|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Question for Merc & other sadists (3/10/2009 8:11:35 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD
A question came to mind when I read Merc's response in the Use of the Third Person thread.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
These responses provide another reason. It pisses people off. As a sadist, I derive sadistic pleasure and satisfaction in their discomfort and contempt.
My question to Merc is, do you genuinely feel that promoting discomfort and contempt (that you don't necessarily see) really speaks to your sadistic side rather than some other aspect of who you are? Please note that I feel compelled to ask only from a point of curiosity and not annoyance or anything like that. I have heard many people use their sadistic nature to justify doing pretty much anything - including some rather repugnant behavior. I'm not implying this is the case with you Merc, as I've seen enough of your posts to believe you aren't that sort.
For other sadists, have you ever found yourself using sadism as an excuse for some less than honorable behaviors or comments - realizing it after the fact?
Well, Good Morning; Deviantly D!
I don't shirk away from being a sadist, I embrace it as an essential part of me. I appreciate that I am lucky and I'm a 'socially acceptable' sadist. I don't need to permanently harm and have no desire to kill anyone. I don't kick small animals or pull the wings off of flies; however I do stun them with my electric fly swatter and throw them into the web of my 'pet' spider that lives by my pool. I will help a person who trips and falls if they are alright and help them up, but I'm giggling while doing so. I may not always have my crop handy, but I'm always mentally prepared to take advantage of any opportunity to satiate my sadistic craving that presents itself during the day.
Although I thoroughly enjoy inflicting physical pain, and discomfort; my preference is to always involve some kind of mental or emotional sadism. I love creating situations where a person submits to the point of begging, for something they normally would be adverse to experience. "You want to be spanked by me? Am I your servant? Oh, now you're asking? Not good enough - get out!" I love being in control of the mental intercourse. The physical intercourse is the payoff made more enjoyable by the process.
I seek to bend a person to fit into my 'ideal' image of 'slave' or 'submissive'. From first contact, it's my rules under my control. I'm willing to walk away from any situation where that is not the case regardless of what is being offered by the potential partner. 'Safe-words' and 'limits' are counter to that requirement; which is why I won't play with anyone requiring them - their loss. On the other side of the coin, I rarely play with anyone other than beth. Mental and emotional intercourse requires a degree of nakedness beyond skin that requires a comfort level and trust beyond casual familiarity.
The ability to serve and submit has to be there in a person because I will not break a person, I refuse to; and think the idea of creating a resulting automaton abhorrent and the resulting relationship unchallenging. Where is the mental sadism satisfied with a partner mentally broken into capitulation? There isn't even any power exchanged.
Which brings us to the payoff regarding the 'Third Person Speech' comment. The discomfort wasn't intended, but I enjoyed it just the same. Comments and personal opinion of people who know nothing of our relationship, or have zero experience with a long term partner, have no influence on us. Yet the question was directed to something that beth and I employ within our dynamic. It's a positive part of who we are and I wanted to express that. Seeing the disdain for the practice, intolerance, dismissal from people without a clue or maybe the ability to understand the purpose, goal, or how it fit into the rest of our relationship did generate some sadistic satisfaction; so I used the opportunity. I didn't seek it. I didn't post the thread. As part of any response I would never have said that anyone NOT employing 3rd person speech wasn't a 'true Master/slave' or wasn't doing it 'right'. However since that was the attitude conveyed - pointing out that I sadistically truly enjoyed others discomfort was a bonus. Unlike those who didn't offer an opinion, only disdain. Their discomfort, albeit minor, was akin to licking the bowl after making a rich chocolate cake. It's a guilty small pleasure, not the reason for going through the process, but enjoyable none the less. It would have been the case whether I disclosed it or not - disclosing it creates another opportunity. I used it, and since I'm an exhibitionist sadist, I pointed it out.
To the point raised, I'd love to be on Springer. I doubt he'd have us. Why would he want a successful couple, happy, totally enamored with each other, living well, working in society? It doesn't serve his exploitive purpose. We welcome any opportunity to expose ourselves to the 'vanilla' world if only to illustrate that the people exhibited on Springer do not represent the majority of people we know, and whose company we enjoy, in the 'lifestyle'. Sorry 'cat' if the image we convey outside the bedroom embarrasses you. I feel sorry that you'd prefer us to hide in the closet like you, afraid and lacking the confidence to stand up and represent proudly who you are. We're not afraid.
We're proud of who we are. We're proud of each other, and the life we have together. We aren't embarrassed exposing any part of it.
We've given two interviews so far. One for John Warren and another for a production company doing a documentary regarding 'non-traditional' couples. No exploitation, and, although they went on for quite a while and it was difficult to do so, beth didn't get naked. she did however speak entirely in the 3rd person.
|
|
|
|
