Tags
OK … I’ve put this off long enough.
I abhor labels, I really do. I understand the need for diagnosis but in this case it *can* be just another label …
In simple terms, a sadist is someone who finds sexual gratification in the fantasy, and yes, even in the reality of inflicting pain on another person. This can be emotional pain, often in the form of humiliation and degradation, or it can be physical pain in the form of spanking, for example. A sadist can also find pleasure in simply asserting control over another.
An ethical sadist is a sadist who does these things only with a willing partner, there is no victim.
It’s important to remember that when I speak of sadism, I am speaking only of sexual sadism in which the sadist himself has no comorbid personality disorder(s). E suggested that perhaps I should explain “what sadism *isn’t*” and after a lot of thought I’ve concluded the following:
What sadism isn’t would depend upon the individual sadist to a huge degree. We’ve all seen accounts of serial criminals – often rapists and murderers the FBI has labeled, *sadistic.* Whereas this is, or can be, a valid diagnosis/analysis, it cannot be applied to everyone who wears the title, Sadist. The criminally sadistic have comorbid personality disorders that accompany and exacerbate their sexual predilections, a sexual sadist does not.
Some of us (sadists and masochists) did not come hard-wired with a desire to engage in sex as it is depicted in a romantic movie; tender and soft and romantically ideal. I have no innate understanding of how vanilla sex can be gratifying emotionally, physically, or spiritually …
But I don’t think those who practice it are criminal or insane … or both!
I can accept that a lot of perfectly *normal* people find fulfillment and gratification in sexual love that is expressed in vanilla terms.
But given my choice in partner, I’ll take the sadist – as long as he’s Ethical.
Uniquely Libby 
Libby,
I think that the media often does not make the distinction, and this leads to confusion. If you asked me a year ago what a sadist was, I would not have know that there are different types, or that it wasn’t necessarily a negative quality to have. You continue to educate me, and I’m eternally grateful.
I have to tell you though, I do want the romance that is depicted in movies and books. I want that, and I want my man to be strong and capable, and not too soft or too tender, but yes a little bit. I want him to “handle” me, in many ways. I want him to own me, and correct me, and never back down from his high standards for me. And after he corrects me, I want him to send me flowers and notes and snuggle with me by the fire. I guess I want it all!
I think that we want similar things, but for me, I need it to be “pretty” in some ways. Is that what makes DD different I wonder? We want it firm, but pretty? Just thinking out loud.
You’re keeping me busy tonight!
Hugs,
E
PS Labels have their value, IMHO, but they never tell the whole story. And like the Carl Jung Test that shows labels in combination, alone they do not give a complete picture. Yes, I agree, even in combination there are always other “elements”, so there is rarely a complete picture. But labels can be a start. Right?
Hi E,
Labels have their place; they give us direction for resolution and problem solving, they bind us to a group of like-minded people so we may form communities and get the support we need, and they can give us a sense of *having found the answer* …
But labels can also mislead and misinform and, as you pointed out, they don’t paint a whole picture because they don’t consider an individual – only a group of people who can be identified by aspects of a particular paradigm.
I have always been unique – very little about me can be explained by an established set of guidelines or rubric; this is part of my distaste for labels – it’s personal.
Regarding Typology: Kate says a person may have one or two characteristics from a closely related type – such as INTJ and INTP, but anything else would feel unnatural as it wouldn’t fit in with the whole …
A cute aside … if you wiki Sheldon Cooper, he is defined as an extreme INTJ! This made me laugh and laugh …
I identify more with Albus Dumbledore!
Hugs,
L