A common description of sadism is that a sadist obtains some sort of sexual pleasure from the pain of other people (or perhaps non-human animals as well), or especially from making them feel pain. Pleasure and pain, though, do not strictly have to do with sexuality one way or another. The truth is that sadism does not necessarily entail sexual pleasure and that it could be experienced towards treatment of others that is distinctly nonsexual no matter how it is perceived. For whatever reason, some speak about it as if it is inherently sexual in nature, when this is quite far from being the case and quite easy to logically verify--one obstacle for some people here is failing to see what does and does not logically follow from concepts and not looking to claims from psychologists rather than reason and the ideas themselves.
Personal pleasure in violence or intimidating people with the threat of violence might or might not have a sexual component, as violence and pleasure are not sexual on their own. That general sadism in the sense it is commonly but mistakenly described involves taking sexual pleasure in everything from brutal murder to nonsexual assaults only exemplifies this. Sexual sadism of this kind reflects the subjective desires and potential misperceptions of a person, not the actual nature of violence itself or of broad pleasure. Again, wanting to hurt someone and taking pleasure in the thought or deed does not by necessity bring with it sexual excitement or fulfillment in itself.
Sexual sadism, however, can be expressed through acts of BDSM with consensual partners, but the kind of sadism people think of if they erroneously believe that all sadism is sexual is not something most of those on the receiving end would appreciate, whereas receiving sexual pleasure from inflicting pain can even have its entirely consensual ways of being lived out. In one sense, it is absolutely pathetic that so many people would actually believe that these different kinds of sadism are all the same or that they all make it so that a person receives sexual pleasure from the general pain of others, but it is not as if most people are even close to being rationalistic, so even things that are obvious when approached without assumptions are misunderstood.
Some of the differences here are that the sexual sadist that some people assume all sadists must be is malicious and selfish unless he or she does not let their desires dictate their worldview and behaviors, and the kind of sadist that simply enjoys the consensual giving of pain in a sexual context might not have any such desire to harm others for no reason except that it brings them delight. This is an enormous difference in motivation and also likely in belief about what is what is morally permissible. The first kind of sadist out of these two is much more likely to have thought about the nature of social norms, personal preferences, and moral obligation since their less popular disposition could help spark more thought than the typical non-rationalist would pursue, but perhaps he or she still comes to fallacious or false conclusions, such as the idea that their feelings must legitimize all behaviors.
This is in part why the issue of sadism and sexual sadism is actually a philosophically important distinction. Which behaviors should and should not be acted on, if any, and with what motivations is a very serious, deep issue, and sadism of a sexual, non-sexual, consensual, or non-consensual version are inescapably intertwined with the matter of whether obligations exist and which things are obligatory or evil if so. Sadism of any kind also has the status of being something that many people either seemingly do not relate to except in limited bursts or are hesitant to share or act upon, yet it remains a popular target for the masses, and someone might even be assumed to be sadistic just for being harsh, whether or not their motives are rooted in sadism or if they gave even a hint of this. One way or another, sadism is no minor concept.
No comments:
Post a Comment