|
missturbation -> RE: Simple sadism !! (2/3/2007 6:15:47 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
This article doesn't address the consent mechanism, for example which would have a huge emotional impact on the dynamics of a S&M interaction.
I think it does.
'In other words, the sadist has no conception that his partner might invite or welcome his sexual activities. '
If the sadist has no idea whether she consents or not, consent cannot have been given or even asked for.
Your reading of Stephann's comment strikes me as extremely narrow. I took him to be offering the insight that nowhere in the snippet is any effort shown to explore the difference between the sadist who operates only with consent from the sadist who ignores it.
In the narrowest possible sense, you're right, in that the word consent surfaced briefly. Rather than discount Staphann's point you might take a moment to consider it more deeply.
It was plain and simply my opinion that the quote pointed to no consent appeared to have been given. The part which also states:- 'He cannot believe that anyone can really accept him sexually, and thus has to obtain by force what other more confident men expect to be given freely.' also leads me to believe consent was not involved.
I maybe should have written that the quote was written in 1964 and is being used to try and explore the sadist part of the Marquis de sades mind. 'It does say that he is trying to explain the motives behind uncomplicated sexual sadism.' I also maybe should have added that and say he was far from saying that this was the only ultimate definition of sadism.
quote:
The problem with psychologists analyzing BDSM is that most do it in a clinical fashion, looking for aberrations and deviations in human behavior.
Anthony Storr is a psychiatrist not a psychologist. He hasnt actually studied human behaviour per se but goes on what psychologists studies present.
Is your point anything but to be pissy here? You asked for insights, they are offerred, and you just seem to jump on the first trivial, technical or semantic excuse to disqualify what is offerred.
Yes, i did have a point here and wasn't being pissy at all. It is my understanding that Storr only studied others findings on such subjects and did not condust his own experiments as you have said. Therefore in my opinion shooting the messenger is a little harsh.
To stick with your sort of approach one could point out that your respondent didn't say in what you snipped from him that Storr was a Psychologist, but only made a general comment about Psychologists.
Yes he could and would be free to do so.
In the same mood one could point out that a person who is a Psychiatrist can be a Pyschologist as well, and a Geologist and an Ecdysiast. You haven't established that Storr's sole credential was that of a Psychiatrist.
Ive covered this above.
"He (Storr) hasnt actually studied human behaviour per se but goes on what psychologists studies present.
I rather think that somewhere along the road to a credential in Psychiatry one will more than likely study human behavior. In fact I'll wager that he studied it in some depth in both his undergradyuate and his graduate courses and seminars.
I'm sure you are quite right but i studied psychology for a while and was educated from others experiments not my own. That was my point.
Now perhaps you mean that as a Psychiatrist Storr has not conducted experiments. Of course we don't know whether this is true or false in his case, but let's pretend that it is true.
See above.
If he is a clinician in practice, hearing from patients, advising them, and then hearing from his patients again subsequently, do you really feel that he is nevertheless prohibitted by his circumstances from learning anything about human behavior, "per se"? That he is not very much engaged in studying the behavior of his human patients? I think it would be difficult to hold that any responsible clinician is a person who does not study human behavior.
No definately not but in 1964 im pretty sure the views on sadism and bdsm were a lot more narrow minded than they are now. As i said somewhere in my thread the practice of bdsm was still very much linked to mental disorders in those times. He may or may not have made his own conclusions from interaction with his parents - this i do not know.
But let's say that you want to stick to your extremely narrow view. Even at that, Stephann's comment was directly on point for just the reason you cite, that the Psychiatrist relies upon the Psychologist-- about whom Stephann is complaining.
quote:
I'm sure there are scientists who study the most efficient method for a 220 lbs corner-back to tackle a 350 lbs running back; that doesn't mean he's ever actually worn shoulder pads himself.
With respect the purpose of this thread was not to pull apart the credentials or experience of sadism of the author, just to gain a little insight into whether sadism could be so simply defined.
Your respondent was, by analogy, offering an insight regarding the snippet you posted. He, just as well as you, obviously sees the treatment in the snippet as deficient. I wonder why you didn't choose to accept his comments graciously?
In any event, two things seem to want saying. The first is that sadism, as well as anything else, can be defined as simply as you please. So the answer to that question is yes.
The purpose of this thread was not to analyse whether the writer of the quote was qualified to make the statement he did. I did not start this thread with the intention of creating yet another debate over what a sadist is. I had asked specific questions and whilst no i cannot control where a thread goes i had hoped to recieve answers to the questions posed. The issue of consent, rape and credentials was not one i raised or wanted to raise.
But what an odd question for you to offer, since the snippet include no definition of sadism. The snippet might have been more useful if a definition had been offerred, but none was. Definitions apply to terms. The snippet described behaviors and along the way used the word sadism in a way that was slightly ambiguous--though of course taken in context the ambiguity may resolve or not even arise. We of course lack the full context but that's fine in that no one can resonably expect you to post pages or chapters worth of Storr.
I never actually asked if it was a true defintion. I asked if it was a true account meaning that there may well be sadists out there who behave in the non-consensual manner i saw and for the lack of confidence reasons.
Given that the snippet spoke of someone who disregards consent, I will suggest, following stephann's lead, that it should be taken to be straightforwardly an account of what we might call pathological sadism, even today. That being the case it will be seen to reflect on consensual, BDSM sadism obliquely at best.
On a side note away from this thread slightly. I am not narrow minded in the slightest but this seems to be your over all impression of me due to this and another thread where we had quite in depth discussion. I can be blunt with my opinion but they are just that an opinion. What i see written in the quote has differed slightly from what others see and thats all good but im pretty sure the questions i posed were quite clear and no attempt was made by stephann to address those just to pull the whole quote apart which was never the intent of the thread.
|
|
|
|
