to advance your understanding of Sadism and Masochism and the ways in which they may encounter one another. Instead you seem doggedly determined to hold on to your present understanding--however limited or incomplete that may be--and to impose definitions on terms so as to suit your understanding rather than so as to accomodate the uses to which people commonly (though not necessarily generally) and effectively put the words.
quote:
LuckyAlbatross:
quote:
Reposted:
I happen to think actual sadism is incompatible with actual masochism. A sadist wants the other person to feel PAIN, not pleasure. A masochist feels pain AS pleasure.
Fluffy sadists however, who want the other person to enjoy the pain, works perfect with a masochist.
I think we are on the same page. You use "fluffy sadists" and I think I would use "quasi sadists" because what they do resembles sadism on the surface but, in reality, is not sadism.
It seems useful to think in terms of a sadist enjoying the pain of another person, masochist or otherwise. But why should this exclude that party's pleasure?
Have you never been both happy and sad? Optimistic but wracked with trepidation? People are complex creatures. Pain and pleasure are not polar opposites, one black and the otyher white. Many fitness buffs take pleasure in "feeling the burn" which they will describe as not pleasureable in itself. That is that they would not take plasure in "the burn" if it suddenly and inexplicably came over every muscle in their body during a nice relaxing dinner. The context is important, the meaning is important.
I suggest that if you relax your requirement to have a single ("the") definition of "Sadist" and of "Masochist" then your understanding of what these words point to will advance more readily. Furthermore, if you abandon the implicit notion that pain and pleasure (as well as sadism and masochism) are radically incompatible polar opposites with no overlap nor any complexity in their interactions, I think your understanding will advance further still.
< Message edited by Noah -- 12/27/2007 8:57:36 PM >
|
RE: Question for the Sadists out there? - 
Profile
RE: Question for the Sadists out there? - 
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