|
Noah -> RE: Simple sadism !! (2/2/2007 7:06:39 PM)
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
