Things You'll Need:
- Ability to "take a step back" for a moment
-
Step 1
The main way to approach sadomasochism here is in terms of subject and object. Put simply, the subject is the realm of consciousness, of freedom, of personhood, whereas the the object is the realm of the "thing". A human being exercises subjectivity whereas a rock does not.
-
Step 2
Sadism takes its name after the Marquis de SadeUnderstand Sadism as Turning the Other Into Object
Popularly understood, sadism usually means the desire to inflict pain onto another being, and often the control, manipulation, or domination of the other. But sadism also means the attempt to remove the subjectivity from the other, reducing her or him to the status of object. Instead of the other's freedom being respected and celebrated, the other is turned into chattel. "Owning", "using", "dominating" and "humiliating" are some words that describe this process. One psychological explanation for this is that the sadist despairs of the freedom of the other and so tries to capture it by objectifying the subject - turning person into thing. -
Step 3
Understand the Existence of Sadism Toward Love/Relationship Itself
Even outside of BDSM, in "vanilla" relationships, there is of course sadism toward others. "She's mine" or even something as commonplace as "my wife" may be mild examples, but nonetheless are examples of mainstream sadism. But there's also sadism toward the love or the relationship as a whole. In this phenomenon, the relationship and/or love is objectified in something as commonplace as official marriage, which is often symbolized by an object - the ring that is solid, often contains a "rock" (a very solid object), and that wraps around the finger. Also, traditionally in most cultures, the female partner is de facto, if not de jure, considered subservient to the male - an object.
So then, not only is the partner often objectified, but so too is the relationship itself. Rather than allowing it a life of its own, the relationship takes on contractual form (similar to BDSM) through vows and paperwork. The language of "forever" and "mine" abounds, language that applies much more readily to objectivity than to subjectivity. In short, the relationship partakes of "thinghood" just as well as the other can. -
Step 4
Masochism takes its name after Leopold von Sacher-MasochUnderstand Masochism as the Desire to be Objectified
Popularly understood, masochism usually means the desire to have pain inflicted upon oneself, and often the desire to be under the control or manipulation of the other, in short, to be submissive. But masochism also means the attempt to have one's own subjectivity quashed and to become an object.
Being owned, being used, and being humiliated rank among the desiderata. One explanation for this desire is that the freedom that goes along with subjectivity is dizzying, and in the lingo of philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, induces a vertigo of "nausea".
Given what was said of sadism in Step 1, we can see how sadism and masochism tend to go hand-in-hand, so much so that the word sadomasochism exists. -
Step 5
Understand the Existence of Masochism Toward Love/Relationship Itself
Again, even outside of BDSM, in vanilla relationships, there is masochism. "I'm his", or "I'm yours", are common examples of the language of masochism. As with sadism, masochism can also apply to the relationship as a whole, taken unto itself. After objectifying the relationship as explained in Step 2, the relationship can actually become the objectifier of the parties, who submit to it masochistically. One "is" such-and-such based upon the dictates of the status of the relationship. "I can't go to that party because I'm married" - an example of the relationship "owning" the parties who have submitted to it masochistically. -
Step 6
Explore An Alternative Model
An alternative to sadomasochism is intercourse broadly speaking (which can of course be complemented with intercourse in the narrow sense) - intercourse as conversation, as dialogue. Dialogue is partly physical too, especially in intimate relationships. It's not merely talking at or with each other. Dialogue is body to body, mind to mind, or to be corny, heart to heart. It's mutual engagement with each other on as many levels as possible.
In dialogue we can engage the other as subject and without reducing ourselves to object. A sadomasochistic model would have it that we're always either subject or object, even if we may "switch" back and forth. Switching doesn't change the sadomasochistic model, it only changes the polarity of the roles.
Dialogue as two persons respecting and indeed celebrating the subjectivity/freedom of the other moves us beyond the perpetual power play of "at oddsness" and into an arguably more mature realm of each empowering the other. In this understanding of power, power isn't based upon a model of domination and submission, but rather upon mutual expansion. My subjectivity enriches your subjectivity and vice versa. Sharing my perspective with you via dialogue enhances your powers and your sharing of your perspective with me enhances my powers. I don't wish to capture your subjectity so much as to relish a taste of it. To capture your subjectivity, to dominate you, would be to all but eliminate the sights, sounds, scents, and flavors you have to offer.
The relationship itself then loses some of the character of being objectified and doing the objectifying (as discussed in Step 4). Since each party is celebrated in his/her freedom, the relationship is empowered as dynamic/free but also as freely chosen and affirmed or disaffirmed at every step by the parties. Rather than being based upon a static ideal and judged positively or negatively based upon that ideal, the relationship's dynamism is negotiated via dialogue. Instead of being a pillar to which to be tied, or a knot itself (as in "tying the knot"), the relationship has no status of its own independently of the participation of the parties in dialogue. The relationship is always in flux, but it's a flux born of the freedom of the two parties, not one that's somehow tossing us from without. -
Step 7
Acknowledgment
While I'm indebted to my favorite professor, the late Dr. Martin C. Dillon, for many things, this article, and especially Step 5, was inspired by him, and parallels some of what he wrote and taught about. His essay "Romantic Love, Enduring Love, Authentic Love" I acknowledge particularly.
Comments
electron said
on 3/15/2009 Well prepared article.
cinful said
on 2/21/2009 Very insightful article. Thanks for sharing!
MIghtyDreamer said
on 8/16/2008 You get all into this one. I find #3 very interesting. This article can be dangerous to someone who hasn't figured out the point of sharing and or understanding an adult relationship of being a helpmate in which all of the things you mentioned indeed in a way is de facto. I'm not knocking this article not at all. It's deep the way you've written this article, which is not a twist on things, just another level. People talk about living together, this article is one of the reasons why it doesn't work, "completely". Only married people will go through and share the level of humiliation....stated in your article, understand it, grow a high level of security and spirituality because of each other. Just the way it is. Deep Michael. Very deep