|
Aswad -> RE: Sadism in Gor (7/6/2009 5:14:30 PM)
|
Hey, Mitzie.
You wanted a proper an clear answer. Here it is.
This post is long, but it really seems longer than it actually is.
I am trying to put this in plainer, shorter sentences as an exercise in clarity.
I consider myself a sadist. So far, that has not been a problem for anyone. However, the description has caused much alarm. I assume that is out of ignorance. Sadism is only a definite problem when it is out of control. That is the same as with any other form of impulse control dysfunction. Mentally healthy people are able to postpone gratification, or even abstain from gratification altogether. That goes for any behavior, not just sadism. Lack of this facility is one of the few- perhaps the only- objective pathology which receives the diagnosis. The diagnosis is driven by comittee consensus, so obviously depends on a lot of opinions and cultural norms. That makes diagnosis subjective. Objectively pathological sadism is rare, compared to the diagnosable form. The diagnosable form, in turn, is rare, compared to the more common pain related kinks.
The objectively pathological form of sadism occurs in several forms. Some examples:
The first is in the context of what is colloquially known as sociopathy. In this case, there is a marked tendency toward mental inflexibility; often a ritualistic quality presents itself. Note that I'm not talking about the largely mythical Hannibal Lector stereotype, a very, very rare condition. Instead, I am talking about the more typical presentation. Usually, there is a lower intelligence than average. Also, there is usually significantly impaired impulse control in one or more areas. Alternately, there may be adequate impulse control, but significantly impaired capacity for delayed gratification or abstinence from gratification. In general, we may say that this type is unlikely to have a character that could be called Gorean. Simply put, the capacity for adherence to Gorean values is absent. This type is likely to be caught by police at some point.
The second is where a person is simply what we might call an asshole. The sort that delights in making others miserable, usually in ways that allow them to hide behind social conventions to avoid repercussions. Impulse control and capacity for delayed gratification are adequate, but control over the trait or evidence of restraint is absent. You've met a ton of these. It's not an endearing trait. But neither is it one to make a big deal about, unless there is evidence that it goes deeper (the proverbial tip of the iceberg). What distinguishes one from a regular asshole, is consistency and apparent inability of the individual to suppress the behavior. One assumes some of these could be Gorean, or at least pass themselves off as such.
Plenty more examples, but overall, objectively pathological sadism isn't all that common.
Clinical sadism of a subjective nature is more common. By subjective, I mean that the definition is based on the behavior as evaluated in a cultural context. It may also be contingent on friction with society. Finally, it may be contingent on experiencing distress at having socially unacceptable urges. It is not dependent on an objective failure of the mind to perform a full complement of human functions, nor a lack of human skills. Note that if the behavior (the diagnosis is based on desires or behaviors) involves unwilling targets, common diagnostic criteria forgo the other requirements. Again, that is a culturally dependent (i.e. subjective) element to the diagnosis: a healthy mind can indeed encompass a morality which permits sadism enacted on unwilling targets.
Even in the presence of clinical sadism, empathy may well be at or above normal levels. If the gratification is dependent only on the sadist's own actions, then empathy is obviously irrelevant. If the gratification depends on the suffering of the target of the behavior, however, then empathy is required to be aware of suffering. Without this element of awareness, no satisfaction results. This same distinction is seen with the objectively pathological forms, where some are after the deed itself, while others seek a specific response in the victim.
Some restrict the meaning of sadism- and even the diagnosis- to inflicting pain and/or injury.
That is by far more common among the consensual kink communities, at least. It is also far less troublesome for John Doe to consider, being a more straight-forward thing. The desire to inflict pain and/or injury is something people can relate to on some level, even when they can't relate to deriving pleasure from it in this sense. Essentially everyone has had the desire to inflict pain and/or injury on someone at some point. Having a desire to cause suffering, however, is more rarely experienced (if we disregard vengeance, etc.) by the average person. It has the appearance of being more malicious, a malignant behavior, particularly when there is a pattern of it. Perhaps that is more frightening to some.
Every time you say "I hope so and so suffers," like people are wont to do now and then, you are expressing your own, innate sadism. It's in all of us, but it has different triggers. In some, envy will trigger it. In others, anger. For me, it can be triggered as a part of sexual arousal, or as a part of a vengeance response, or as a part of a contempt response. Those are the typical ones for me. No doubt you can add conquest to the list, but there are few occasions to pursue conquest without repercussions that conflict with more important things in my life. See, like you, I don't need to act on it.
That's part of being a mentally healthy human: we can exercise restraint.
In short, we have a choice, and we make it consciously.
As for the extent of sadism, let's have a look at that. We have established that sadism, in itself, is quite normal. It's one of many human behaviors that can be expressed in different ways. It's one that can be healthy, just like enjoying a good meal can be healthy. And it can be unhealthy, just like binge eating can be unhealthy. The triggers and method by which it is expressed will vary, lots. But you displayed some concern about the degree. That is understandable, but misplaced. We are easily concerned by the unfamiliar, and more easily accept that which is familiar than that which is not.
By now, everyone is familiar with spanking and such. Whips have become a symbol for kink in the media. Heck, Sex and the City featured someone getting off on kinky stuff. This brand of light sadism is filed away with all the other kinks out there. Most of the younger generation have tried at least some of it already. As someone elsewhere on the board said, "kinky is the new vanilla." And that goes for what my dear so aptly calls "a round of spanky-butt." It won't raise any eyebrows, and it's fairly easy to wrap one's head around.
A few steps up, we've got the cuts and bruises. The point where the pain goes from what we'd cuss over, to what gets a more animalistic pain response. It gets in touch with what's inside us. It's primal, authentic, and occasionally cathartic. When it is received by a willing participant, it can induce profound euphoria afterwards or during the process. When a participant is unwilling, it may be an expression of greater aggression in the sadist. Bear in mind that, as Leonidas said some time ago, we're still cavemen... we just wear nicer clothes now.
So, where's the problem? In nature, conquest may entail real combat between parties that mean business.
In a consensual relationship, it's common sense to ask about such things up front. Lack of common sense should not be catered to. Stupidity can and should be painful. Let nature take its course, and don't waste pity on people who are too stupid to figure out the first fucking thing about what they're getting themselves into. If the girls want to avoid the risk of encountering a sadist, the last thing on earth they should do is to hand themselves into slavery. Tell them to go find a regular SSC dominant to submit to instead. They'll be happier. We'll be happier. Everyone wins.
Getting up to the point of disabling injuries, the number of people who are involved has dropped drastically. When this kind of thing is undertaken with a mentally healthy sadist, I would wager the individual in question will make damn sure the other party is consenting, because the stakes are pretty high. I don't know the exact legal details for the US, but up here, there is a strictly defined line between the kind of thing one can legally consent to, and the kind one cannot. The latter is what is called grievous bodily harm, meaning the inability to retain full function in work or social contexts, or to enjoy sex and reproduce. Technically, you could do surgery without anaesthesia if you could put 'em back together again, but the jury would deliberate a good long while. The furthest legal precedent up here was voluntary amputation of a finger, and it was eventually decided by one of the higher courts on grounds of personal liberty.
Such concerns do not generally apply when what was consented to was slavery, with the action itself carried out within that context. Accordingly, anyone at this level of sadism will have to make sure their partner is willing. As such, your little kajirettes have nothing to worry about. Alternately, one has to make sure that a prospective slave realizes what slavery actually means, and that they have the decency to stand for what they get into, rather than running off to police when something doesn't go their way. Again, your little kajirettes have nothing to worry about.
Me, I'm not sure I've found any upper or lower limits. I don't take on idiots as anything other than fuckmeat and maid service, so that's not a problem. I make it clear to prospective slaves what they are getting into, and get an idea of what I'm getting hold of, so again not a problem. I know what my FW likes. I knew what she could take as a slave. I wasn't out to fuck her up. If I want to fuck someone up, I let them know. If they say "sure, fuck me up," then... well... that's fine, too. It usually means they're a flake who will disappear right away, in any case. After all, it's not like I'm prowling for one.
I know a fair number of people who like pain play. I also know some who are sadists. Some of those could give a fig for consent, but do have other concerns that are more important than their own enjoyment. I do not associate with people who don't have their urges under conscious control. Not compatible. Not a good move. Not buddy material at all. Each of the categories mentioned range in degree from a light spanking to being limited by legalities and lack of access to hospital facilities. It's not related, the degree of severity and the type of sadism.
Seriously, though, the kajirettes have nothing to fear other than themselves and whatever misinformation you feed them. A false sense of security ("Goreans aren't sadists") isn't going to do anyone any good, and anyone can claim to be a Gorean, while most can also manage to pass themselves off as one to someone with sufficiently limited familiarity with the subject to stand to learn anything significant from the chatroom in question. Stop telling the girls what Goreans are like, and start informing them that they probably aren't looking to be kajirae.
The ones that aren't scared off can learn what it's like from talking to, or living with, a Gorean.
I'd be more than happy to do a one-week crash course for the kajirae would-be's. I wager more than half would run off and not look back. And that's got nothing to do with sadism (which I generally reserve for my own toys, see). In fact, sadism is pretty far down the list of concerns for a prospective kajirae. It's got something to do with learning that a thing is something different from what one thought it was.
Hell, half running away in one week is probably optimistic.
Anyway, stop worrying about sadists, and tidy up your own front porch already... mine's covered.
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
