Well said. You're right, and i agree, it can be sugar coated to death, but the bottom line remains that sadism is, well, sadism.Originally Posted by ProjectEuropa
i'm not entirely comfortable with the word violent though, it has very negative connotations (as does the word sadism itself, actually)...i can't ever really imagine anything consensual being violent, plus, sadism is frequently not overly violent at all.
i think it's a shame that societal associations with sadism are such that we hear the word and we immediately think of people like Ian Brady....sadistic, merciless, heartless, cruel....but sadism in the realm in which we all operate is not the same thing. i use WW as an example as it's the only one i have in a pure sadistic form..but i know for a fact that the thought of actually 'hurting' me, beyond what i wanted to do completely turns him off. Perhaps a 'true' sadist is beyond caring and mercy and any desire for it to be consensual, so perhaps none of us are sadistic at all, it's a pity we can't have a different word for it.
Having said all that, i still agree that it remains the case that most, if not all dominants have to have, at the very least, a sadistic streak. (i say ALL dominants because, i also agree that setting tasks, having a sub suffer humiliation etc is still sadism, just in a different form). It's channelled into a Ds relationship, but a desire to be mean it still remains. i think this is something we just have to come to terms with and accept, and as long as any dom still has their sub's welfare at heart, then it's under control and has become the ever delicious oxymoron that is 'loving sadism'.
sl