The Ultimate Guide to Kink (38 page)

—OVID
¹

In the eyes of the poet, the psychological shame of the girls made them more attractive and maybe even sexually aroused the onlookers. Unmistakably, when the girl struggled knowing she was going to have sex, possibly forcible sex, her captor was still happy. It is safe to say sex has been around a long time. Is it inconceivable that sexual gratification from the suffering of others has been around just as long?

The behavior that we know today as sadism has been around for thousands of years, but there wasn’t a name for it until recently. Could it be that this was just normal, accepted behavior for the times? And how did this behavior, along with all the evil circumstance that ill-informed people associate with it, come to be known as sadism?

The vast majority of people in the BDSM community probably disagree with the definition of sadism as put forth in the medical literature. I will attempt to shed a favorable light on this subject by explaining the changes associated with the medical definition of sadism. It is my hope that you will agree, as evidenced by these changes, that it is no longer an evil sexual practice but can be an accepted sexual behavior.

Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902), a German-Austrian psychiatrist, adopted the term
sadism
for professional use in 1898; however, he first discussed the sexual nature of sadistic experiences in 1886, in
Psychopathia Sexualis
:

The experience of sexual, pleasurable sensations (including orgasm) produced by acts of cruelty, bodily punishment afflicted on one’s person or when witnessed in others, be they animals or human beings. It may also consist of an innate desire to humiliate, hurt, wound or even destroy others in order, thereby, to create sexual pleasure in ones self.
²

By using the adjective
innate
, Krafft-Ebing shows he firmly believes one can be born a Sadist. I completely agree with this possibility; I often say I am just wired this way. Later definitions of sadistic behaviors put forth by the psychology community did not include Krafft-Ebing’s original assertion that Sadists could derive sexual pleasure from watching others receiving acts of cruelty or bodily punishment.
³
This is especially important to me because I do become sexually aroused when watching a
scene
in which the bottom is suffering. Yet, I do not derive sexual pleasure while watching a fistfight or poking my patients with needles for blood draws.

Krafft-Ebing used the term
sadism
to describe a set of sexual behaviors, specifically the behaviors practiced and written about by the Marquis de Sade, a renowned French author who lived from 1740 to 1814. It is obvious the word
sadism
is derived from the name of de Sade himself as well as the French word
sadisme
. S
adisme
appeared in an 1834 French dictionary written by lexicographer Pierre-Claude-Victor Boiste. Krafft-Ebing’s original definition did not differentiate between consensual or nonconsensual acts. One can argue that his definition addresses nonconsensual behavior, as this is what the Marquis de Sade wrote about. The marquis’s works included graphic descriptions of acts in which the “victim” (I put this in quotes because today we call them bottoms) was made to suffer, feel pain, and be humiliated, which resulted in the sexual gratification of the aggressor. For example:

He bleeds both of her arms and would have her remain standing while her blood flows; now and again he stops the bleeding and flogs her, then he opens the wounds again, and this continues until she collapses. He only discharges when she faints.
⁴

She raises a storm, criticizing their behavior toward her and describing it as unjust.
“‘Were it just,’ says the Duc, wiping his razor, ‘it would surely fail to give us an erection.’”
⁵

But the darling girl’s pleas were worse than futile, for Dubourg, far from being disgusted by the spectacle of her suffering, actually savored it, delighted in it, thrived on it! Striking her once, twice, a third time, he fell madly on top of her and began nuzzling her bloody mouth.
⁶

You may have heard the term
sexual sadism
. Given the fact that
sadism
was coined to explain a form of sexual gratification, many authorities believe it is redundant to say “sexual sadism,” preferring simply “sadism.”

Not only did the Marquis de Sade write about acts of sexual perversion, he apparently indulged in them. His most famous “victim” was Rose Keller. According to the court in which he was tried for his acts, de Sade picked up Rose Keller and took her to a home in Arcueil where he reportedly bound and flogged her. Due to the lack of physical evidence, it is not known whether de Sade raped her.

Among the numerous reports of his participation in orgies, one well-known account states that he hired four prostitutes to take part in an orgy that included a round of flogging during which everyone was flogged, including de Sade himself and his servant. It was this encounter for which the marquis was arrested for poisoning and sodomy. De Sade was accused of slipping something equivalent to Spanish fly into some aniseed sweets. (Rather than sexually arousing the prostitutes, it made them very sick.)

In 1898, Krafft-Ebing described sadistic behavior in sexual terms:

The quality of sadistic acts is defined by the relative potency of the tainted individual. If potent, the impulse of the sadist is directed to coitus, coupled with preparatory concomitant or consecutive maltreatment .
⁷

Note how he describes the behavior of a sexual act being fueled by the “maltreatment” of another human. You can also see that he believes the amount of discomfort felt by the victim is a direct factor in the degree of sexual gratification.

The term
sadism
originally described a behavior, not a psychological disorder. Subsequently, the psychiatric community attached the classification of
paresthesia
(an abnormal or perverse sexual feeling) to it. In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association changed the classification of sadism from a paresthesia to a
paraphilia
(a recurring sexual fantasy or behavior that involves unusual and especially socially unacceptable sexual practices), which is how it is still classified.
⁸

The behavior associated with sadism has not changed since it was first defined. What has changed is the American Psychiatric Association’s classification and diagnostic criteria for sadism and our view of what is healthy and unhealthy sadism. Today, if the sadism is consensual and not harmful to the person or to others, the association does not consider it to be a paraphilia. It is only labeled a paraphilia when it is deemed unhealthy and causes the person significant distress, and then it is defined as a psychosexual disorder comprising thoughts, sexual fantasies, or acts with nonconsenting persons or objects involving pain or humiliation of oneself or another.
⁹
Even the American Psychiatric Association says you can consent to pain and suffering!

WHAT’S PAIN GOT TO DO WITH IT?

The acronym BDSM is relatively new when compared to behaviors it describes, which date back more than two millennia. Within the BDSM community, the term
sadism
has mutated into something it is not. While we do know the origin of the word and the context in which it was first used, the old definition has become bastardized. Someone once said to me, “I suppose you could argue that it is not sadistic to give someone something they somehow enjoy, but in our world, sadism tends to be more about who is delivering the pain, not about how it is received.” There does not need to be, nor should there be, any modification to the term
sadism
other than adding the word
consensual
. If you do not fit the behavior, don’t change the established definition of a word that describes the behavior to make it fit you. Don’t say you’re a Sadist; just say you are topping someone. While some may complain that they hate labels and definitions, the language we use is important for communication and general understanding.

Now, consider this idea: a masochist is a Sadist’s worst enemy. I say this somewhat tongue in cheek to get people to think about what “painful” sensations are really like for a masochist.

After considering the behaviors encompassed by consensual sadism, it is vital to perceive and interpret the intent of the individual creating the sensations as well as what the bottom actually experiences.

Pain is defined as an unpleasant sensation resulting from physical trauma, disease, or an emotional disorder, suffering, or distress. This suggests that the person who feels pain is not happy about it. For example, undergoing dental work is painful for most of us, though I am sure there are a few people out there who enjoy the sensation of dental work. Note how I changed the word
pain
to
sensation
in that example.

We feel sensations when our senses are stimulated. Thus, sensations are highly individual and idiosyncratic to each of us; they can be interpreted in many ways. Some sensations can be pleasurable while others can be unpleasant. We define pain as an unpleasant sensation; people go to great lengths—think of pain clinics—not to feel it. Pain hurts people.

Now, consider this idea: a masochist is a Sadist’s worst enemy. I say this somewhat tongue in cheek to get people to think about what “painful” sensations are really like for a masochist. What the rest of us would identify as pain and perceive as negative, masochists interpret differently. To them, it’s a pleasurable, positive experience; thus, it is not pain.

You see, masochists do feel and interpret some sensations as painful, as hurting. Pain is only pain when the person receiving it interprets it as a negative or unpleasant sensation or one that causes suffering. I may think I am causing someone pain because, well—damn—it sure looks like it would hurt me. But in reality, he enjoys the sensation and doesn’t experience it as “bad” pain.

This brings to mind tattoo work. While speaking with my tattoo artist, he told me that often, when he tattoos someone, he has to stop and give them a break because it hurts them too much. This applies to all areas of the body that he has worked on. While getting work done on the base of my neck, I started to laugh because it tickled. It held up his work because I had to settle myself down and hold still. But he told me this is a very painful place to tattoo for some people.

I will interject a theory here. Some believe that pain and pleasure are on the same continuum of sensation as interpreted by the mind. For example, a sensation like having your feet caned is extremely painful to some. For a masochist, it can feel pleasurable at first, but if continued long enough or delivered hard enough, the stimulus will eventually become painful. The masochist could become sexually aroused from a caning during the pleasurable stage, but would feel pain from the same activity further down the road.

Sadism is often misunderstood by our own BDSM community as a self-centered “dark” endeavor. Some wonder how a Sadist could possibly find a willing partner who submits to painful activities they don’t enjoy. This always makes me chuckle. I am a known Sadist and I have no problem getting people to let me do unpleasant stuff to them. I always reveal what I am up front by giving partners my definition of sadism—I want to make them feel unpleasant sensations from which I will get sexual gratification when they dislike what I do—and they still want to give it a go. Sadism becomes abuse when the bottom no longer consents to the pain or when the bottom’s needs are not met.

SADISM AND CONSENT

Often the consensual Sadists within the kink community use the term
consensual non-consensuality
or CNC
(
also referred to as
consensual nonconsent)
to describe certain scenes. Our community has been discussing this controversial practice for many years. If there is ever a dull moment in a discussion group or an online list, this is one issue—along with safewords and extreme scenes—that is guaranteed to liven things up.

I recall reading that CNC was a very heated topic of discussion at the National Leather Association’s fifth conference in October 1990. In a postpanel interview conducted by Carol Queen, the late Tony DeBlase was quoted concerning CNC: “A bottom may set parameters and say, ‘Now, given those parameters, don’t pay any attention to what I say after this.’ We’ve gotten so much into negotiations and safewords that there are people who can’t even conceive scening without them. They confuse consensual non-consensuality scenes with entirely non-consensual ones—which they aren’t.”

CNC remains no less controversial today. There are some who feel it is in direct violation of the seemingly universal BDSM guideline known as safe, sane, and consensual (SSC). When the phrase “risk-aware consensual kink” (RACK) was coined, it seemed to open a little more tolerance for CNC, simply because people were more willing to admit that there is some risk to many of our practices. But I have a personal issue with grouping sadism and “kink” together. Sorry, but equating the word “kink” to sadism is like comparing a bunny-fur flogger to a barbed-wire flogger. We all use catchphrases to simplify our conversations, often using our local group’s shorthand. However, once we start to travel or speak outside our own leather community, we find that interpretations vary widely.