I am the son
and the heir
Of a shyness that was criminally broken
I am the son and heir
Of nothing in particular
You shut your mouth
How can you say
I go about things the wrong way
I am Human and I need to be loved
Just like everybody else does
I am the son
And the heir
Of a shyness that was criminally broken
I am the son and heir
Of nothing in particular
You shut your mouth
How can you say
I go about things the wrong way
I am Human and I need to be loved
Just like everybody else does
There's a club, if you'd like to go
You could meet somebody who really loves you
So you go, and you stand on your own
And you leave on your own
And you go home
And you cry
And you want to die
When you say it's gonna happen now,
When exactly do you mean?
See I've already waited too long
And all my hope is gone
Pro-pornography and Anti-pornography Groups and Sexual Abuse
The Nature and Links between Coercion, Violence, Mental and Sexual Abuse and some Pornography, and the Nature and Links between Coercion, Violence, Mental and Sexual Abuse and some Anti-pornography
There is a lot of conflict, confusion, and disagreement, between pro-pornography and anti-pornography groups, about the nature and links between coercion, violence, and mental and sexual abuse within the pornography industry in modern western societies. There is indeed some coercion, violent, mental and sexual abuse within the pornography industry, although it is extremely rare, but I agree that it shouldn't happen at all, whilst I still don't believe that most erotica and pornography is the problem. What is the main problem, is non-consensual sadism and masochism or BDSM, and non-consensual sexual domination, and the ways that both some pro-pornography groups within the porn industry and some anti-pornography both engage in, practise, and are very collusive and instrumental to all of this both directly and reciprocally.
There are some women who are innocent victims, and who are coerced, violently threatened, and mentally and sexually abused within the pornography industry, and Linda Susan Boreman (better known by her stage name Linda Lovelace), was a typical innocent and victimised example of this, by her first husband who forced her at gun-point and by controlling and physically beating her, to perform non-consensual acts of forced sexual domination, degradation, and pain with men on film, and the gang-rape of her as a prostitute, and which was all a part of his relationship control and abuse over her. When some women are mentally and sexually abused in the pornography industry, it is usually controlled and instrumented by mentally and sexually abusive relationships.
Again, whilst it is extremely rare, there are some women, who are coerced and tortured by sadistic men, in some BDSM video-clips and photos in pornography on the Internet, and it is also true that there are just as many men and maybe much more, within the extreme female sadism and domination genre - of one organisation in another country which I won't name or mention - who are being forcibly drugged, tortured, and very savagely beaten and sexually abused by sadistic women in some video-clips and photos on the Internet, although this not classed as pornography nor a part of the actual pornography industry. The other thing, is that whilst some of these men and much more so women, are innocent victims of this extreme coercion and mental, physical, and sexual torture and abuse, most of them are female and male sex offenders - such as rapists and male and female pedophiles - and this is the way that some people, both men and women, see it right to punish, exploit, and use them for other people's pleasure, as "A punishment to fit the crime" as they see it.
However, some of these male victims of some extreme female domination and sadism, and some female victims of male sexual sadism and abuse, are simply sexually dominant and sexually sadistic women and men, who may or may not have engaged in consensual or non-consensual sadist and BDSM activities, but these are just two examples of how sadist men and women, sometimes turn-against and non-consensually torture and abuse each other, and because this is all reinforced by some anti-pornography groups and well as within some of the pornography industry.
This way that punishment is related to pleasure in the modern pornography industries and within some extreme female sadism and domination, doesn't stop there either. There are some anti-pornography groups and men and women, who will use this same non-consensual sadism, extreme coercion, violence, and mental and sexual abuse, for covert pornographic profit and pleasure, in order to exploit, abuse, and objectify some men and other women, for things like masturbation, different sexual orientations such as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual and consensual sadism or masochism in other men or women, bisexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism, and transgenderism, because they see all of these things as sexual-problems, as abnormal or as mental health problems, and as pornographic, but they are making their own non-consensual, violent, and abusive pornography out of these things, because they see and think that their non-consensual, extremely coercive, and violent mental, physical, sexual, and erotic abuse as normal, sane, civilised, and altruistic.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
There is a lot of conflict, confusion, and disagreement, between pro-pornography and anti-pornography groups, about the nature and links between coercion, violence, and mental and sexual abuse within the pornography industry in modern western societies. There is indeed some coercion, violent, mental and sexual abuse within the pornography industry, although it is extremely rare, but I agree that it shouldn't happen at all, whilst I still don't believe that most erotica and pornography is the problem. What is the main problem, is non-consensual sadism and masochism or BDSM, and non-consensual sexual domination, and the ways that both some pro-pornography groups within the porn industry and some anti-pornography both engage in, practise, and are very collusive and instrumental to all of this both directly and reciprocally.
There are some women who are innocent victims, and who are coerced, violently threatened, and mentally and sexually abused within the pornography industry, and Linda Susan Boreman (better known by her stage name Linda Lovelace), was a typical innocent and victimised example of this, by her first husband who forced her at gun-point and by controlling and physically beating her, to perform non-consensual acts of forced sexual domination, degradation, and pain with men on film, and the gang-rape of her as a prostitute, and which was all a part of his relationship control and abuse over her. When some women are mentally and sexually abused in the pornography industry, it is usually controlled and instrumented by mentally and sexually abusive relationships.
Again, whilst it is extremely rare, there are some women, who are coerced and tortured by sadistic men, in some BDSM video-clips and photos in pornography on the Internet, and it is also true that there are just as many men and maybe much more, within the extreme female sadism and domination genre - of one organisation in another country which I won't name or mention - who are being forcibly drugged, tortured, and very savagely beaten and sexually abused by sadistic women in some video-clips and photos on the Internet, although this not classed as pornography nor a part of the actual pornography industry. The other thing, is that whilst some of these men and much more so women, are innocent victims of this extreme coercion and mental, physical, and sexual torture and abuse, most of them are female and male sex offenders - such as rapists and male and female pedophiles - and this is the way that some people, both men and women, see it right to punish, exploit, and use them for other people's pleasure, as "A punishment to fit the crime" as they see it.
However, some of these male victims of some extreme female domination and sadism, and some female victims of male sexual sadism and abuse, are simply sexually dominant and sexually sadistic women and men, who may or may not have engaged in consensual or non-consensual sadist and BDSM activities, but these are just two examples of how sadist men and women, sometimes turn-against and non-consensually torture and abuse each other, and because this is all reinforced by some anti-pornography groups and well as within some of the pornography industry.
This way that punishment is related to pleasure in the modern pornography industries and within some extreme female sadism and domination, doesn't stop there either. There are some anti-pornography groups and men and women, who will use this same non-consensual sadism, extreme coercion, violence, and mental and sexual abuse, for covert pornographic profit and pleasure, in order to exploit, abuse, and objectify some men and other women, for things like masturbation, different sexual orientations such as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual and consensual sadism or masochism in other men or women, bisexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism, and transgenderism, because they see all of these things as sexual-problems, as abnormal or as mental health problems, and as pornographic, but they are making their own non-consensual, violent, and abusive pornography out of these things, because they see and think that their non-consensual, extremely coercive, and violent mental, physical, sexual, and erotic abuse as normal, sane, civilised, and altruistic.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
Anti-Porn Is The Theory, Repression is the Practise
THE ANTI-PORNOGRAPHY MOVEMENT NEGLECTS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF WOMEN'S OPPRESSION, ARGUES Nina Lopez-Jones FROM THE ENGLISH COLLECTIVE OF PROSTITUTES
With rare exceptions, feminists have concentrated on attacking attitudes, not power relations of which attitudes are a part. The view of 'Women Against Violence Against Women' (WAVAW), 'Porn is Violence Against Women' (PIVAW) and every other anti-porn group which was accepted as the voice of feminism during the Reagan/Thatcher decade, is that pornography is the "central and binding issue for feminism".
In 1980 the United Nations said that women do 2/3 of the world's work for 10% of the income - the International Labour Organisation says 5%-and 1% of the assets. This was the first international quantification of our exploitation, the basic violence against women from which flows all other violence against us by both institutions and individuals.
By studiously ignoring this violence, the anti-porn/pro-censorship lobby avoids a confrontation with the economic, political and physical violence against women perpetuated or endorsed by the State. Feminists who concentrate on condemning sexist images of women in the name of condemning women's exploitation, and the politicians who back them, turn their backs while the issue of our economic and social power is pushed down the political agenda. Not money, not housing, not even non-sexist, non-racist, non-violent policing, but an end to "dirty pictures" becomes the key to our welfare.
Not unconnected, divisions of race, class, nationality, income, age, disability and occupation have been purposefully censored by feminist advocates of censorship. Anti-porn feminists ask us to do what men have always asked us to do: set aside the divisions among us and submit to their priorities. "We must reunite throughout the nation [sic] on this one basic issue [pornography] . . . Disagreements on other issues can be dealt with when fewer of us are being murdered, beaten, tortured and raped." And therefore, the struggles and priorities of Black and other working class women who are at the bottom of the economic and social hierarchy get watered down or mislaid somewhere along the way to many feminist agendas. A rape survey conducted by two feminists in Leeds chose to investigate streets which "had a mixed population of white single and married people" because "..it was important to focus on the problem of the dominant cultural group in order to avoid our results being used in a racist way." To "avoid racism" by excluding Black women is a strategy that a politician like Enoch Powell might wholeheartedly support.
Like any other movement for change, the women's movement has to choose whether or not to focus on breaking down these divisions. In our experience, this cannot be done without challenging "all the economic power relations in the working class from the bottom up, beginning with those of us who have the lease power . . . Black women who are the poorest of the poor . . ." To ignore the priorities of women who are Black, immigrant, Third World, prostitute, single mothers, housewives, lesbian, who have disabilities, or who are any combination of these, is to choose to focus instead on the priorities of the most powerful sectors - careerists in metropolitan countries. The choice of images (naked or not) must also begin from the bottom up; otherwise the image of the "successful" (usually white) careerist passes as a picture of every woman's reality, or at least the reality to which we can all achieve. This image embodies the predominantly (mainly white) Establishment perspective of Feminism.
Many feminists have refused to deal with the fact that increasing the power of the State to decide what is "acceptable sex and sexuality" can only lead to greater power in the hands of the police and more State violence against women, starting with those of us who are labelled "ignorant" or "immoral" because we are poor and working class. One clear example of this refusal is the way in which the anti-porn lobby has consistently discussed and proposed legislation promoting censorship without discussing the ways such legislation is likely to be enforced. Those of us at the bottom who go on the game, shoplift, commit Social Security "fraud" or other crimes of poverty in order to support ourselves and our children, can't afford the luxury of treating legislation as an abstraction rather than a power shaping our lives. For us the political is personal. It is women at the bottom, and our sons, brothers, husbands and friends, who are at the receiving end of police brutality, illegality and racism. We don't have the right style, accent, background, colour, passport, connections and or careers to protect us from the law, the police and the courts.
Increasing the power of the State to control sexual expression is of a piece with more generalised economic and political oppression. By trying to control which relationships and forms of contact are to be promoted and which discouraged and even criminalized, the State tries to claw back our victories, particularly those won by the women's and gay movements and the movement for welfare, which have concentrated on establishing our right to do what we want with our own bodies, and our right to economic, legal and social independence from the family. The anti-porn lobby has consistently said that "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice." On the contrary: anti-porn is the theory; economic, political and sexual repression - and that can only mean universal rape - is the practice.
All images, no matter how partial or distorted, are reflections of the real power relations among us. We are dependent on images to find out about other people and the world we live in. Information we get in this way may help or hinder us in our pursuit of a better understanding of ourselves and our possibilities: what we can/want to do with our lives as opposed to what we are supposed to do: to mould ourselves on stereotypes. We therefore want images to inform us about what we need to know and to express clearly the reality we experience; as well as to be stimulating, exiting and beautiful; and we want to replace images which are not working for us in these ways. Images are often the lies through which people with more power impose on those who have less power their version of events, and indicate what we should desire and what they will approve. Anti-porn feminists only skim the surface. They attack the images instead of attacking the reality - the power relations - which the images reflect. Rather than acknowledging the images as an integral part of reality, images are blamed for the violence of reality; visual violence against women is disconnected from the violence of poverty and economic dependence which are mirrored in pornography, violent or not. Anti-pornographers may agree that women are exploited but they refuse to attack that exploitation.
Even their attack on the images is partial. What is most degrading about images of women is that our struggle to refuse all forms of violence and degradation is almost always absent: women are portrayed not only doing the jobs that we do, whether with our clothes on or off, but as consenting, even happy, slaves. If the models are dressed, anti-porn lobbyists seem oblivious of the ways in which this distorted image of us attacks us.
"Lukewarm" sex - lesbian women who are into S&M call it "vanilla sex" . . . whatever sex each of us may like, if it is consensual we have a right to it, and to see reflections of it in pornographic or other images. The stereotypical sex-images anti-porn feminists want to impose on others could not express the variety of the sexual reality and would instead deny the experiences of the millions of women and men who are not only, or at all, into "vanilla sex". So-called "perverted sex" is a form of escapism not that different from Gothic novels or horror films: fantasies in which the power relations are transformed and the subtleties of reality with its demands of decision temporarily forgotten (or are being worked out on another level). The effect of anti-porn is to push sexual choices back to a dark corner and isolate sexual feelings and activity from the rest of life. Any sex, from "vanilla" to S&M, can be a vehicle for violence when it is cut off from compassion (which itself is repressed and splintered into various segregated parts). Sex then becomes an area of darkness in which to give vent to our most secret fears and emotions. (A great attraction of David Lynch's films is that they are based on how people relate when all the characters, not only the hero/Heroine, emerge from that dark corner.)
Anti-pornographers seem to understand the attractions of S&M better than anyone. Some even seem to revel in gory descriptions and interpretations of porn. Why would anyone spend so much time watching and commenting on something they found so repulsive unless the rewards - financial, sexual or both - made it worth while? Opposing porn provides a socially acceptable and even profitable opportunity to indulge one's sexual pleasure while blaming others for one's own taste. (Not surprisingly, Andrea Dworkin's novels Ice and Fire and Mercy have been accused of being pornographic.)
But unlike sado-masochists who confine themselves to consenting sexual acts, anti-pornographers get their satisfaction from forcing themselves - and the State - on everyone - denying, banning, censoring, admonishing, punishing. Punishing - a strong urge which seems to provide sexual pleasure for many, from anti-pornographers to judges.
The anti-porn lobby fails to distinguish between the workers, the bosses and the products. The porn industry is exploitative like any other industry. Should commercial food, clothes, cars, TVs, etc., be banned because their respective industries exploit the workers who produce these goods, or should we support workers' demands for better working conditions? The coal industry is polluting, and working conditions are horrendous. Should we not have supported the 1984-5 strike of mining communities against the closure of pits on which their livelihood depended? In campaigning for prostitutes we underline the distinction between sex workers and the work they do. We know from experience that campaigning for the abolition of the prostitution laws which criminalize women for refusing poverty and financial dependence on men, is inseparable from campaigning for economic alternatives to prostitution: higher benefits, grants and wages so that no woman is forced by poverty into sex with anyone, for money or for "free". Campaigning for abolition is for us inseparable from campaigning to get all women's work - including sex work waged and unwaged, recognised and counted as work so that we can get back the wealth we have helped produce: the resources we need to refuse all exploitation, all prostitution... including what Virginia Woolf called "intellectual harlotry".
With rare exceptions, feminists have concentrated on attacking attitudes, not power relations of which attitudes are a part. The view of 'Women Against Violence Against Women' (WAVAW), 'Porn is Violence Against Women' (PIVAW) and every other anti-porn group which was accepted as the voice of feminism during the Reagan/Thatcher decade, is that pornography is the "central and binding issue for feminism".
In 1980 the United Nations said that women do 2/3 of the world's work for 10% of the income - the International Labour Organisation says 5%-and 1% of the assets. This was the first international quantification of our exploitation, the basic violence against women from which flows all other violence against us by both institutions and individuals.
By studiously ignoring this violence, the anti-porn/pro-censorship lobby avoids a confrontation with the economic, political and physical violence against women perpetuated or endorsed by the State. Feminists who concentrate on condemning sexist images of women in the name of condemning women's exploitation, and the politicians who back them, turn their backs while the issue of our economic and social power is pushed down the political agenda. Not money, not housing, not even non-sexist, non-racist, non-violent policing, but an end to "dirty pictures" becomes the key to our welfare.
Not unconnected, divisions of race, class, nationality, income, age, disability and occupation have been purposefully censored by feminist advocates of censorship. Anti-porn feminists ask us to do what men have always asked us to do: set aside the divisions among us and submit to their priorities. "We must reunite throughout the nation [sic] on this one basic issue [pornography] . . . Disagreements on other issues can be dealt with when fewer of us are being murdered, beaten, tortured and raped." And therefore, the struggles and priorities of Black and other working class women who are at the bottom of the economic and social hierarchy get watered down or mislaid somewhere along the way to many feminist agendas. A rape survey conducted by two feminists in Leeds chose to investigate streets which "had a mixed population of white single and married people" because "..it was important to focus on the problem of the dominant cultural group in order to avoid our results being used in a racist way." To "avoid racism" by excluding Black women is a strategy that a politician like Enoch Powell might wholeheartedly support.
Like any other movement for change, the women's movement has to choose whether or not to focus on breaking down these divisions. In our experience, this cannot be done without challenging "all the economic power relations in the working class from the bottom up, beginning with those of us who have the lease power . . . Black women who are the poorest of the poor . . ." To ignore the priorities of women who are Black, immigrant, Third World, prostitute, single mothers, housewives, lesbian, who have disabilities, or who are any combination of these, is to choose to focus instead on the priorities of the most powerful sectors - careerists in metropolitan countries. The choice of images (naked or not) must also begin from the bottom up; otherwise the image of the "successful" (usually white) careerist passes as a picture of every woman's reality, or at least the reality to which we can all achieve. This image embodies the predominantly (mainly white) Establishment perspective of Feminism.
Many feminists have refused to deal with the fact that increasing the power of the State to decide what is "acceptable sex and sexuality" can only lead to greater power in the hands of the police and more State violence against women, starting with those of us who are labelled "ignorant" or "immoral" because we are poor and working class. One clear example of this refusal is the way in which the anti-porn lobby has consistently discussed and proposed legislation promoting censorship without discussing the ways such legislation is likely to be enforced. Those of us at the bottom who go on the game, shoplift, commit Social Security "fraud" or other crimes of poverty in order to support ourselves and our children, can't afford the luxury of treating legislation as an abstraction rather than a power shaping our lives. For us the political is personal. It is women at the bottom, and our sons, brothers, husbands and friends, who are at the receiving end of police brutality, illegality and racism. We don't have the right style, accent, background, colour, passport, connections and or careers to protect us from the law, the police and the courts.
Increasing the power of the State to control sexual expression is of a piece with more generalised economic and political oppression. By trying to control which relationships and forms of contact are to be promoted and which discouraged and even criminalized, the State tries to claw back our victories, particularly those won by the women's and gay movements and the movement for welfare, which have concentrated on establishing our right to do what we want with our own bodies, and our right to economic, legal and social independence from the family. The anti-porn lobby has consistently said that "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice." On the contrary: anti-porn is the theory; economic, political and sexual repression - and that can only mean universal rape - is the practice.
All images, no matter how partial or distorted, are reflections of the real power relations among us. We are dependent on images to find out about other people and the world we live in. Information we get in this way may help or hinder us in our pursuit of a better understanding of ourselves and our possibilities: what we can/want to do with our lives as opposed to what we are supposed to do: to mould ourselves on stereotypes. We therefore want images to inform us about what we need to know and to express clearly the reality we experience; as well as to be stimulating, exiting and beautiful; and we want to replace images which are not working for us in these ways. Images are often the lies through which people with more power impose on those who have less power their version of events, and indicate what we should desire and what they will approve. Anti-porn feminists only skim the surface. They attack the images instead of attacking the reality - the power relations - which the images reflect. Rather than acknowledging the images as an integral part of reality, images are blamed for the violence of reality; visual violence against women is disconnected from the violence of poverty and economic dependence which are mirrored in pornography, violent or not. Anti-pornographers may agree that women are exploited but they refuse to attack that exploitation.
Even their attack on the images is partial. What is most degrading about images of women is that our struggle to refuse all forms of violence and degradation is almost always absent: women are portrayed not only doing the jobs that we do, whether with our clothes on or off, but as consenting, even happy, slaves. If the models are dressed, anti-porn lobbyists seem oblivious of the ways in which this distorted image of us attacks us.
"Lukewarm" sex - lesbian women who are into S&M call it "vanilla sex" . . . whatever sex each of us may like, if it is consensual we have a right to it, and to see reflections of it in pornographic or other images. The stereotypical sex-images anti-porn feminists want to impose on others could not express the variety of the sexual reality and would instead deny the experiences of the millions of women and men who are not only, or at all, into "vanilla sex". So-called "perverted sex" is a form of escapism not that different from Gothic novels or horror films: fantasies in which the power relations are transformed and the subtleties of reality with its demands of decision temporarily forgotten (or are being worked out on another level). The effect of anti-porn is to push sexual choices back to a dark corner and isolate sexual feelings and activity from the rest of life. Any sex, from "vanilla" to S&M, can be a vehicle for violence when it is cut off from compassion (which itself is repressed and splintered into various segregated parts). Sex then becomes an area of darkness in which to give vent to our most secret fears and emotions. (A great attraction of David Lynch's films is that they are based on how people relate when all the characters, not only the hero/Heroine, emerge from that dark corner.)
Anti-pornographers seem to understand the attractions of S&M better than anyone. Some even seem to revel in gory descriptions and interpretations of porn. Why would anyone spend so much time watching and commenting on something they found so repulsive unless the rewards - financial, sexual or both - made it worth while? Opposing porn provides a socially acceptable and even profitable opportunity to indulge one's sexual pleasure while blaming others for one's own taste. (Not surprisingly, Andrea Dworkin's novels Ice and Fire and Mercy have been accused of being pornographic.)
But unlike sado-masochists who confine themselves to consenting sexual acts, anti-pornographers get their satisfaction from forcing themselves - and the State - on everyone - denying, banning, censoring, admonishing, punishing. Punishing - a strong urge which seems to provide sexual pleasure for many, from anti-pornographers to judges.
The anti-porn lobby fails to distinguish between the workers, the bosses and the products. The porn industry is exploitative like any other industry. Should commercial food, clothes, cars, TVs, etc., be banned because their respective industries exploit the workers who produce these goods, or should we support workers' demands for better working conditions? The coal industry is polluting, and working conditions are horrendous. Should we not have supported the 1984-5 strike of mining communities against the closure of pits on which their livelihood depended? In campaigning for prostitutes we underline the distinction between sex workers and the work they do. We know from experience that campaigning for the abolition of the prostitution laws which criminalize women for refusing poverty and financial dependence on men, is inseparable from campaigning for economic alternatives to prostitution: higher benefits, grants and wages so that no woman is forced by poverty into sex with anyone, for money or for "free". Campaigning for abolition is for us inseparable from campaigning to get all women's work - including sex work waged and unwaged, recognised and counted as work so that we can get back the wealth we have helped produce: the resources we need to refuse all exploitation, all prostitution... including what Virginia Woolf called "intellectual harlotry".
Marriage and Contracts, Masochism, and Sadism
My aunt recently said to me, that the reason masochism and BDSM relationships are wrong and are not real free and equal relationships, is because masochists (and sadists as well in fact) use contracts, and that contracts are not real authentic and intimate nor real shared and free and equal agreements. In some ways, my aunt made a good point, but she doesn't know where this idea of contracts with masochists and sadists comes from, and I don't think she really understands much about it all in a wider social and interpersonal context, along with all the social and interpersonal causes, issues, and applications of it all about masochism and sadism and BDSM matters, and in other contexts and implications to other things.
To give an example about these matters, I recently watched an episode of the politicians and the public questions discussion and debate TV programme Question Time, and one question which was raised by a member of the public and the audience, was about the conservative government's policy of giving tax-breaks to married couples, in order to subtly coerce and persuade them to get married, because the conservative politicians and some others, say and believe that marriage is better for families and children, and what's more than married couples are much more happier.
To use my aunts example here, most people in marriages, do not either love nor desire each other, and they are not happy at all, and quite the opposite to all these matters and things. The reason for this, is because as my aunt said about masochism and BDSM relationships, because marriage is a contract without real authentic shared agreement and authenticity, and it is based upon coercion and social engineering and social control without genuinely free and equal shared agreements, with all the negative and destructive social and interpersonal rules and rigid and narrow roles, acting and inauthentic role-playing, and the love and emotional and sexual repression of both men and women (or with same-sex people in the case of gay or lesbian people who get married).
However, there are still quite a lot of people, who appear at least to be very happy within their married relationships, and who genuinely love and desire each other, but these couples who are married in these ways, only appear to others to be married in a microcosmic social, and economic sense, but they only get married to please society, and then to create new ideas of marriage, but in a more social and interpersonal sense and in terms of true love and desire, they are in fact not married at all. The reason their appear to be fully married, and they genuinely love and desire each other and are happy, is also because whilst they are married in a social and economic sense, they do not conform to the very narrow, rigid, and destructive rules and roles of love and desire which destroys true love and desires.
So the idea of contracts that masochist and sadist and other BDSM people use, isn't a deviation, and it doesn't grow on trees, as my aunt said and suggested, but it actually comes from vanilla and non-BDSM and non-masochist and non-sadist relationship and society, via things like marriage and other types of relationships abstractions and social control, and what's more, neither love and desire or relationship contracts, nor marriage is not really the problem, because all of these things are of value or not according to ways they are negatively conformed to, regressed or progressed, combined with other things and how these things are either ironically or too literally put into practise and applied.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
To give an example about these matters, I recently watched an episode of the politicians and the public questions discussion and debate TV programme Question Time, and one question which was raised by a member of the public and the audience, was about the conservative government's policy of giving tax-breaks to married couples, in order to subtly coerce and persuade them to get married, because the conservative politicians and some others, say and believe that marriage is better for families and children, and what's more than married couples are much more happier.
To use my aunts example here, most people in marriages, do not either love nor desire each other, and they are not happy at all, and quite the opposite to all these matters and things. The reason for this, is because as my aunt said about masochism and BDSM relationships, because marriage is a contract without real authentic shared agreement and authenticity, and it is based upon coercion and social engineering and social control without genuinely free and equal shared agreements, with all the negative and destructive social and interpersonal rules and rigid and narrow roles, acting and inauthentic role-playing, and the love and emotional and sexual repression of both men and women (or with same-sex people in the case of gay or lesbian people who get married).
However, there are still quite a lot of people, who appear at least to be very happy within their married relationships, and who genuinely love and desire each other, but these couples who are married in these ways, only appear to others to be married in a microcosmic social, and economic sense, but they only get married to please society, and then to create new ideas of marriage, but in a more social and interpersonal sense and in terms of true love and desire, they are in fact not married at all. The reason their appear to be fully married, and they genuinely love and desire each other and are happy, is also because whilst they are married in a social and economic sense, they do not conform to the very narrow, rigid, and destructive rules and roles of love and desire which destroys true love and desires.
So the idea of contracts that masochist and sadist and other BDSM people use, isn't a deviation, and it doesn't grow on trees, as my aunt said and suggested, but it actually comes from vanilla and non-BDSM and non-masochist and non-sadist relationship and society, via things like marriage and other types of relationships abstractions and social control, and what's more, neither love and desire or relationship contracts, nor marriage is not really the problem, because all of these things are of value or not according to ways they are negatively conformed to, regressed or progressed, combined with other things and how these things are either ironically or too literally put into practise and applied.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
The Very Major Differences and Distinctions and the very Slight and Very Partial Similarity Between Self-harm and Masochism
The biggest mistake and set of very inaccurate and very false misconceptions about masochism by and within both psychotherapy, psychiatry, and psychiatric mental health, is that the psychological and social causes of both these very separate things, are seen and misunderstood by psychotherapy, psychiatry, and psychiatric mental health as being exactly the same, although there is one very slight but very partial similarity between the two.
Whilst all forms of sexuality and sexual-orientations have elements of both attraction, attractiveness, repulsion and disgust, masochism can only really be understood by realising and understanding the ways that attraction and repulsion and disgust are linked and related within and by masochists, the ways that the two things alternate, differentiate, separate, change into each other and then re-differentiate - how this all operates and applies in very different ways both within and between masochists, switches (people who are both sexually dominant, submissive, sadistic, and masochistic) and sadists - and how all of these different factors and different sexual-orientations and people connect, interrelate, relate and interact, work together and find a consensus and a common ground, agree to differ, and then part ways.
However, to reveal and explain about all of this about masochists, switches, and sadists, is not the purpose of this article, as it is to explain the major differences, distinctions, and the slight and very partial similarity between self-harm and masochism, although again, even these slight similarities are very different in their details, very basic elements, and in their entireties.
Also, whilst masochism and self-harm are very, very different things, revealing, realising, and understanding about all of this in great details and entirety about masochism, switches, and sadism - by using and applying a most highly ingenious contrast and a pluralistic contextual and detailed association and set of both contrasted and related associations - all sheds light in a totally new and greater understanding of and about self-harm and self-harmers, but this is also not the purpose of this article, as I will only refer to and mention in this article the very limited, partial, pre-existing and very incomplete social and psychological explanations of self-harm and self-harmers.
Self-harm by self-harmers, is basically about emotional numbness, mental and emotional distress and pain, anxiety, and/or depression, and it is about how self-harmers harm themselves physically in order to override these things and their experiences of and with them, and because they either do this because they are dissociating from the mental and emotional distress and pain, anxiety, or depression, or because they are trying to diminish and counteract the dissociation and/or depersonalisation they feel by self-harming, in order to wake up and feel more real.
Many self-harmers also self-harm, because many of them have been abused and traumatised in their pasts, and they are wanting to make different associations with mental and emotional pain and distress, and sometimes they trick themselves into believing that the physical pain of their self-harm, is actually the emotional pain and distress, because their feelings of mental and emotional pain and distress have been suppressed and repressed by more unjust punishment and abuse in their pasts, and this is their way of feeling and believing that they now have some control over the mental and emotional pain and distress by hurting themselves physically by self-harming.
All of these social and psychological causes and factors of and about self-harm, have absolutely no connection or relation, to or with the very partial social and psychological causes of masochism, except the fact that both self-harmers and masochists both seek to make and do actually make some different associations between mental and emotional pain and distress, and physical pain, but the ways that each do this, are very, very different.
Another very major difference and distinction, is that the types of associations that masochists use and make, are very different from the types of associations that self-harmers use and make, and what's more these associations that masochists use and make, unlike self-harmers, have absolutely nothing to do with any kind of dissociation or depersonalisation in any ways whatsoever.
What's more, self-harmers do not get pleasure from either emotional and mental pain or distress, and neither do they get pleasure from physical pain, whilst many aspects of masochism have absolutely nothing to do with either emotional and mental or physical pain, as the humiliation by the opposite sex that masochists enjoy is neither emotional nor physical pain (although being humiliated can cause of lead to emotional pain) but being humiliated is actually psychological discomfort and both a reduction, a moderation, and an expansion of personal and social identity and self-esteme.
What's more, the sexual and affection submissiveness that masochists love and enjoy towards the opposite sex, is neither mental and emotional nor physical pain, nor is it any kind of psychological or identity changing or discomfort, as submissive love and desire is to do with feelings and desires of fondness, pleasantness, happiness, positive emotions and desires, and attraction.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
Whilst all forms of sexuality and sexual-orientations have elements of both attraction, attractiveness, repulsion and disgust, masochism can only really be understood by realising and understanding the ways that attraction and repulsion and disgust are linked and related within and by masochists, the ways that the two things alternate, differentiate, separate, change into each other and then re-differentiate - how this all operates and applies in very different ways both within and between masochists, switches (people who are both sexually dominant, submissive, sadistic, and masochistic) and sadists - and how all of these different factors and different sexual-orientations and people connect, interrelate, relate and interact, work together and find a consensus and a common ground, agree to differ, and then part ways.
However, to reveal and explain about all of this about masochists, switches, and sadists, is not the purpose of this article, as it is to explain the major differences, distinctions, and the slight and very partial similarity between self-harm and masochism, although again, even these slight similarities are very different in their details, very basic elements, and in their entireties.
Also, whilst masochism and self-harm are very, very different things, revealing, realising, and understanding about all of this in great details and entirety about masochism, switches, and sadism - by using and applying a most highly ingenious contrast and a pluralistic contextual and detailed association and set of both contrasted and related associations - all sheds light in a totally new and greater understanding of and about self-harm and self-harmers, but this is also not the purpose of this article, as I will only refer to and mention in this article the very limited, partial, pre-existing and very incomplete social and psychological explanations of self-harm and self-harmers.
Self-harm by self-harmers, is basically about emotional numbness, mental and emotional distress and pain, anxiety, and/or depression, and it is about how self-harmers harm themselves physically in order to override these things and their experiences of and with them, and because they either do this because they are dissociating from the mental and emotional distress and pain, anxiety, or depression, or because they are trying to diminish and counteract the dissociation and/or depersonalisation they feel by self-harming, in order to wake up and feel more real.
Many self-harmers also self-harm, because many of them have been abused and traumatised in their pasts, and they are wanting to make different associations with mental and emotional pain and distress, and sometimes they trick themselves into believing that the physical pain of their self-harm, is actually the emotional pain and distress, because their feelings of mental and emotional pain and distress have been suppressed and repressed by more unjust punishment and abuse in their pasts, and this is their way of feeling and believing that they now have some control over the mental and emotional pain and distress by hurting themselves physically by self-harming.
All of these social and psychological causes and factors of and about self-harm, have absolutely no connection or relation, to or with the very partial social and psychological causes of masochism, except the fact that both self-harmers and masochists both seek to make and do actually make some different associations between mental and emotional pain and distress, and physical pain, but the ways that each do this, are very, very different.
Another very major difference and distinction, is that the types of associations that masochists use and make, are very different from the types of associations that self-harmers use and make, and what's more these associations that masochists use and make, unlike self-harmers, have absolutely nothing to do with any kind of dissociation or depersonalisation in any ways whatsoever.
What's more, self-harmers do not get pleasure from either emotional and mental pain or distress, and neither do they get pleasure from physical pain, whilst many aspects of masochism have absolutely nothing to do with either emotional and mental or physical pain, as the humiliation by the opposite sex that masochists enjoy is neither emotional nor physical pain (although being humiliated can cause of lead to emotional pain) but being humiliated is actually psychological discomfort and both a reduction, a moderation, and an expansion of personal and social identity and self-esteme.
What's more, the sexual and affection submissiveness that masochists love and enjoy towards the opposite sex, is neither mental and emotional nor physical pain, nor is it any kind of psychological or identity changing or discomfort, as submissive love and desire is to do with feelings and desires of fondness, pleasantness, happiness, positive emotions and desires, and attraction.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
The Human Brain and the Intellect, the Imagination, and the Cognitive Rational Emotions as an Erotic and Sexual Aphrodisiac
The Human Brain and the Intellect, the Imagination, and the Cognitive Rational Emotions as an Erotic and Sexual Aphrodisiac
It's not a case of "All men think with their penises" (meaning that the sexual-physical-bodily biological and genital desires and lusts of all men, fuel, control, and completely influence and determine all of our thoughts and feelings), as my genitals and the whole of my orgasmic body and being, also desires and lusts reciprocally with and between my brain, and with, between, and from all my thoughts and feelings which come from my brain and from my actual intellectual, rational, and emotional cognition - both in terms of the fact that I have a very different brain and organic so-called nervous system, and the fact that this is also a different modality of feeling, thinking, and consciousness - of which I also freely choose, and which is also a different path I have chosen by my own choice and freewill.
At first, I didn't understand why I was like this, but now I have cracked it all and I now understand the structure, processes, functions, contents, and general order, patterns, and basic overall material and biological nature of all of this about me; but which have been totally misinterpreted by many people in the past as me "mind masturbating" or "thinking with my penis", but in actual fact it is all the other way around - that my brain, thoughts, and cognitive feelings - create, energise, and fuel my sexual and erotic desires and sexual-love feelings.
There are however, other things about women that turn me on, which sexually and erotically arouse, stimulate, and which sentiently and sensually create sensations, and which arouse and create soft and warm sexual-loving and emotional thoughts and feelings, but all of this reciprocal polarity between my bodily and genital sexual and erotic desires, and which overall primarily all comes from my cerebral/brain cognitive and emotional thoughts and feelings - as the engine-block and driving force or energy of all those things - is a big part of me and of who and what I actually am, in both physical, biological, material, and in social, interpersonal, and psychological terms.
It's not a case of "All men think with their penises" (meaning that the sexual-physical-bodily biological and genital desires and lusts of all men, fuel, control, and completely influence and determine all of our thoughts and feelings), as my genitals and the whole of my orgasmic body and being, also desires and lusts reciprocally with and between my brain, and with, between, and from all my thoughts and feelings which come from my brain and from my actual intellectual, rational, and emotional cognition - both in terms of the fact that I have a very different brain and organic so-called nervous system, and the fact that this is also a different modality of feeling, thinking, and consciousness - of which I also freely choose, and which is also a different path I have chosen by my own choice and freewill.
At first, I didn't understand why I was like this, but now I have cracked it all and I now understand the structure, processes, functions, contents, and general order, patterns, and basic overall material and biological nature of all of this about me; but which have been totally misinterpreted by many people in the past as me "mind masturbating" or "thinking with my penis", but in actual fact it is all the other way around - that my brain, thoughts, and cognitive feelings - create, energise, and fuel my sexual and erotic desires and sexual-love feelings.
There are however, other things about women that turn me on, which sexually and erotically arouse, stimulate, and which sentiently and sensually create sensations, and which arouse and create soft and warm sexual-loving and emotional thoughts and feelings, but all of this reciprocal polarity between my bodily and genital sexual and erotic desires, and which overall primarily all comes from my cerebral/brain cognitive and emotional thoughts and feelings - as the engine-block and driving force or energy of all those things - is a big part of me and of who and what I actually am, in both physical, biological, material, and in social, interpersonal, and psychological terms.
The Real Contexts and Meanings Of the Terms Messiah and Vessels in the Bible and Christianity
The Real Contexts and Meanings Of the Terms Messiah and Vessels in the Bible and Christianity
I am a big fan of the Goddess Community. However, many of them have both very unjustly, very ignorantly, and very unwisely rejected, and completely and utterly misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misunderstood what Jesus Christ meant when he said he was the messiah in the Bible.
Jesus Christ said that he was the messiah, not to any man, but to a woman at a well, and he was a heterosexual and love masochist towards and with women. Jesus Christ was also in reality and in fact, half-Jewish and half-Aramaic - and the Aramaic meaning and use of the term "messiah" means servant of the divine, it does not mean master nor mistress, and in this context when he told the woman at the well that he was the messiah, Jesus Christ meant that he was a servant of the Goddess and of her and other women.
Of course, the vast amount of Christians believe just in God and not in any Goddess, as in the gentile Christian culture and religion, they tend to find a spiritual truth or truths, and a spiritual reality, and then they look for no further spiritual truths or realities, and which is a very limited, very blinkered, and a most ignorant and prejudiced very conservative tendency, whilst in the Jewish and Irish cultures, everything and all spiritual and political matters are up for further debate, discussion, and investigation.
There may be a God as the gentile-Christians say, but that does not mean to say that God hasn't got a wife, but which is the Mother and the Goddess of all creation.
Jesus Christ also said in the Bible that you cannot serve two masters - meaning the master of the patriarchal misinterpreted, misrepresented, and very-exclusive divine being of a heavenly father God, and the other patriarchal God of the Devil - but Jesus Christ meant by all these statements, that you have to serve the Goddess and who is the Mother of the universe and of all human Creation, and that you have to serve sexually and love influential, sexually assertive and sexually dominant women, a dominatrix or dominatrices, and in fact all women.
Thus, this is again what Jesus meant when he told the woman at the well that he was her servant of both God and but especially of the Goddess and of all women.
Despite what somewhat misogynist and very patriarchal religions, theologies, and college and university academia and academics claim, the real truth and reality of all these matters, are that all the real genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge comes from women, as contrary to the way the Bible has deliberately lied, or very wildly and inaccurately been misinterpreted about these things by describing all women as weaker vessels - men are actually the these vessels (and servants of women in these ways), as all men are the vessels of the genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge of which they and we all receive and transform from women, in many different ways - including socially, interpersonally in some communication between us, erotically, sexually, through the semiotic and somewhat subconscious words, tonal nature, over-lapping contextual patterns, shapes, and configurations of the languages and words women use and express, from women's body-language, and through love and emotional transference between men and women, but which again, all of these things and matters primarily come from women.
Whether any of us, actually believe that a Goddess actually exists or not at all, either superstitiously, symbolically, or metaphorically, it is an undeniable fact that women are the real creators of all human-life through childbirth, and it is also a fact and a reality that all men are really the vessels of women, as I have revealed and explained in this article, but then all of these men then steal and claim all of this political and spiritual knowledge as their own wisdom, intelligent writings, findings, new knowledge, and theories and propagate and tell the absolute lies that this is all their own creations.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
I am a big fan of the Goddess Community. However, many of them have both very unjustly, very ignorantly, and very unwisely rejected, and completely and utterly misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misunderstood what Jesus Christ meant when he said he was the messiah in the Bible.
Jesus Christ said that he was the messiah, not to any man, but to a woman at a well, and he was a heterosexual and love masochist towards and with women. Jesus Christ was also in reality and in fact, half-Jewish and half-Aramaic - and the Aramaic meaning and use of the term "messiah" means servant of the divine, it does not mean master nor mistress, and in this context when he told the woman at the well that he was the messiah, Jesus Christ meant that he was a servant of the Goddess and of her and other women.
Of course, the vast amount of Christians believe just in God and not in any Goddess, as in the gentile Christian culture and religion, they tend to find a spiritual truth or truths, and a spiritual reality, and then they look for no further spiritual truths or realities, and which is a very limited, very blinkered, and a most ignorant and prejudiced very conservative tendency, whilst in the Jewish and Irish cultures, everything and all spiritual and political matters are up for further debate, discussion, and investigation.
There may be a God as the gentile-Christians say, but that does not mean to say that God hasn't got a wife, but which is the Mother and the Goddess of all creation.
Jesus Christ also said in the Bible that you cannot serve two masters - meaning the master of the patriarchal misinterpreted, misrepresented, and very-exclusive divine being of a heavenly father God, and the other patriarchal God of the Devil - but Jesus Christ meant by all these statements, that you have to serve the Goddess and who is the Mother of the universe and of all human Creation, and that you have to serve sexually and love influential, sexually assertive and sexually dominant women, a dominatrix or dominatrices, and in fact all women.
Thus, this is again what Jesus meant when he told the woman at the well that he was her servant of both God and but especially of the Goddess and of all women.
Despite what somewhat misogynist and very patriarchal religions, theologies, and college and university academia and academics claim, the real truth and reality of all these matters, are that all the real genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge comes from women, as contrary to the way the Bible has deliberately lied, or very wildly and inaccurately been misinterpreted about these things by describing all women as weaker vessels - men are actually the these vessels (and servants of women in these ways), as all men are the vessels of the genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge of which they and we all receive and transform from women, in many different ways - including socially, interpersonally in some communication between us, erotically, sexually, through the semiotic and somewhat subconscious words, tonal nature, over-lapping contextual patterns, shapes, and configurations of the languages and words women use and express, from women's body-language, and through love and emotional transference between men and women, but which again, all of these things and matters primarily come from women.
Whether any of us, actually believe that a Goddess actually exists or not at all, either superstitiously, symbolically, or metaphorically, it is an undeniable fact that women are the real creators of all human-life through childbirth, and it is also a fact and a reality that all men are really the vessels of women, as I have revealed and explained in this article, but then all of these men then steal and claim all of this political and spiritual knowledge as their own wisdom, intelligent writings, findings, new knowledge, and theories and propagate and tell the absolute lies that this is all their own creations.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
A Key Aspect and Reality of the Spiritual, Social, Sexual, and Evolutionary Process and Progress of the Goddess in Women and/or Human Nature
A Key Aspect and Reality of the Spiritual, Social, Sexual, and Evolutionary Process and Progress of the Goddess in Women and/or Human Nature
Without having to do any study or research about this, it is obvious that the Goddess community are using the term androgyny, in both a gender-neutral and in a very feminine way and sense, and in an hermaphroditic sense as well, whilst we also all probably realise that in mainstream society, androgyny is a very male-term and use of language, because it means masculinity and making everyone and both men and women masculine and (more) like men; rather than seeing or realising any hidden or revelatory Goddess spirit in women and/or in all human nature.
Some usage's of the term androgyny, may also imply that there are only two genders, when there is in fact a third gender, and many other different types of gender to be realised and/or blended. There are some people, who are neither male nor female, they are not necessarily hermaphrodites nor androgynous physically and/or spiritually, mentally, and psychologically either, but they are a third and completely different gender.
Some masochist men towards and with women, fit into this category, as they are in way, and in basic terms, bi-gender, because whilst their masculinity goes into a kind of vacuum, it is then transformed sexually, erotically, and in terms of intellect, emotion, and love, into a blending with the ultra-femininity of dominatrix and femdom women, and thus in this way, it fades and returns as a sort of metaphorical resurrection.
These people oscillate in order to merge sexualities and genders, but do not passively blend in a way which is in a male sense mutually dominant. It is an active and assertive blending, towards a mutual receptivity and/or passivity to the happiness, pleasure, and desire of what the Goddess community would call the divinity of women and the Goddess, which in itself fades and returns as femininely assertive and dominant again.
This is an aspect and reality of the underlying spirituality of dominatrix and femdom women, which some people fail to see the process and progress of in both a spiritual, social, and evolutionary sense, as they only see the illusory surface of this as the sexuality and especially as the power, and thus they fragment and split it in the purely prevailing male sense of hermaphroditism.
Without having to do any study or research about this, it is obvious that the Goddess community are using the term androgyny, in both a gender-neutral and in a very feminine way and sense, and in an hermaphroditic sense as well, whilst we also all probably realise that in mainstream society, androgyny is a very male-term and use of language, because it means masculinity and making everyone and both men and women masculine and (more) like men; rather than seeing or realising any hidden or revelatory Goddess spirit in women and/or in all human nature.
Some usage's of the term androgyny, may also imply that there are only two genders, when there is in fact a third gender, and many other different types of gender to be realised and/or blended. There are some people, who are neither male nor female, they are not necessarily hermaphrodites nor androgynous physically and/or spiritually, mentally, and psychologically either, but they are a third and completely different gender.
Some masochist men towards and with women, fit into this category, as they are in way, and in basic terms, bi-gender, because whilst their masculinity goes into a kind of vacuum, it is then transformed sexually, erotically, and in terms of intellect, emotion, and love, into a blending with the ultra-femininity of dominatrix and femdom women, and thus in this way, it fades and returns as a sort of metaphorical resurrection.
These people oscillate in order to merge sexualities and genders, but do not passively blend in a way which is in a male sense mutually dominant. It is an active and assertive blending, towards a mutual receptivity and/or passivity to the happiness, pleasure, and desire of what the Goddess community would call the divinity of women and the Goddess, which in itself fades and returns as femininely assertive and dominant again.
This is an aspect and reality of the underlying spirituality of dominatrix and femdom women, which some people fail to see the process and progress of in both a spiritual, social, and evolutionary sense, as they only see the illusory surface of this as the sexuality and especially as the power, and thus they fragment and split it in the purely prevailing male sense of hermaphroditism.
Jesus Christ's Masochist Sexuality With and Towards Women
Jesus Christ's Masochist Sexuality With and Towards Women
Whether Jesus Christ ever existed - as some people say, along with the claim that there is some or much historical evidence for this - or whether Jesus Christ is a completely fictional character and the Bible is just a story, is all somewhat unknown and debatable. I just don't know, whether Jesus Christ existed or not, or whether the Biblical descriptions of Jesus Christ, are a falsely individual description of many people, in those Biblical times, and in that time, country, place, and society, and which still has some relevance and vital moral and ethical need and importance, to some sexual love masochist men with and towards women today, in our so-called modern world and society.
Whether Jesus Christ existed or not, there is some evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that he did have at least one female disciple, who was also his lover, and possibly eventually his wife, and who some people say, was in actual fact the prostitute, Mary Magdelin. My very astute, most highly ingenious, and deep understanding of the Bible, is that Jesus Christ, certainly had more than one - if not many - female disciples, but that this is only apparent from reading the subtexts, semiotic messages, and disordered, and somewhat mixed-up and interchangeable historical events in the Bible, and from connecting them all up in the right sort of order, with very high and clever psychological character insight, and from paying a lot of attention to all the details, and how they relate to both the parts, different contexts, and the whole.
I very much know and understand, how these split, fragmented, and reversed historical events in the Bible - which are not actually put into the right context, or put into any overall chronological order in the Bible - are all interconnected and relate, to form a whole and complete picture, in terms of the fact that Jesus had many female disciples, but which appears to be omitted or left out from the Bible. This is all also actually written in code, in the Bible, either deliberately, or more likely out of covering up the truth of this fact, that Jesus had many female disciples as well as male ones, and it is more than likely deliberately misleading people as to the facts, truth, and reality of all these matters.
The story in the Bible of Samson and Delilah, is not about separate characters and persons from Jesus Christ, but it is a symbolic and a Freudian slip, and a character-split, displacement, or fragmentation, of Samson - who was actually Jesus Christ - for the fact that Jesus Christ was a sexual love masochist with and towards women, that many women loved and desired Jesus for this and in this way, and that some women, due to their denial and repressed desires and urges towards him, as a sexual masochist towards men, had some very intense jealousy, and very hateful thoughts and feelings against him, due to the denial of their sexual and love repression, by themselves and others.
The other character-split and displacement character and person, was Delilah - and who was actually Jesus Christ's female disciple, Judas Iscariot - and who betrayed him to the Romans and religious authorities, because of this particular female disciple - Judas Iscariot's - very strong repressed sexual love and desires for Jesus, as a male sexual masochist towards women, and her inability to both express and control, these very strong, intense, and somewhat repressed sexual desires and urges, and which led to her extreme jealousy and hatred against him. All of this, led to the betrayal of Jesus Christ, by one of his female disciples, Judas Iscariot, and to the murder of Jesus, by the Romans and religious authorities, and which is also very much related to the fact that Jesus was seen as a political threat, due to some of his radical political views and opinions.
Because since Biblical times, the lack of equal rights, lack of understanding, and lack of insight and honesty, towards, of, and about sexual love masochism in men with and towards women, in the modern-day present world and society, and the ways that women's love and desire for masochist men, is repressed and seen as deviant and taboo - and the kind of jealousies and very hateful feelings, thoughts, and behaviours by some women like Judas Escariot, towards some sexual love masochist men with and towards women, due to denial and sexual repression of their desires, love, and urges - hasn't changed hardly at all, very similar threats are still being made about us as sexual love masochists with and towards women in this way, in modern day society.
Now of course, the state and society, isn't allowed to murder sexual love masochist men with and towards women, who may also have some radical political views and opinions, but very illegal, immoral, and unethical threats of incarceration, from things like the psychiatric system, or through the doctors medical system imposing bans, and only allowing us to see doctors in far away restricted areas and places, are still sometimes being used against us, as they have been made against me very recently.
These very illegal, immoral, and unethical threats that are sometimes made against us, as sexual love masochist men with and towards women, are driven by the same denial and repressed sexual desires, love, and urges of some women, who again cannot control these desires and urges, and who's repressed sexual desires, love, and urges, leads to very strong desires and sexual fantasies, to illegally incarcerate us, in order to have power over us, and to arrange clandestine situations, where we are forced to socially interact with, and in some ways satisfy these repressed and uncontrollable sexual desires, urges, and fantasies of these women - and with the excuse that these women are punishing us for our honesty and openness, about our sexual love masochism with and towards women, which are described by these women as "Very bad attitudes towards women" - and all in order to enforce a very immoral, unethical, and unwanted humiliation, for us to also apologise about this very false, unwanted accusation, excuse and pretext, for the very immoral, unethical, and illegal incarceration of us.
Until we understand the real facts and truth of, within, and about the Bible, about Jesus Christ's sexual love masochism with and towards women, the women who desired and loved him in this way, and the role and part that some women played in his murder and crucifixion, these illegal and unethical threats, of things like illegal and very immoral and unethical psychiatric incarceration, and of forced social interaction, for clandestine sexual activities by some women towards us, will continue.
Whether Jesus Christ ever existed - as some people say, along with the claim that there is some or much historical evidence for this - or whether Jesus Christ is a completely fictional character and the Bible is just a story, is all somewhat unknown and debatable. I just don't know, whether Jesus Christ existed or not, or whether the Biblical descriptions of Jesus Christ, are a falsely individual description of many people, in those Biblical times, and in that time, country, place, and society, and which still has some relevance and vital moral and ethical need and importance, to some sexual love masochist men with and towards women today, in our so-called modern world and society.
Whether Jesus Christ existed or not, there is some evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that he did have at least one female disciple, who was also his lover, and possibly eventually his wife, and who some people say, was in actual fact the prostitute, Mary Magdelin. My very astute, most highly ingenious, and deep understanding of the Bible, is that Jesus Christ, certainly had more than one - if not many - female disciples, but that this is only apparent from reading the subtexts, semiotic messages, and disordered, and somewhat mixed-up and interchangeable historical events in the Bible, and from connecting them all up in the right sort of order, with very high and clever psychological character insight, and from paying a lot of attention to all the details, and how they relate to both the parts, different contexts, and the whole.
I very much know and understand, how these split, fragmented, and reversed historical events in the Bible - which are not actually put into the right context, or put into any overall chronological order in the Bible - are all interconnected and relate, to form a whole and complete picture, in terms of the fact that Jesus had many female disciples, but which appears to be omitted or left out from the Bible. This is all also actually written in code, in the Bible, either deliberately, or more likely out of covering up the truth of this fact, that Jesus had many female disciples as well as male ones, and it is more than likely deliberately misleading people as to the facts, truth, and reality of all these matters.
The story in the Bible of Samson and Delilah, is not about separate characters and persons from Jesus Christ, but it is a symbolic and a Freudian slip, and a character-split, displacement, or fragmentation, of Samson - who was actually Jesus Christ - for the fact that Jesus Christ was a sexual love masochist with and towards women, that many women loved and desired Jesus for this and in this way, and that some women, due to their denial and repressed desires and urges towards him, as a sexual masochist towards men, had some very intense jealousy, and very hateful thoughts and feelings against him, due to the denial of their sexual and love repression, by themselves and others.
The other character-split and displacement character and person, was Delilah - and who was actually Jesus Christ's female disciple, Judas Iscariot - and who betrayed him to the Romans and religious authorities, because of this particular female disciple - Judas Iscariot's - very strong repressed sexual love and desires for Jesus, as a male sexual masochist towards women, and her inability to both express and control, these very strong, intense, and somewhat repressed sexual desires and urges, and which led to her extreme jealousy and hatred against him. All of this, led to the betrayal of Jesus Christ, by one of his female disciples, Judas Iscariot, and to the murder of Jesus, by the Romans and religious authorities, and which is also very much related to the fact that Jesus was seen as a political threat, due to some of his radical political views and opinions.
Because since Biblical times, the lack of equal rights, lack of understanding, and lack of insight and honesty, towards, of, and about sexual love masochism in men with and towards women, in the modern-day present world and society, and the ways that women's love and desire for masochist men, is repressed and seen as deviant and taboo - and the kind of jealousies and very hateful feelings, thoughts, and behaviours by some women like Judas Escariot, towards some sexual love masochist men with and towards women, due to denial and sexual repression of their desires, love, and urges - hasn't changed hardly at all, very similar threats are still being made about us as sexual love masochists with and towards women in this way, in modern day society.
Now of course, the state and society, isn't allowed to murder sexual love masochist men with and towards women, who may also have some radical political views and opinions, but very illegal, immoral, and unethical threats of incarceration, from things like the psychiatric system, or through the doctors medical system imposing bans, and only allowing us to see doctors in far away restricted areas and places, are still sometimes being used against us, as they have been made against me very recently.
These very illegal, immoral, and unethical threats that are sometimes made against us, as sexual love masochist men with and towards women, are driven by the same denial and repressed sexual desires, love, and urges of some women, who again cannot control these desires and urges, and who's repressed sexual desires, love, and urges, leads to very strong desires and sexual fantasies, to illegally incarcerate us, in order to have power over us, and to arrange clandestine situations, where we are forced to socially interact with, and in some ways satisfy these repressed and uncontrollable sexual desires, urges, and fantasies of these women - and with the excuse that these women are punishing us for our honesty and openness, about our sexual love masochism with and towards women, which are described by these women as "Very bad attitudes towards women" - and all in order to enforce a very immoral, unethical, and unwanted humiliation, for us to also apologise about this very false, unwanted accusation, excuse and pretext, for the very immoral, unethical, and illegal incarceration of us.
Until we understand the real facts and truth of, within, and about the Bible, about Jesus Christ's sexual love masochism with and towards women, the women who desired and loved him in this way, and the role and part that some women played in his murder and crucifixion, these illegal and unethical threats, of things like illegal and very immoral and unethical psychiatric incarceration, and of forced social interaction, for clandestine sexual activities by some women towards us, will continue.
Masochism and Phenomenology
Masochism and Phenomenology
It’s important in explaining about masochism, and understanding the uniqueness and higher awareness of it, that we understand the experiences of masochist men in relation and towards women, and how we as masochist men interact and especially experience women. This is necessary to clear up some misconceptions about masochism - related to hypocrisy, double-standards, and false and inaccurate interpretations by professionals and some others - to clear up and challenge the misconceptions that masochist men have overall central misperceptions about women, and to understand the phenomenology, and the natural or biological psychology of masochism.
Masochism in men towards women, is in a lot of ways, a more intense form of heterosexuality, as it is a sensitivity, and a more intense sexual feeling and love for women. The character, physical beauty, and sexuality of women, are experienced by masochist men, as more assertive, more influential, and more powerful, to the extent where this can sometimes overwhelm us as masochist men, or lead to acts and desires of submission and debasement towards women, as well as this sensitivity leading to more refinement and mutual respect.
On the matter of whether these thoughts, feelings, and desires about women by masochist men, are to what extent based upon the reality of the true nature of women, this is somewhat of a complex matter, related to the diversity and individuality of women, whilst some clear and concise statements can still be made about this.
The common myth about masochism, that it is idealising women, is not true, whilst it can lead to some more realistic realisations about the true nature of women - without over-generalising too much - and can lead to some foresight and cynicism. It is here that I confess, that despite my deep, sensitive, and intense desire and submissive love for women, masochism in men towards women, is much more likely to lead to cynicism than idealisation about women, and most women realise and know this.
It’s important in explaining about masochism, and understanding the uniqueness and higher awareness of it, that we understand the experiences of masochist men in relation and towards women, and how we as masochist men interact and especially experience women. This is necessary to clear up some misconceptions about masochism - related to hypocrisy, double-standards, and false and inaccurate interpretations by professionals and some others - to clear up and challenge the misconceptions that masochist men have overall central misperceptions about women, and to understand the phenomenology, and the natural or biological psychology of masochism.
Masochism in men towards women, is in a lot of ways, a more intense form of heterosexuality, as it is a sensitivity, and a more intense sexual feeling and love for women. The character, physical beauty, and sexuality of women, are experienced by masochist men, as more assertive, more influential, and more powerful, to the extent where this can sometimes overwhelm us as masochist men, or lead to acts and desires of submission and debasement towards women, as well as this sensitivity leading to more refinement and mutual respect.
On the matter of whether these thoughts, feelings, and desires about women by masochist men, are to what extent based upon the reality of the true nature of women, this is somewhat of a complex matter, related to the diversity and individuality of women, whilst some clear and concise statements can still be made about this.
The common myth about masochism, that it is idealising women, is not true, whilst it can lead to some more realistic realisations about the true nature of women - without over-generalising too much - and can lead to some foresight and cynicism. It is here that I confess, that despite my deep, sensitive, and intense desire and submissive love for women, masochism in men towards women, is much more likely to lead to cynicism than idealisation about women, and most women realise and know this.
My thoughts and Responses, on a Male Internet Friend's Recent view about Dominatrices, that they have an Illusory, and a False Identity and Persona, a
My thoughts and Responses, on a Male Internet Friend's Recent view about Dominatrices, that they have an Illusory, and a False Identity and Persona, as Sexually Sadistic and Dominate Women Towards Men, which they very Evasively, Deceitfully, and Falsely Present to Themselves and Others about Themselves
This view and interpretation about dominatrices, as recently put-forward to me by a male friend over the Internet, states and says that all dominatrices have and create a false persona and sexual identity, presented to themselves and others, of an illusory sexual character and nature, as sexually sadistic or sexually dominant genders and orientations towards men - which he also stated and said were very much conditioned, influenced by, and based-upon money and their vested Interest in monetary profit, which materially, economically, and socially and economic conditions and Influences their ideas of and about themselves in all these ways - and which he then stated also then creates a false and misleading sexually sadistic and erotic, and a sexually dominant illusion and fake or false identity and persona.
After telling this Internet friend, that I very much desire, love, and respect all dominatrices, sexually sadistic, assertive, influential, and sexually dominant women towards men, this male friend over the Internet, then said that he didn't like me talking about any of this, because he then told me that it made him think of me as less of a man, and that when I do talk and say about all or any or this to him, he said that he also has a lowered respect and regard of me as a man.
He also said, that none of these dominatrix women, are what I think or what I say they are, as they are not in fact sexually sadistic nor sexually dominant women towards men by nature at all, and that in actual reality and fact, that they are just prostitutes, who don't want to have sex with men, and so they beat men instead, in order to make lots of money out of it all.
This male Internet friend, is not a Marxist, but what he was saying about all of this, is very similar to the Marxist idea and view, that all personas, personalities, and sexual-orientations and character illusions, and all ideas, social, and gender conditions, are very much conditioned, influenced, and caused and strongly related to the social and material economic vested interests of these dominatrix women, who are in reality and fact not authentically or genuinely sexually sadistic or sexually dominant at all.
Wiliest I totally disagree with this male Internet friend, that being a heterosexual male masochist towards and with women, makes me any less of a man - nor that sexually sadistic and sexually dominant women towards men, makes them less of a woman or women and not real women - up to a point - I think he has a point about social, economic, material conditions, and social circumstances, being a primary and major cause, conditioning, and an influence, of sexual orientations and desires, and of some fake or false identity constructions and fabrications related to all of this, and as presented to the self and others by dominatrices.
Again, I agree in a way, and up to a point, with his sort of Marxists view, as many dominatrices, are not simply female sadists towards men, nor are they simply sexually dominant women towards men as they claim, as the vast majority of dominatrices are in actual fact switches who swing both ways as submissive or dominant, according to what other person or situation they are in. Also, some dominatrices, are also neither female sadists, nor sexual female dominants towards men, as they can also be either reverse female masochists, or sadomasochists - as sadomasochists, are again - a completely different and separate type of person from sadists, masochists, female dominants, female reverse masochists, and switches.
I have learned from my years of study of the texts, subtexts, shapes and order, and my deconstructed irregular and displaced patterns and motions, of the linguistics and semantics on all of the dominatrices websites, and from studying and deeply and complexly analysing their photos as well - and also by engaging in fairly long web-cam chat conversations, with many of them over the years, and thousands of MSN Messenger and email conversations with them - they are all in actually reality and fact a mixture of female sadists, female dominants, reverse female masochists, switches - and actual sadomasochists - who are again completely different from all the other types of BDSM sexual orientations.
So contrary to this male Internet friend's, rather over-simplified, very cynical, and very reductionist view about dominatrices, having their false sexual identity, personal, and sexual genders and sexual-orientation characters, conditioned and influenced my economic vested interests, and that these ideas that they have or present to others about themselves, are all conditioned and influenced by social, economic, and material circumstances, interests, and influences - I do still believe what they say what they are - although of course some of them are not be clear, knowledgeable, nor specific about what they really are or they are lying, because there are in actual fact and reality six different types of BDSM, dominatrices, and sexual female domination people - male and female masochists, female sadists, female dominants, reverse female masochists, switches - and again - actual sadomasochists, who are completely and totally different from all the rest.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
This view and interpretation about dominatrices, as recently put-forward to me by a male friend over the Internet, states and says that all dominatrices have and create a false persona and sexual identity, presented to themselves and others, of an illusory sexual character and nature, as sexually sadistic or sexually dominant genders and orientations towards men - which he also stated and said were very much conditioned, influenced by, and based-upon money and their vested Interest in monetary profit, which materially, economically, and socially and economic conditions and Influences their ideas of and about themselves in all these ways - and which he then stated also then creates a false and misleading sexually sadistic and erotic, and a sexually dominant illusion and fake or false identity and persona.
After telling this Internet friend, that I very much desire, love, and respect all dominatrices, sexually sadistic, assertive, influential, and sexually dominant women towards men, this male friend over the Internet, then said that he didn't like me talking about any of this, because he then told me that it made him think of me as less of a man, and that when I do talk and say about all or any or this to him, he said that he also has a lowered respect and regard of me as a man.
He also said, that none of these dominatrix women, are what I think or what I say they are, as they are not in fact sexually sadistic nor sexually dominant women towards men by nature at all, and that in actual reality and fact, that they are just prostitutes, who don't want to have sex with men, and so they beat men instead, in order to make lots of money out of it all.
This male Internet friend, is not a Marxist, but what he was saying about all of this, is very similar to the Marxist idea and view, that all personas, personalities, and sexual-orientations and character illusions, and all ideas, social, and gender conditions, are very much conditioned, influenced, and caused and strongly related to the social and material economic vested interests of these dominatrix women, who are in reality and fact not authentically or genuinely sexually sadistic or sexually dominant at all.
Wiliest I totally disagree with this male Internet friend, that being a heterosexual male masochist towards and with women, makes me any less of a man - nor that sexually sadistic and sexually dominant women towards men, makes them less of a woman or women and not real women - up to a point - I think he has a point about social, economic, material conditions, and social circumstances, being a primary and major cause, conditioning, and an influence, of sexual orientations and desires, and of some fake or false identity constructions and fabrications related to all of this, and as presented to the self and others by dominatrices.
Again, I agree in a way, and up to a point, with his sort of Marxists view, as many dominatrices, are not simply female sadists towards men, nor are they simply sexually dominant women towards men as they claim, as the vast majority of dominatrices are in actual fact switches who swing both ways as submissive or dominant, according to what other person or situation they are in. Also, some dominatrices, are also neither female sadists, nor sexual female dominants towards men, as they can also be either reverse female masochists, or sadomasochists - as sadomasochists, are again - a completely different and separate type of person from sadists, masochists, female dominants, female reverse masochists, and switches.
I have learned from my years of study of the texts, subtexts, shapes and order, and my deconstructed irregular and displaced patterns and motions, of the linguistics and semantics on all of the dominatrices websites, and from studying and deeply and complexly analysing their photos as well - and also by engaging in fairly long web-cam chat conversations, with many of them over the years, and thousands of MSN Messenger and email conversations with them - they are all in actually reality and fact a mixture of female sadists, female dominants, reverse female masochists, switches - and actual sadomasochists - who are again completely different from all the other types of BDSM sexual orientations.
So contrary to this male Internet friend's, rather over-simplified, very cynical, and very reductionist view about dominatrices, having their false sexual identity, personal, and sexual genders and sexual-orientation characters, conditioned and influenced my economic vested interests, and that these ideas that they have or present to others about themselves, are all conditioned and influenced by social, economic, and material circumstances, interests, and influences - I do still believe what they say what they are - although of course some of them are not be clear, knowledgeable, nor specific about what they really are or they are lying, because there are in actual fact and reality six different types of BDSM, dominatrices, and sexual female domination people - male and female masochists, female sadists, female dominants, reverse female masochists, switches - and again - actual sadomasochists, who are completely and totally different from all the rest.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
Prostitution, Economic, Personal, and Social Sexual freedom,
Prostitution, Economic, Personal, and Social Sexual freedom,
by peterpoets » 02 Oct 2010 08:57 am
Prostitution, Economic, Personal, and Social Sexual freedom, Love and Friendship
I've recently been studying and researching different kind of prostitutes websites on the Internet, and various things about these different kinds of prostitute individuals and groups occurs to me.
Whilst it seems at first glance, that prostitutes are very capitalistic, greedy, and gauge and measure love and friendship with men just based upon gaining money, this is not really the case or reality about all of this at all, as a lot of all this depends upon whether prostitutes are either completely and genuinely autonomously self-employed or autonomous collective groups, or whether they are controlled by men in both good and bad terms and ways, as either their bosses or their helpers and mentors.
If prostitutes have men as their bosses, mentors or helpers, then this doesn't necessarily mean that these men are evil or controlling in a negative way, but the problem is that often the men who control or help prostitutes or are their bosses in some ways, tend to impose very conservative values about love and friendship with other men upon them, and by doing this, they think they are helping, protecting, and securing love and social and friendship loyalty and priority for these women, by only encouraging them to seek love or friendship with men if they receive money for it.
Receiving money for sexual things, is fine and most people do this in one way or another, but money cannot buy anyone friendship or love, especially if it is in anyway hierarchical, controlled, or controlling.
This is why some prostitutes are genuinely and authentically self-employed and autonomous either as individuals or groups, so they can make money for themselves, whilst they are also free and can be friends or love men, when and how they choose to do so, and without any overall economic dependency and very conservative values being pressurised or imposed upon them.
by peterpoets » 02 Oct 2010 08:57 am
Prostitution, Economic, Personal, and Social Sexual freedom, Love and Friendship
I've recently been studying and researching different kind of prostitutes websites on the Internet, and various things about these different kinds of prostitute individuals and groups occurs to me.
Whilst it seems at first glance, that prostitutes are very capitalistic, greedy, and gauge and measure love and friendship with men just based upon gaining money, this is not really the case or reality about all of this at all, as a lot of all this depends upon whether prostitutes are either completely and genuinely autonomously self-employed or autonomous collective groups, or whether they are controlled by men in both good and bad terms and ways, as either their bosses or their helpers and mentors.
If prostitutes have men as their bosses, mentors or helpers, then this doesn't necessarily mean that these men are evil or controlling in a negative way, but the problem is that often the men who control or help prostitutes or are their bosses in some ways, tend to impose very conservative values about love and friendship with other men upon them, and by doing this, they think they are helping, protecting, and securing love and social and friendship loyalty and priority for these women, by only encouraging them to seek love or friendship with men if they receive money for it.
Receiving money for sexual things, is fine and most people do this in one way or another, but money cannot buy anyone friendship or love, especially if it is in anyway hierarchical, controlled, or controlling.
This is why some prostitutes are genuinely and authentically self-employed and autonomous either as individuals or groups, so they can make money for themselves, whilst they are also free and can be friends or love men, when and how they choose to do so, and without any overall economic dependency and very conservative values being pressurised or imposed upon them.
Thomas Szasz, and the Ways that he has been Taken Out-of-Context and Misinterpreted about Natural and Biological Sexual, Erotic, and Sexual-love Masoc
Thomas Szasz, and the Ways that he has been Taken Out-of-Context and Misinterpreted about Natural and Biological Sexual, Erotic, and Sexual-love Masochism
The original context, when the writer and critic of medical psychiatry, Thomas Szasz, first made a statement saying that masochism is purely and first and foremost a behaviour - and which he has been overall taken out-of-context and misinterpreted on this by those who see all masochism as purely a bad behaviour - is that he was referring to masochism in a sort of psychiatric sense as self-harm, along with his next statement that along with rape - and in terms of people being a danger or harm to themselves or others - he was in this context referring to self-harm as first and foremost a behaviour, but he never intended to mean and has never mentioned nor said anything about sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochism.
The reason that Thomas Szasz has never mentioned nor ever said anything about sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochism and which people have taken out-of-context, misinterpreted, and confused with what he meant in context about this as self-harm as first and foremost a behaviour - is because whilst he is a political libertarian - he is also a political conservative, who believes that all sexual matters about a free person, who does not impose this on others against their will or free choice, should be solely and absolutely a private matter.
Sexual-erotic, and sexual-love masochism - is like homosexuality - primarily, and first and foremost biological and genetic, and like homosexuality, it is only a behaviour in the very reductionist or over-generalisation that everything human could be described as a behaviour, and it is also only a behaviour, in a metaphorical sense, and as a behavioural by-product of the fact that sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochists are primarily masochists biologically and genetically the same as homosexuals are.
The original context, when the writer and critic of medical psychiatry, Thomas Szasz, first made a statement saying that masochism is purely and first and foremost a behaviour - and which he has been overall taken out-of-context and misinterpreted on this by those who see all masochism as purely a bad behaviour - is that he was referring to masochism in a sort of psychiatric sense as self-harm, along with his next statement that along with rape - and in terms of people being a danger or harm to themselves or others - he was in this context referring to self-harm as first and foremost a behaviour, but he never intended to mean and has never mentioned nor said anything about sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochism.
The reason that Thomas Szasz has never mentioned nor ever said anything about sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochism and which people have taken out-of-context, misinterpreted, and confused with what he meant in context about this as self-harm as first and foremost a behaviour - is because whilst he is a political libertarian - he is also a political conservative, who believes that all sexual matters about a free person, who does not impose this on others against their will or free choice, should be solely and absolutely a private matter.
Sexual-erotic, and sexual-love masochism - is like homosexuality - primarily, and first and foremost biological and genetic, and like homosexuality, it is only a behaviour in the very reductionist or over-generalisation that everything human could be described as a behaviour, and it is also only a behaviour, in a metaphorical sense, and as a behavioural by-product of the fact that sexual, erotic, and sexual-love masochists are primarily masochists biologically and genetically the same as homosexuals are.
Individual and Social Characters, Desires, Sexual and Erotic Fantasies, and Identities
Individual and Social Characters, Desires, Sexual and Erotic Fantasies, and Identities
In one of my previous BDSM articles, I revealed and explained that there was a fourth type of BDSM person and group - sexually, erotically, individually, and socially - from masochists, sadists, and switches, and which are actual sadomasochists.
Actual sadomasochists, as I said in one of my previous articles, are a lot more internal, sexually and psychologically, than "switches", in that sadomasochists, are less sexually versatile, more erotically private, and more sexually rigid than masochists, sadists, and switches are. Also, unlike switches, sadomasochists tend to have the same sadistic and masochist (and somewhat reversing) behaviour patterns, sexual orientations, and experiences, no matter what other situation or other person they are in role-play, different situations, or sexual love-relationships with.
In terms of sexual and erotic identity, switches are very external and sort of much more supposedly realistic and objective, but they nearly always seek validation and verification about their sexuality and eroticism, very externally, in a very conformist way, and very socially. Therefore, because switches are dominant or submissive, according to who they are in sexual-love relationships or role-play with, or according to what social and/or private situation they are in, switches very much nearly always need some kind of very external or social verification, validation, and approval for their sexual and erotic identities.
It is also true that switches actually internally, sexually and erotically fantasise a fair bit, but they internally sexually and erotically fantasise no where near as much as masochists, sadists, and sadomasochists do, and because they are also more extroverted in all these ways. Because switches have much more of a need to overall verify and validate their sexual and erotic fantasies and identities, masochists tend to be more individually submissive - and sexually and erotically so - whereas switches tend to be more overall socially submissive and conformist in these ways, and which is one big reason why they are generally very much inaccurately assumed and considered by others, as being overwhelmingly more stable, much more healthier, and the very basic more well-balanced general norm.
In one of my previous BDSM articles, I revealed and explained that there was a fourth type of BDSM person and group - sexually, erotically, individually, and socially - from masochists, sadists, and switches, and which are actual sadomasochists.
Actual sadomasochists, as I said in one of my previous articles, are a lot more internal, sexually and psychologically, than "switches", in that sadomasochists, are less sexually versatile, more erotically private, and more sexually rigid than masochists, sadists, and switches are. Also, unlike switches, sadomasochists tend to have the same sadistic and masochist (and somewhat reversing) behaviour patterns, sexual orientations, and experiences, no matter what other situation or other person they are in role-play, different situations, or sexual love-relationships with.
In terms of sexual and erotic identity, switches are very external and sort of much more supposedly realistic and objective, but they nearly always seek validation and verification about their sexuality and eroticism, very externally, in a very conformist way, and very socially. Therefore, because switches are dominant or submissive, according to who they are in sexual-love relationships or role-play with, or according to what social and/or private situation they are in, switches very much nearly always need some kind of very external or social verification, validation, and approval for their sexual and erotic identities.
It is also true that switches actually internally, sexually and erotically fantasise a fair bit, but they internally sexually and erotically fantasise no where near as much as masochists, sadists, and sadomasochists do, and because they are also more extroverted in all these ways. Because switches have much more of a need to overall verify and validate their sexual and erotic fantasies and identities, masochists tend to be more individually submissive - and sexually and erotically so - whereas switches tend to be more overall socially submissive and conformist in these ways, and which is one big reason why they are generally very much inaccurately assumed and considered by others, as being overwhelmingly more stable, much more healthier, and the very basic more well-balanced general norm.
The very Subtle, Detailed, and Major Differences between Masochists, Sadists, Switches, and Sadomasochists
I had originally said in my first article about them, that my American friend Steve was naturally a sexual-love masochist, and that his British wife Mandy was naturally a sexual-love sadist, and that their sexual orientations, in this way, also became reversed, in order for them to both justify taking some revenge against each other, for in some ways sexually enjoying, mistreating, and abusing each other, in different ways. However, I now realise and know, without a shadow of a doubt, that Steve is not really a masochist at all, and Mandy is not really a sadist. The real truth and reality of the matter, is that what Steve and Mandy actually are, is they are both in actual fact and reality sadomasochists.
"Sadomasochists", as a term, is nearly always used as a collective term over the Internet, in books, and within society, to describe both sadists and masochists, separately as different sexual orientations from each other - but grouped together in this way, conveniently by this inaccurate and confusing use of the term "sadomasochists" - and in order to refer to separate masochist and sadist people, as one very general and mixed "kinky" or BDSM group of people. However, in actual fact and reality, whilst there are such separate sexual-orientations, individuals, and human beings, as masochists, and sadists, there is also another completely separate and different type of sexual orientation, from masochists and sadists, and these are actually sadomasochists, and again, this what Steve and Mandy actually are.
What’s more, sadomasochists - whilst in a way still being a mixture of sadism and masochism within individuals, like Steve and Mandy - are not the same as switches, as switches, are a mixture of masochism and sadism, as a more external thing sexually, socially, and psychologically, according to what situation and other person’s switches are in BDSM role-play, or sexual love-relationships with, and which makes them either sexually dominant or submissive with different persons or people.
Unlike switches (who are also sometimes called "versatiles"), actual sadomasochists such as Steve and Mandy, are a fourth type of person and sexuality (who come after masochists, sadists, and switches), and who are a lot more internal, sexually and psychologically, than "switches", in that sadomasochists, are less sexually versatile, more private, and more sexually rigid than switches. Unlike switches, sadomasochists tend to have the same sadistic and masochist (somewhat reversing) behaviour patterns, sexual orientations, and experiences, no matter what other situation or other person, they are in role-play, different situations, or sexual love-relationships with.
Another major difference between switches and actual sadomasochists, is that whilst switches are much closer to what the academic, psychiatric, political, social, and mental health elite's and professionals consider as more socially, psychologically, and sexually healthy, more balanced, more normal and the general norm, most switches and so-called normal, so-called well-balanced, and so-called sexually and psychologically healthy people, are actually in a big way, in actual reality and fact much more sadistic and devious than sadomasochists, in that switches tend to have big cuckolding fantasies, desires, and/or behaviours (having sexual love-making and/or intercourse by openly or covertly cheating on masochist men or other men and women, by having sex and sexual pleasure against other men and women at their expense, and using, exploiting, loving, and/or desiring with or against other men or women as an ultra-submissive third person or party in these ways).
Whilst actual sadomasochists may sometimes engage in cuckolding fantasies, desires, and behaviours, against a very submissive or masochistic third person or party, they only tend to do or engage in all or any of this, if they themselves have been cuckolded or sexually cheated on to get their own back, and they will only engage in cuckolding sexual fantasies, desires, and/or behaviours if it is all agreed upon with and between the very submissive or masochist third person and/or party, and if it is all consensual - but usually even when they do this, they just participate to please all and everyone concerned - as any kind of overt or actual sexual cuckolding, is not really a big part of their major sexual fantasies, desires, nor really their thing.
So strangely enough, actual sadomasochists overall tend not to have these cuckolding sexual and social fantasies, desires, and/or behaviours that most so called very well-balanced and so-called normal switch people have - there is a sort of strange kind of loyalty, integrity, honour, and decency about sadomasochists in this way - and whilst they may sometimes purely socially cheat on or betray each other or other people, if anything, they tend to find the so-called well-balanced, so-called healthy, general, and so-called normal switch non-consensual cuckolding actual sexual and social fantasies, desires, and/or behaviours as very repugnant, unethical, immoral, and very sexually and socially repulsive.
Because of Steve and Mandy both fearing ignorance, prejudice, stigma, and discrimination from others, society, and the world, about their true sadomasochistic natures and desires, these conflict factors and reasons, between Steve and Mandy, sometimes lead to the both of them turning against each other, by judging and criticising each other very hypocritically, and because of all of these things and factors, they also both tend to insulate and isolate themselves from society and the world.
Mandy very hypocritically judges and criticises Steve, by making very harsh, crushing, insults and "moral" criticisms and judgements against him, and Steve does a very similar thing, by using some so-called psychological theories and ideas, in order to say to her or others, that some aspects of her sadomasochism, are due to things like so-called delusions and mental illness.
I also, now understand, why Steve is willing to travel ten thousand miles though, in order to have a sexual love-relationship and be with Mandy, because actual sadomasochists are much rarer, than masochists, sadists, and switches, and it is highly unlikely, that he will ever find the right suitable sexual partner like her again, without somewhat searching wide or far away.
Whilst some of what I initially said, in my first article and analysis, about Steve and Mandy, is still true about them, that they need to discuss and negotiate, in order to in some ways moderate, balance, and compromise their sadomasochism with each other (and I have repeatedly suggested to them that they need relationship counselling for this), it is also true that in some ways they also both very much consent and agree to, sexually enjoy, and like mistreating and abusing each other for their own sexual pleasures, and that some of that about them, will never change.
Both Steve and Mandy, also blame some parental abuse towards them as children, for their sadomasochism, although I personally don’t believe that this is a major cause of their sadomasochism, which is overall biological and genetic, although the child abuse they suffered, has probably intensified their natural sadomasochism. Again though, Steve and Mandy, can still, should, and must compromise, balance, and moderate their sadomasochism in some ways, in order to save their sexual love-relationship, lest they continue to mistreat and abuse each other in some ways, which is not agreed upon or consented by the both of them.
"Sadomasochists", as a term, is nearly always used as a collective term over the Internet, in books, and within society, to describe both sadists and masochists, separately as different sexual orientations from each other - but grouped together in this way, conveniently by this inaccurate and confusing use of the term "sadomasochists" - and in order to refer to separate masochist and sadist people, as one very general and mixed "kinky" or BDSM group of people. However, in actual fact and reality, whilst there are such separate sexual-orientations, individuals, and human beings, as masochists, and sadists, there is also another completely separate and different type of sexual orientation, from masochists and sadists, and these are actually sadomasochists, and again, this what Steve and Mandy actually are.
What’s more, sadomasochists - whilst in a way still being a mixture of sadism and masochism within individuals, like Steve and Mandy - are not the same as switches, as switches, are a mixture of masochism and sadism, as a more external thing sexually, socially, and psychologically, according to what situation and other person’s switches are in BDSM role-play, or sexual love-relationships with, and which makes them either sexually dominant or submissive with different persons or people.
Unlike switches (who are also sometimes called "versatiles"), actual sadomasochists such as Steve and Mandy, are a fourth type of person and sexuality (who come after masochists, sadists, and switches), and who are a lot more internal, sexually and psychologically, than "switches", in that sadomasochists, are less sexually versatile, more private, and more sexually rigid than switches. Unlike switches, sadomasochists tend to have the same sadistic and masochist (somewhat reversing) behaviour patterns, sexual orientations, and experiences, no matter what other situation or other person, they are in role-play, different situations, or sexual love-relationships with.
Another major difference between switches and actual sadomasochists, is that whilst switches are much closer to what the academic, psychiatric, political, social, and mental health elite's and professionals consider as more socially, psychologically, and sexually healthy, more balanced, more normal and the general norm, most switches and so-called normal, so-called well-balanced, and so-called sexually and psychologically healthy people, are actually in a big way, in actual reality and fact much more sadistic and devious than sadomasochists, in that switches tend to have big cuckolding fantasies, desires, and/or behaviours (having sexual love-making and/or intercourse by openly or covertly cheating on masochist men or other men and women, by having sex and sexual pleasure against other men and women at their expense, and using, exploiting, loving, and/or desiring with or against other men or women as an ultra-submissive third person or party in these ways).
Whilst actual sadomasochists may sometimes engage in cuckolding fantasies, desires, and behaviours, against a very submissive or masochistic third person or party, they only tend to do or engage in all or any of this, if they themselves have been cuckolded or sexually cheated on to get their own back, and they will only engage in cuckolding sexual fantasies, desires, and/or behaviours if it is all agreed upon with and between the very submissive or masochist third person and/or party, and if it is all consensual - but usually even when they do this, they just participate to please all and everyone concerned - as any kind of overt or actual sexual cuckolding, is not really a big part of their major sexual fantasies, desires, nor really their thing.
So strangely enough, actual sadomasochists overall tend not to have these cuckolding sexual and social fantasies, desires, and/or behaviours that most so called very well-balanced and so-called normal switch people have - there is a sort of strange kind of loyalty, integrity, honour, and decency about sadomasochists in this way - and whilst they may sometimes purely socially cheat on or betray each other or other people, if anything, they tend to find the so-called well-balanced, so-called healthy, general, and so-called normal switch non-consensual cuckolding actual sexual and social fantasies, desires, and/or behaviours as very repugnant, unethical, immoral, and very sexually and socially repulsive.
Because of Steve and Mandy both fearing ignorance, prejudice, stigma, and discrimination from others, society, and the world, about their true sadomasochistic natures and desires, these conflict factors and reasons, between Steve and Mandy, sometimes lead to the both of them turning against each other, by judging and criticising each other very hypocritically, and because of all of these things and factors, they also both tend to insulate and isolate themselves from society and the world.
Mandy very hypocritically judges and criticises Steve, by making very harsh, crushing, insults and "moral" criticisms and judgements against him, and Steve does a very similar thing, by using some so-called psychological theories and ideas, in order to say to her or others, that some aspects of her sadomasochism, are due to things like so-called delusions and mental illness.
I also, now understand, why Steve is willing to travel ten thousand miles though, in order to have a sexual love-relationship and be with Mandy, because actual sadomasochists are much rarer, than masochists, sadists, and switches, and it is highly unlikely, that he will ever find the right suitable sexual partner like her again, without somewhat searching wide or far away.
Whilst some of what I initially said, in my first article and analysis, about Steve and Mandy, is still true about them, that they need to discuss and negotiate, in order to in some ways moderate, balance, and compromise their sadomasochism with each other (and I have repeatedly suggested to them that they need relationship counselling for this), it is also true that in some ways they also both very much consent and agree to, sexually enjoy, and like mistreating and abusing each other for their own sexual pleasures, and that some of that about them, will never change.
Both Steve and Mandy, also blame some parental abuse towards them as children, for their sadomasochism, although I personally don’t believe that this is a major cause of their sadomasochism, which is overall biological and genetic, although the child abuse they suffered, has probably intensified their natural sadomasochism. Again though, Steve and Mandy, can still, should, and must compromise, balance, and moderate their sadomasochism in some ways, in order to save their sexual love-relationship, lest they continue to mistreat and abuse each other in some ways, which is not agreed upon or consented by the both of them.
The Difference Between Matriarchy and Dictatorship
I absolutely and completely both spiritually and politically believe in matriarchy, but I in no way believe in dictatorship. Patriarchy is dictatorship, whereas matriarchy is about female domination, positive female influence, and the transformation of masochist men into new men who are both the servants, erotic and sexual slaves, and equal citizens and partners of women.
I personally am not a female supremacist - nor a supremacist of any kind - and if anyone thinks that dominatrices, female sadists, or female erotic and sexual dominants towards men, are exclusively female supremacists as isolated examples aside from all the other women in the world, then you are very wrong about all these wonderful and unique female sadist, sexually and erotically dominant, influential, and assertive women, and nobody should make any such discriminatory and wildly ignorant and inaccurate assumptions about them.
ALL women are female supremacists, but the dominatrices, female sadists, and female sexual and erotic dominants, are just more honest about it, and what's more they alchemise, transform, and blend female supremacism with many other political and psychological ideas, actions, experiences, sensations, and behaviours, which both moderates it and creates more political, social, psychological, spiritual, and individual and collective equality and freedom.
Psychologically and sexually, dominatrices, female sadists, and female assertive, influential, and erotic dominants may be female supremacists - AS AM I - but their main character, spiritual, psychological, and political natures and characters, are both overall and first and foremost, all about and to do with female sexual, erotic, psychological, political, and spiritual female assertiveness, female positive influence, dominance, and power - but sexual and erotic female dominance, assertiveness, female influence, female domination and power, are not the same thing as purely political female or any other kind of supremacy - and it is wildly assertive, stupid, and most ignorant for anyone to assume this about them psychologically, spiritually, and politically, and to blur and merge these separate things and categories - unlike their most wise and wondrous skilled alchemy of sexual and erotic assertiveness, domination, and both gentle, subtle, and very strong and powerful sexual and erotic humiliation and debasement of men and human beings like me, who like, desire, and love to entertain, please, satisfy, and to love and serve them in these ways.
Neither are any of these dominatrices, female sadists, or female sexually and erotically dominant, assertive, and influential women, in any way shape or form evil - contrary to some peoples very prejudiced, very ignorant, and wildly inaccurate assuming very gross prejudices and opinions - and this is neither why I worship, desire submissively and love them.
I love them all because they are mischievous, and because they are sinful, but they are completely and totally honest about their sins, and they are in no way evil nor hypocrites. I admit, I do like them because they are rebellious and wilful in their desires with and towards men, but as I have said time and time again, none of them hate men, they only go with masochist men, and what's more they do not abuse any man whatsoever, as what they do is a combination of pleasure, debasement (of masochist men), and love - as love is both dialectically, politically, psychologically, socially, and spiritually both separate, connected, and but also very much related to debasement - in the most deep, profound, completely non-superstitious and non-deluded complex psychological erotic, spiritual, and political ways - and all of these women know absolutely everything about all of this in ways that transcend words and the body of language, semantics, and linguistics we all live around and within.
What’s more, through sexual and erotic debasement and humiliation by them and other women, I am simply their messenger, and their erotic and sexual servant and grovelling slave. Obviously, I am not as pure as the snow, but I do not overall nor specifically influence nor manipulate any woman - nor any man for that matter - on the face of the earth, this is not my intentions or achievements, and I know that the real meaning of both real and true desire and love - and indeed of both personal and social achievement - has absolutely nothing to do with self or social status nor respect.
I admit, that I do allow and let women manipulate, sexually and erotically dominate, humiliate, debase, and trample all over me, but I lick their boots clean and kiss their feet that tramples upon me, because I enjoy all of this, and because I and they know that through their sexual and erotic humiliation and debasement of me, their transformative erotic and sexual female assertiveness, influence, domination, and power, and their knowledge and wisdom will be freely and democratically available to all people - both men and women - everywhere in this society and/or in any other societies and cultures, for a free, equal, and truly democratic matriarchal society and world for all.
I personally am not a female supremacist - nor a supremacist of any kind - and if anyone thinks that dominatrices, female sadists, or female erotic and sexual dominants towards men, are exclusively female supremacists as isolated examples aside from all the other women in the world, then you are very wrong about all these wonderful and unique female sadist, sexually and erotically dominant, influential, and assertive women, and nobody should make any such discriminatory and wildly ignorant and inaccurate assumptions about them.
ALL women are female supremacists, but the dominatrices, female sadists, and female sexual and erotic dominants, are just more honest about it, and what's more they alchemise, transform, and blend female supremacism with many other political and psychological ideas, actions, experiences, sensations, and behaviours, which both moderates it and creates more political, social, psychological, spiritual, and individual and collective equality and freedom.
Psychologically and sexually, dominatrices, female sadists, and female assertive, influential, and erotic dominants may be female supremacists - AS AM I - but their main character, spiritual, psychological, and political natures and characters, are both overall and first and foremost, all about and to do with female sexual, erotic, psychological, political, and spiritual female assertiveness, female positive influence, dominance, and power - but sexual and erotic female dominance, assertiveness, female influence, female domination and power, are not the same thing as purely political female or any other kind of supremacy - and it is wildly assertive, stupid, and most ignorant for anyone to assume this about them psychologically, spiritually, and politically, and to blur and merge these separate things and categories - unlike their most wise and wondrous skilled alchemy of sexual and erotic assertiveness, domination, and both gentle, subtle, and very strong and powerful sexual and erotic humiliation and debasement of men and human beings like me, who like, desire, and love to entertain, please, satisfy, and to love and serve them in these ways.
Neither are any of these dominatrices, female sadists, or female sexually and erotically dominant, assertive, and influential women, in any way shape or form evil - contrary to some peoples very prejudiced, very ignorant, and wildly inaccurate assuming very gross prejudices and opinions - and this is neither why I worship, desire submissively and love them.
I love them all because they are mischievous, and because they are sinful, but they are completely and totally honest about their sins, and they are in no way evil nor hypocrites. I admit, I do like them because they are rebellious and wilful in their desires with and towards men, but as I have said time and time again, none of them hate men, they only go with masochist men, and what's more they do not abuse any man whatsoever, as what they do is a combination of pleasure, debasement (of masochist men), and love - as love is both dialectically, politically, psychologically, socially, and spiritually both separate, connected, and but also very much related to debasement - in the most deep, profound, completely non-superstitious and non-deluded complex psychological erotic, spiritual, and political ways - and all of these women know absolutely everything about all of this in ways that transcend words and the body of language, semantics, and linguistics we all live around and within.
What’s more, through sexual and erotic debasement and humiliation by them and other women, I am simply their messenger, and their erotic and sexual servant and grovelling slave. Obviously, I am not as pure as the snow, but I do not overall nor specifically influence nor manipulate any woman - nor any man for that matter - on the face of the earth, this is not my intentions or achievements, and I know that the real meaning of both real and true desire and love - and indeed of both personal and social achievement - has absolutely nothing to do with self or social status nor respect.
I admit, that I do allow and let women manipulate, sexually and erotically dominate, humiliate, debase, and trample all over me, but I lick their boots clean and kiss their feet that tramples upon me, because I enjoy all of this, and because I and they know that through their sexual and erotic humiliation and debasement of me, their transformative erotic and sexual female assertiveness, influence, domination, and power, and their knowledge and wisdom will be freely and democratically available to all people - both men and women - everywhere in this society and/or in any other societies and cultures, for a free, equal, and truly democratic matriarchal society and world for all.
Heterosexual Male Masochism and Phenomenology Part II
A care worker recently asked me what masochism in men towards women was, as he had absolutely no idea what this was or meant, and so I replied that it is in very basic and concise terms men who experience women’s bodies, minds, and emotions, as more powerful, influential, and assertive than some other men do. This care worker then thanked me for enlightening him about this, and said that he now understood what male masochism towards women was and meant.
However, the very ignorant, prejudiced, and groundless assumption, which some other people have about this in their very simple-minded folly, is to assume that this is merely subjective and a misperception about women, and what’s more they very ignorantly, groundlessly, and wildly assume that it is about a reversed or one-sided subject-object relation, a female internalisation and notion of male power, and an inequality of power.
No one says that some men who see or experience women’s bodies, minds, and emotions as submissive and powerless are subjective and have misperceptions - heterosexual masochist men do not experience women’s bodies, minds, and emotions as more assertive and powerful than themselves in a complete individual and human sense, nor as more powerful than other men or women - and so the assumption of a reversed or directed and projected inequality of power between men and women, is absolutely meaningless and based upon absolutely no evidence, fact, reality, nor any empirical, social, psychological, objective and scientific basis, data, or proof.
What’s more, the ways that masochist men see and experience women, is neither subjective nor objective in that it denies any objective reality or subjective experiences of any women, it is neither a purely over-generalised nor an over-individualised collection of experiences, thoughts, and feelings about women, as it is basically a collection of experiences, thoughts, and feelings related to a complex dialectical process of both sustained and progressive free and equal relatedness and interaction between men and women, and not any kind of subject-object relation either way or in any direction.
The reverse or projected inequality of power prejudice and assumption, is also based upon an over-simplification of power, when there are many different types and degrees of power, and psychologically the way that masochist men experience women’s bodies, minds, and emotions as more powerful and assertive than some other men do, is about some women experiencing and perceiving men experiencing and perceiving women in these ways. However, to say that these experiences and perceptions of some women are also purely subjective, an internalisation of male power or notions of it, or based upon inequality of power, again very wildly and groundlessly assumes, that these women want or try to make men see themselves as simply powerless and unequal to other men or women other than themselves as sexually assertive and dominant women either collectively or individually.
Where some women want to make men powerless, and worship, please them, and want men to love and desire them in this way, this is basically a transformation and a personal and social active change of inequality in the form of an assertion against mutual powerlessness, rather than any overall and overt emphasis on actual power in any abstract and negative terms, but the metaphorical and erotic nature of power seems to take dominance and precedence over the underlying or hidden desires and intentions, and so therefore it is not based upon any desire to make men simply powerless to all women and to create inequality of power in any way.
Also, if some people object to the use of power related to love and sexuality in any way whatsoever, they must also remember that the general powerlessness between the sexes is far more unhealthy, unequal, and undesirable, because as I pointed out and stated, masochist men experience women’s bodies, minds, and emotions as assertive as well as powerful - assertiveness is very much connected to individual and equal relationships and rights - and without assertiveness and the love and desire of this in others, power is both imbalanced, incomplete, and lacks both spiritual and humanistic psychological and social potential, completeness, significant elements and full or holistic integration.
However, the very ignorant, prejudiced, and groundless assumption, which some other people have about this in their very simple-minded folly, is to assume that this is merely subjective and a misperception about women, and what’s more they very ignorantly, groundlessly, and wildly assume that it is about a reversed or one-sided subject-object relation, a female internalisation and notion of male power, and an inequality of power.
No one says that some men who see or experience women’s bodies, minds, and emotions as submissive and powerless are subjective and have misperceptions - heterosexual masochist men do not experience women’s bodies, minds, and emotions as more assertive and powerful than themselves in a complete individual and human sense, nor as more powerful than other men or women - and so the assumption of a reversed or directed and projected inequality of power between men and women, is absolutely meaningless and based upon absolutely no evidence, fact, reality, nor any empirical, social, psychological, objective and scientific basis, data, or proof.
What’s more, the ways that masochist men see and experience women, is neither subjective nor objective in that it denies any objective reality or subjective experiences of any women, it is neither a purely over-generalised nor an over-individualised collection of experiences, thoughts, and feelings about women, as it is basically a collection of experiences, thoughts, and feelings related to a complex dialectical process of both sustained and progressive free and equal relatedness and interaction between men and women, and not any kind of subject-object relation either way or in any direction.
The reverse or projected inequality of power prejudice and assumption, is also based upon an over-simplification of power, when there are many different types and degrees of power, and psychologically the way that masochist men experience women’s bodies, minds, and emotions as more powerful and assertive than some other men do, is about some women experiencing and perceiving men experiencing and perceiving women in these ways. However, to say that these experiences and perceptions of some women are also purely subjective, an internalisation of male power or notions of it, or based upon inequality of power, again very wildly and groundlessly assumes, that these women want or try to make men see themselves as simply powerless and unequal to other men or women other than themselves as sexually assertive and dominant women either collectively or individually.
Where some women want to make men powerless, and worship, please them, and want men to love and desire them in this way, this is basically a transformation and a personal and social active change of inequality in the form of an assertion against mutual powerlessness, rather than any overall and overt emphasis on actual power in any abstract and negative terms, but the metaphorical and erotic nature of power seems to take dominance and precedence over the underlying or hidden desires and intentions, and so therefore it is not based upon any desire to make men simply powerless to all women and to create inequality of power in any way.
Also, if some people object to the use of power related to love and sexuality in any way whatsoever, they must also remember that the general powerlessness between the sexes is far more unhealthy, unequal, and undesirable, because as I pointed out and stated, masochist men experience women’s bodies, minds, and emotions as assertive as well as powerful - assertiveness is very much connected to individual and equal relationships and rights - and without assertiveness and the love and desire of this in others, power is both imbalanced, incomplete, and lacks both spiritual and humanistic psychological and social potential, completeness, significant elements and full or holistic integration.
Feminism and Sexually Assertive, Influential, and Dominant Women
The vast majority of the petty narrow-minded middle-class hierarchical academic elite so-called feminists, and some of their grinning bulldog female class-traitor plebs who are their slaves and worship them - apart from the libertarian academic and writer feminist Camile Pagilia - have nothing but confused ignorance, and the most vile and extreme hatred and jealousy against dominatrix and similar women, based upon the most simple-minded myths and prejudices that all sexually assertive, influential, and dominant women, are conforming to male images and fantasies of women, that they over-sexualise femininity and women in this way, and that these women are simply internalising male power.
On the contrary, dominatrix and similar women, do not conform to male images and fantasies, as they actually sometimes make men conform to female images and fantasies of men, by doing things like taking pleasure in humiliating men, by dressing them up and making them behave like submissive women for them, not to impose any overall gender control upon men, but to create a parody of any male images or fantasies that other men and indeed some other women may have about them and other men.
The vile and extreme hatred and jealousy by most hierarchical elite so-called feminists against dominatrix and similar women, is very, very, misogynist, and the jealousy against these sexually assertive, influential, and dominant women, is that unlike dominatrices and similar women, most of these so-called feminists, have had their minds poisoned, dominated, and controlled by very male dominated political fantasies and political ideologies, which they conform to in their imagery of themselves as women, as both passively and actively masculine towards men and women, and in that way these Stalinist and Fascist so-called feminists are all mostly very pro-patriarchal. What's more, they only write, believe, and talk about any kind of matriarchy, in an anthropological and culturalist gender sense and context, but they have absolutely no kind of matriarchal political ideology, of any kind whatsoever for themselves and other women, and they have never had the creativity, imagination, courage and foresight to create anything of this kind at all.
One thing in particular they don’t like about dominatrices and other similar women, is that sexually assertive and dominant women won’t let these misogynist and politically ideological pro-patriarchal women, put them into an ideological, imaginary, social, and sexually submissive imagery and position, and these authoritarian feminists don’t like this, because they can’t oppress and unequally control dominatrix and other similar women in these ways.
The very authoritarian, puritanical, misogynist, and politically ideological pro-patriarchal forms of so-called feminism, also often use the male police state to try to change, reform, abusively cure and violate masochist men and women who assert their femininity in a non-passive but active way, and they make the claim that dominatrix and other similar women, are over-sexualising femininity and women, and that this is again conforming to male images and fantasies of women.
Firstly, dominatrix and other similar women, actually project their sexuality, in ways where they can make their own sexual assertions and demands towards and with men, but they are not passive recipients of any male fantasies or over-sexualised images of women. Most dominatrices, don’t have sex with men, or if they do, they certainly don’t allow men to over-sexualise them, as they both control and utilise men’s desires and imagery of women, for their own sexual desires and for genuinely equal mutual pleasure.
If any woman or women want to be sexually assertive, very influential, and dominant towards men with their femininity, then this is what they want to do, first and foremost for themselves - their femininity is in no way passive to men or male fantasies - and some dominatrices and similar women, have the potential and often do have some genuinely assertive, influential, and dominant feminine feminist views of their own, unlike pro-patriarchal, authoritarian Stalinist and Fascist so-called feminists, who sell out to male power and male political ideology, which sees and treats other women as socially, intellectually, imaginarily, politically-ideologically and sexually passive, and which underlyingly relates to and treats men as intellectually, imaginatively, and ideologically active and dominant.
On the contrary, dominatrix and similar women, do not conform to male images and fantasies, as they actually sometimes make men conform to female images and fantasies of men, by doing things like taking pleasure in humiliating men, by dressing them up and making them behave like submissive women for them, not to impose any overall gender control upon men, but to create a parody of any male images or fantasies that other men and indeed some other women may have about them and other men.
The vile and extreme hatred and jealousy by most hierarchical elite so-called feminists against dominatrix and similar women, is very, very, misogynist, and the jealousy against these sexually assertive, influential, and dominant women, is that unlike dominatrices and similar women, most of these so-called feminists, have had their minds poisoned, dominated, and controlled by very male dominated political fantasies and political ideologies, which they conform to in their imagery of themselves as women, as both passively and actively masculine towards men and women, and in that way these Stalinist and Fascist so-called feminists are all mostly very pro-patriarchal. What's more, they only write, believe, and talk about any kind of matriarchy, in an anthropological and culturalist gender sense and context, but they have absolutely no kind of matriarchal political ideology, of any kind whatsoever for themselves and other women, and they have never had the creativity, imagination, courage and foresight to create anything of this kind at all.
One thing in particular they don’t like about dominatrices and other similar women, is that sexually assertive and dominant women won’t let these misogynist and politically ideological pro-patriarchal women, put them into an ideological, imaginary, social, and sexually submissive imagery and position, and these authoritarian feminists don’t like this, because they can’t oppress and unequally control dominatrix and other similar women in these ways.
The very authoritarian, puritanical, misogynist, and politically ideological pro-patriarchal forms of so-called feminism, also often use the male police state to try to change, reform, abusively cure and violate masochist men and women who assert their femininity in a non-passive but active way, and they make the claim that dominatrix and other similar women, are over-sexualising femininity and women, and that this is again conforming to male images and fantasies of women.
Firstly, dominatrix and other similar women, actually project their sexuality, in ways where they can make their own sexual assertions and demands towards and with men, but they are not passive recipients of any male fantasies or over-sexualised images of women. Most dominatrices, don’t have sex with men, or if they do, they certainly don’t allow men to over-sexualise them, as they both control and utilise men’s desires and imagery of women, for their own sexual desires and for genuinely equal mutual pleasure.
If any woman or women want to be sexually assertive, very influential, and dominant towards men with their femininity, then this is what they want to do, first and foremost for themselves - their femininity is in no way passive to men or male fantasies - and some dominatrices and similar women, have the potential and often do have some genuinely assertive, influential, and dominant feminine feminist views of their own, unlike pro-patriarchal, authoritarian Stalinist and Fascist so-called feminists, who sell out to male power and male political ideology, which sees and treats other women as socially, intellectually, imaginarily, politically-ideologically and sexually passive, and which underlyingly relates to and treats men as intellectually, imaginatively, and ideologically active and dominant.
Response to the Academic Article: Demographics, Sexual Behaviour, Family Background and Abuse Experiences of Practitioners of Sadomasochistic Sex
My Response to the Academic Article: Demographics, Sexual Behaviour, Family Background and Abuse Experiences of Practitioners of Sadomasochistic Sex: A Review of Recent Research by N. KENNETH SANDNABBA, PEKKA SANTTILA, LAURENCE ALISON & NIKLAS NORDLING, from the Department of Psychology, AÊ bo Akademi University, Finland; Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom)
The view and claim of this sadomasochism and family abuse article, about the lack of emotional and physical closeness, in sadism and masochism, is very black and white, and it distorts, blurs, and merges, the two very separate categories, of emotional and love-orientated integrative and natural masochism, on the one hand, with repressed, emotionally cold, and fragmented masochism, on the other; and it also makes a wild assumption, that non-sadomasochist relationships, overwhelmingly have emotional and physical openness, closeness, and intimacy, in huge contrast to other types of sexual love-relationships.
I also disagree, with this sadomasochism and family abuse academic article, that masochism causes or is related to poor social adjustment related to social roles and economic income, because both so-called democratic societies and totalitarian dictatorships, persecute, unwantedly mistreat and abuse, marginalise, and socially isolate anyone who is sexually, socially, emotionally, creatively and intellectually more holistic and complete, different, or very unique, and then expects and demands that they adapt and adjust within that social oppression, inequality, and social isolation.
I do agree with the article, that sadists have a poor attachment to their mothers, whilst masochists have very good and positive attachment to their mothers, although it may in some ways be a bit of a stereotype or slight over-generalisation.
Whilst I agree with the article, that sexual abuse (and emotional, physical and mental abuse, which the article doesn't mention), can cause some aspects of the violent aspects of BDSM/masochism and/or sadism - and that any kind of abuse obviously affects people, in terms of so-called social anxiety, depression, and a vulnerability to stress - I do not agree at all that natural sexual submissiveness and emotionally integrated masochism, in men with and towards women, is in any way, shape, or form caused by childhood or any other kind of family, relationship, or social and professional abuse.
As I have said before, child, relationship, and social or professional abuse, can intensify masochism or sadism, and/or emotionally repress, fragment, or imbalance it, but it does not cause it, no more than abuse causes homosexuality, as both masochism, and homosexuality, as separate things, are both overall biological.
I also very much disagree with the article, that female victims/survivors of childhood sexual abuse, are likely to become masochists towards men sexually, as this is a very academic male-chauvinist prejudice and assumption, based upon the idealisation and repression of naturally assertive and dominant female sexuality, and as it is overall the case, that sexual or other types of child abuse against women, is more than likely to cause or intensify sexual sadism towards men or other women. This is overwhelmingly, my knowledge and experience, of and about many female sadists, and some sadist dominatrices I have spoken to over the Internet, and the statistics in the academic article on this and many other matters, are simply lies, damned lies, and statistics. In other words, they are lies and very prejudiced and male academic opinions, and in no way reflect any true or real empirical or sociological and/or scientific evidence, truth, or reality of, on, and about the matter.
I agree with the article, that heterosexual masochist men, have a problem with the available of sexually and socially suitable women, but very much want authentic and very real love-relationships with women, and on this point, the article makes a very brave and accurate statement and remark.
This academic sadomasochism and family abuse article, is in itself very sadistic, imbalanced and unnaturally so, in that it encourages and justifies, the social marginalisation, oppression, and socially isolation, of anyone who is very human, more holistic or complete, or naturally sexually different and/or unique intellectually, emotionally, creatively, and socially, such as heterosexual male masochists.
This academic sadomasochism and family abuse article, is also very masochistic in itself, imbalanced and unnaturally so, in that it is very submissive to and serves, the sexual myths, lies, social abuse and oppression, of the overwhelmingly male-chauvinist academic elites, who to a great extent create, and/or perpetuate the idealisation and repression of natural female assertive and/or dominant sexuality, personality, creativity, love, social potential, existence and being.
The view and claim of this sadomasochism and family abuse article, about the lack of emotional and physical closeness, in sadism and masochism, is very black and white, and it distorts, blurs, and merges, the two very separate categories, of emotional and love-orientated integrative and natural masochism, on the one hand, with repressed, emotionally cold, and fragmented masochism, on the other; and it also makes a wild assumption, that non-sadomasochist relationships, overwhelmingly have emotional and physical openness, closeness, and intimacy, in huge contrast to other types of sexual love-relationships.
I also disagree, with this sadomasochism and family abuse academic article, that masochism causes or is related to poor social adjustment related to social roles and economic income, because both so-called democratic societies and totalitarian dictatorships, persecute, unwantedly mistreat and abuse, marginalise, and socially isolate anyone who is sexually, socially, emotionally, creatively and intellectually more holistic and complete, different, or very unique, and then expects and demands that they adapt and adjust within that social oppression, inequality, and social isolation.
I do agree with the article, that sadists have a poor attachment to their mothers, whilst masochists have very good and positive attachment to their mothers, although it may in some ways be a bit of a stereotype or slight over-generalisation.
Whilst I agree with the article, that sexual abuse (and emotional, physical and mental abuse, which the article doesn't mention), can cause some aspects of the violent aspects of BDSM/masochism and/or sadism - and that any kind of abuse obviously affects people, in terms of so-called social anxiety, depression, and a vulnerability to stress - I do not agree at all that natural sexual submissiveness and emotionally integrated masochism, in men with and towards women, is in any way, shape, or form caused by childhood or any other kind of family, relationship, or social and professional abuse.
As I have said before, child, relationship, and social or professional abuse, can intensify masochism or sadism, and/or emotionally repress, fragment, or imbalance it, but it does not cause it, no more than abuse causes homosexuality, as both masochism, and homosexuality, as separate things, are both overall biological.
I also very much disagree with the article, that female victims/survivors of childhood sexual abuse, are likely to become masochists towards men sexually, as this is a very academic male-chauvinist prejudice and assumption, based upon the idealisation and repression of naturally assertive and dominant female sexuality, and as it is overall the case, that sexual or other types of child abuse against women, is more than likely to cause or intensify sexual sadism towards men or other women. This is overwhelmingly, my knowledge and experience, of and about many female sadists, and some sadist dominatrices I have spoken to over the Internet, and the statistics in the academic article on this and many other matters, are simply lies, damned lies, and statistics. In other words, they are lies and very prejudiced and male academic opinions, and in no way reflect any true or real empirical or sociological and/or scientific evidence, truth, or reality of, on, and about the matter.
I agree with the article, that heterosexual masochist men, have a problem with the available of sexually and socially suitable women, but very much want authentic and very real love-relationships with women, and on this point, the article makes a very brave and accurate statement and remark.
This academic sadomasochism and family abuse article, is in itself very sadistic, imbalanced and unnaturally so, in that it encourages and justifies, the social marginalisation, oppression, and socially isolation, of anyone who is very human, more holistic or complete, or naturally sexually different and/or unique intellectually, emotionally, creatively, and socially, such as heterosexual male masochists.
This academic sadomasochism and family abuse article, is also very masochistic in itself, imbalanced and unnaturally so, in that it is very submissive to and serves, the sexual myths, lies, social abuse and oppression, of the overwhelmingly male-chauvinist academic elites, who to a great extent create, and/or perpetuate the idealisation and repression of natural female assertive and/or dominant sexuality, personality, creativity, love, social potential, existence and being.
The Differences Between Emotionally and Love-orientated Heterosexual Masochism, and Repressed and Fragmented Masochism
I just read an interview, and watched various video-clips, of a fairly famous so-called dominatrix from another country, who I won’t name. After watching the first erotic BDSM video-clip, of this dominatrix posing and speaking by herself - as her sort of erotic monologue - I was not convinced that she was a sexually dominant woman, a female masochist, sadomasochist, switch, or female masochist, as she was talking very sexually dominant and sadistic, but her body-language and facial expressions and movements, were very sexually submissive.
My immediate first impressions of this dominatrix, was that she was not a masochist, nor a female dominant, not a switch, nor a female sadist, but that she was an actual female reverse masochist. After watching many of her other erotic BDSM video-clips though, I now think she is also a bisexual sadomasochist, but I am still not convinced that either she was a female dominant or sadist, nor that the men she was whipping and sexually dominating and degrading, were at all masochists in the true sense and reality of the term.
I think that these men, are not real masochists, in the holistic sense, because they are just into and enjoy pain and humiliation from women, but like dominatrices, they are very emotionally cold - they show no individual or mutual emotion (as part of being sexually submissive to women) - and whilst they like pain and sexual humiliation, they are not in any way both emotionally-and-sexually submissive with or towards women.
I also did think at first, that this dominatrix is in very straight talking, what many people would just call "a female pervert", because of the very unusual and/or quite depraved things she does with men and some women sexually, in these video-clips, but I personally think it’s wrong to label people as so-called perverts, if they are open and honest about what they do sexually, if it is all freely chosen and mutually consensual, and if they are not sexual or other types of child and relationship abusers.
I do think that this dominatrix has what some people would call "a very dirty mind", but I also think that both the men she does these sexual things with, are actually repressed masochists, in terms of a total lack of BDSM holistically integrated emotional sharing and actual love, and that she is also a repressed female dominant or sadist in this way as well. However, she is not repressed in a purely sexual sense, with her female dominance and sadism towards men, because she is obviously totally open and honest about it, freely expresses it, and makes these pornographic BDSM video-clips for profit and for people’s entertainment, with a little bit of exhibitionism by all thse performers, thrown in as well.
A female member of my family, is utterly convinced that I am not a masochist at all, because as a socialist, she understands, views, and judges sexuality and sexual behaviour, by a persons social behaviours, and as she rightly pointed out, whilst I am sexually submissive and masochistic towards women, I am not really socially submissive towards anyone, at least by choice anyway. This female relative would therefore, say that these men in those dominatrix video-clips were masochists, and that, again, I am not a masochist and nothing like them. She is right, that I am both sexually and socially nothing like these men in those video-clips, but again, in my opinion, this is because they are repressed masochists, and I would still maintain, claim, and say, that I am a very natural and fairly healthy and normal, sexual submissive and masochist with and towards women.
This is all a matter of perception, different types of labelling, contexts, and personal interpretation, but that’s what I have learnt from watching these dominatrix video-clips with men (and with women, because this dominatrix is somewhat sadomasochistic and bisexual, because she sexually dominates women as well), and this is where I stand on the matter.
Whilst I call myself a heterosexual submissive and masochist - because that’s what I know and believe that I am - I agree with this female relative, that perhaps socially-and-sexually, it is a somewhat limited and inadequate label, but in my opinion, this is because I am much more of a sexual submissive towards women, in that I overall enjoy grovelling to women and worshipping them, much rather than I am into or enjoy, receiving physical or emotional pain.
I do like some freely chosen consensual pain from women, such as being whipped by women - if it is done in a sensual or erotic way and freely chosen - but again, I am much more into grovelling to women, worshipping women physically, emotionally and mentally/intellectually, and being sexually and erotically dominated and humiliated by women, rather than being actually hurt in any way.
My immediate first impressions of this dominatrix, was that she was not a masochist, nor a female dominant, not a switch, nor a female sadist, but that she was an actual female reverse masochist. After watching many of her other erotic BDSM video-clips though, I now think she is also a bisexual sadomasochist, but I am still not convinced that either she was a female dominant or sadist, nor that the men she was whipping and sexually dominating and degrading, were at all masochists in the true sense and reality of the term.
I think that these men, are not real masochists, in the holistic sense, because they are just into and enjoy pain and humiliation from women, but like dominatrices, they are very emotionally cold - they show no individual or mutual emotion (as part of being sexually submissive to women) - and whilst they like pain and sexual humiliation, they are not in any way both emotionally-and-sexually submissive with or towards women.
I also did think at first, that this dominatrix is in very straight talking, what many people would just call "a female pervert", because of the very unusual and/or quite depraved things she does with men and some women sexually, in these video-clips, but I personally think it’s wrong to label people as so-called perverts, if they are open and honest about what they do sexually, if it is all freely chosen and mutually consensual, and if they are not sexual or other types of child and relationship abusers.
I do think that this dominatrix has what some people would call "a very dirty mind", but I also think that both the men she does these sexual things with, are actually repressed masochists, in terms of a total lack of BDSM holistically integrated emotional sharing and actual love, and that she is also a repressed female dominant or sadist in this way as well. However, she is not repressed in a purely sexual sense, with her female dominance and sadism towards men, because she is obviously totally open and honest about it, freely expresses it, and makes these pornographic BDSM video-clips for profit and for people’s entertainment, with a little bit of exhibitionism by all thse performers, thrown in as well.
A female member of my family, is utterly convinced that I am not a masochist at all, because as a socialist, she understands, views, and judges sexuality and sexual behaviour, by a persons social behaviours, and as she rightly pointed out, whilst I am sexually submissive and masochistic towards women, I am not really socially submissive towards anyone, at least by choice anyway. This female relative would therefore, say that these men in those dominatrix video-clips were masochists, and that, again, I am not a masochist and nothing like them. She is right, that I am both sexually and socially nothing like these men in those video-clips, but again, in my opinion, this is because they are repressed masochists, and I would still maintain, claim, and say, that I am a very natural and fairly healthy and normal, sexual submissive and masochist with and towards women.
This is all a matter of perception, different types of labelling, contexts, and personal interpretation, but that’s what I have learnt from watching these dominatrix video-clips with men (and with women, because this dominatrix is somewhat sadomasochistic and bisexual, because she sexually dominates women as well), and this is where I stand on the matter.
Whilst I call myself a heterosexual submissive and masochist - because that’s what I know and believe that I am - I agree with this female relative, that perhaps socially-and-sexually, it is a somewhat limited and inadequate label, but in my opinion, this is because I am much more of a sexual submissive towards women, in that I overall enjoy grovelling to women and worshipping them, much rather than I am into or enjoy, receiving physical or emotional pain.
I do like some freely chosen consensual pain from women, such as being whipped by women - if it is done in a sensual or erotic way and freely chosen - but again, I am much more into grovelling to women, worshipping women physically, emotionally and mentally/intellectually, and being sexually and erotically dominated and humiliated by women, rather than being actually hurt in any way.
The Two Main Current, Social and Mental Health Predominant Theories, on Moderating or so-called Curing Masochism
There are two main, current, social, mainstream, and mental health predominant theories and approaches, on moderating or so-called curing masochism. The first is more liberal and socialist, and much more accurate. The second theory and approach, is very right-wing, and false and accurate, although some very left-wing people believe in this theory and approach too.
The first theory and approach, to moderating masochism of men towards women, says that it is related to the fact that the masochist person, is being dominated and/or bullied, and made to be submissive, by people who control or have more power than them, in their home, family, or work life, whether those who dominate and/or bully them in this way, are male or female (because any kind of domination in these ways, makes masochism in men towards women more intense), and in terms of some moderation of masochism, there is a lot of truth in this first theory and approach.
Whilst masochism by men towards women, can't be cured, it can in some ways - and in various ways - be moderated, and this first theory, is also to with the masochist person having better assertiveness skills, and more equal relationships with others, and which is again, both accurate, true, and correct.
On the other hand, we must also ask ourselves, that if masochism by men towards women is not a problem - if women both enjoy and need this - and if masochist men also like and enjoy this (without any unwanted harm to themselves or others), then why should it be moderated? Do homosexual men and women, and non-masochist/BDSM people, have to moderate their natural sexuality in this and these ways? Obviously they don't. However, if the masochist person, is being unwantedly dominated, bullied, and made to be submissive socially, then this as a separate issue is a problem, but being sexually submissive, and socially submissive -whilst connected and related - are also two completely separate things and issues.
The second theory and approach to the moderating, and so-called curing of masochism, which is very right-wing, is that masochism of masochist men towards women, is caused by men allowing themselves to be dominated by women socially - and not being more manipulative, controlling, and masterful with women - and what's more that masochism of men towards women, is caused by domineering mothers. This second theory, is completely untrue and false, and what's more, it is actually blaming women for masochism in men towards women (which is overall biological, like homosexuality), and saying that the solution is for masochist men, is to have very domineering and bullying male father figures, or to be dominated and made to be submissive to other men, but again, any kind of domination and bullying - by women or men - actually intensifies masochism.
The other part of this second, and very right-wing theory and approach, is the belief and view, that any kind of altruism, is in itself masochism, and a main cause of masochism. This theory, also sees any kind of altruism, as repellent, counter-productive, and all to do with a total lack of self-care, but it is simply not true, that altruism is in itself masochism, nor a main cause of masochism, because masochism in men towards women, is like homosexuality, overall biological, although it can in some ways be moderated.
Whilst self-care and self-sufficiency, is up to a point obviously a good thing, too much of these things - or too much selfish individualism - also co-exists with and creates (on another level), much more conformity, and whilst conformity is not a major cause of masochism, too much conformity - like too much individualism - can also intensify masochism.
The first theory and approach, to moderating masochism of men towards women, says that it is related to the fact that the masochist person, is being dominated and/or bullied, and made to be submissive, by people who control or have more power than them, in their home, family, or work life, whether those who dominate and/or bully them in this way, are male or female (because any kind of domination in these ways, makes masochism in men towards women more intense), and in terms of some moderation of masochism, there is a lot of truth in this first theory and approach.
Whilst masochism by men towards women, can't be cured, it can in some ways - and in various ways - be moderated, and this first theory, is also to with the masochist person having better assertiveness skills, and more equal relationships with others, and which is again, both accurate, true, and correct.
On the other hand, we must also ask ourselves, that if masochism by men towards women is not a problem - if women both enjoy and need this - and if masochist men also like and enjoy this (without any unwanted harm to themselves or others), then why should it be moderated? Do homosexual men and women, and non-masochist/BDSM people, have to moderate their natural sexuality in this and these ways? Obviously they don't. However, if the masochist person, is being unwantedly dominated, bullied, and made to be submissive socially, then this as a separate issue is a problem, but being sexually submissive, and socially submissive -whilst connected and related - are also two completely separate things and issues.
The second theory and approach to the moderating, and so-called curing of masochism, which is very right-wing, is that masochism of masochist men towards women, is caused by men allowing themselves to be dominated by women socially - and not being more manipulative, controlling, and masterful with women - and what's more that masochism of men towards women, is caused by domineering mothers. This second theory, is completely untrue and false, and what's more, it is actually blaming women for masochism in men towards women (which is overall biological, like homosexuality), and saying that the solution is for masochist men, is to have very domineering and bullying male father figures, or to be dominated and made to be submissive to other men, but again, any kind of domination and bullying - by women or men - actually intensifies masochism.
The other part of this second, and very right-wing theory and approach, is the belief and view, that any kind of altruism, is in itself masochism, and a main cause of masochism. This theory, also sees any kind of altruism, as repellent, counter-productive, and all to do with a total lack of self-care, but it is simply not true, that altruism is in itself masochism, nor a main cause of masochism, because masochism in men towards women, is like homosexuality, overall biological, although it can in some ways be moderated.
Whilst self-care and self-sufficiency, is up to a point obviously a good thing, too much of these things - or too much selfish individualism - also co-exists with and creates (on another level), much more conformity, and whilst conformity is not a major cause of masochism, too much conformity - like too much individualism - can also intensify masochism.
Last Night’s MSN Messenger Conversation with My American, Masochist, Friend Steve
Peter says:
Hi, Steve mate, are you there?
Steve says:
Yes.
Peter says:
Sorry I took a while, but I had to make Bill a cup of tea. I haven't properly read through that email, that you just sent to me, about you and Mandy’s recent conversations. What were your thoughts and responses, to my new article (this article is entitled : *My Very Important Analysis, of Steve's Email Comments and Response on my Article, about his Masochism and Relationship with his partner Mandy), on your dear self and Mandy, that I sent you earlier today, Steve mate?
Steve says:
I haven't read it yet. I think its something that I have to look at, when I'm in a better mood.
Peter says:
Ah OK, fair enough.
Steve says:
Mandy's bipolar is getting worse, and no one can change her psychiatric medications, because she goes out of control, and I think she is having fewer periods of being civilised.
Peter says:
Ah right. Well, I was saying in the new article*, that whilst most of the verbal, mental, and emotional abuse, is by Mandy towards you - and which she often takes too far - that you often sometimes retaliate and abuse her verbally, mentally, and emotionally too, because she has told me this, and it was coded and in your subtext, in your email reply to my first article about you both, and which I have written about as the main part of my new article about you and Mandy*.
Steve says:
It's retaliation, and it’s inevitable that a human being will snap once, getting a high level of constant morbidity of emotional feedback. She digs deep, and pushes my buttons, and then my mood sky-rockets to angry, and I cant stop, or I don't want to stop. I think its like a kid on a playground, that if you get bullied enough, then you become the bully.
Peter says:
OK, but I don't completely buy that, because I worked out in the analysis and new article*, that this is all to some extent a mutual game, that both you and Mandy play with each other - that you may not be aware that it's a game - and that what's more, all of this is a defence you both use, to not be sexually inviting, because that's part of what you actually said, in your email reply to my first article about you and Mandy.
Steve says:
Regardless of a conscious or subconscious game, I treat her with dignity until my own dignity is robbed. I don't aggress upon her, unless I am first attacked.
Peter says:
OK, I admit that she starts this game, but you both play it as a game, to avoid sexual and emotional intimacy, and to avoid mutual and/or sexual invitation. It's sexual repression by the both of you in a way.
Steve says:
Whatever it is, I know I'm willing to cease these games, but I have no way of approaching her. I keep taking a hellish attitude for hours and hours, until she cycles back to a better mood, and I cant be on Skype (a telephone that workers over the Internet) all day long either.
Peter says:
Yes well, part of the problem, is that you won't show Mandy my latest article* I sent to you earlier tonight, because you don't want her knowing, that you have talked to me about your relationship with her, but you've got to tell her that I'm a high psychology genius - that my analysis in my latest article* about you both, is very thorough and accurate - and that I have the solutions to both your problems. You must do this, and you must read that new article soon, please, Steve mate.
Steve says:
I'll read the article, but if I want to keep her, as I know it will set her off, and she wont understand the article anyway.
Peter says:
Just read the first main part of my new article yourself then, now, as it’s only four or five paragraphs. Can't you just read that bit now? Just the first main part of the analysis, as it will only take you two minutes?
Steve says:
I will read it when I am of a clear mind. I don't feel well physically today, because I drank too much alcohol yesterday.
Peter says:
OK mate, no pressure. Forget about that then. You see, whilst it’s obvious that some people can often just be one-sidedly vitimised, there is nearly always someone who starts an actual psychological and social game, but a game also has to be colluded with or agreed upon by two people.
Steve says:
Yes, I agree.
Peter says:
Both things or aspects are true.
Steve says:
I understand what you are getting at.
Peter says:
Right, well I’m a hundred per-cent convinced now, that I know and have the solutions to all of your and Mandy’s relationship problems, but you have to show her, just that new article I sent you earlier this evening*. You must do this, and take a chance on this, because she might be OK about it, if you tell her in the right way.
Steve says:
I’ll feed her a synopsis of your new article*, but I cant just send it to her, as I don't want to rock the boat.
Peter says:
Why not? What are you frightened of?
Steve says:
Loss.
Peter says:
OK, I see. Then give Mandy a synopsis of my new article then*, or tell her that you got the article about another couple in a relationship, from a counselling website. Why can't you do that?, because it seems like you’re holding back a bit.
Steve says:
OK, I will.
Peter says:
Good, well do that then, please Steve mate, because Mandy will understand, and she won't twig that I wrote it, and that you have been speaking to me about all this, or if she does, she will turn a blind eye to it - I know her well.
Steve says:
Yes, OK.
Peter says:
OK, good, because all the solutions and accurate analysis, are there in that latest article I sent you earlier tonight*. You don't even have to read the other articles, about you and Mandy, as that’s the key, main, and complete article.
Steve says:
All right.
Hi, Steve mate, are you there?
Steve says:
Yes.
Peter says:
Sorry I took a while, but I had to make Bill a cup of tea. I haven't properly read through that email, that you just sent to me, about you and Mandy’s recent conversations. What were your thoughts and responses, to my new article (this article is entitled : *My Very Important Analysis, of Steve's Email Comments and Response on my Article, about his Masochism and Relationship with his partner Mandy), on your dear self and Mandy, that I sent you earlier today, Steve mate?
Steve says:
I haven't read it yet. I think its something that I have to look at, when I'm in a better mood.
Peter says:
Ah OK, fair enough.
Steve says:
Mandy's bipolar is getting worse, and no one can change her psychiatric medications, because she goes out of control, and I think she is having fewer periods of being civilised.
Peter says:
Ah right. Well, I was saying in the new article*, that whilst most of the verbal, mental, and emotional abuse, is by Mandy towards you - and which she often takes too far - that you often sometimes retaliate and abuse her verbally, mentally, and emotionally too, because she has told me this, and it was coded and in your subtext, in your email reply to my first article about you both, and which I have written about as the main part of my new article about you and Mandy*.
Steve says:
It's retaliation, and it’s inevitable that a human being will snap once, getting a high level of constant morbidity of emotional feedback. She digs deep, and pushes my buttons, and then my mood sky-rockets to angry, and I cant stop, or I don't want to stop. I think its like a kid on a playground, that if you get bullied enough, then you become the bully.
Peter says:
OK, but I don't completely buy that, because I worked out in the analysis and new article*, that this is all to some extent a mutual game, that both you and Mandy play with each other - that you may not be aware that it's a game - and that what's more, all of this is a defence you both use, to not be sexually inviting, because that's part of what you actually said, in your email reply to my first article about you and Mandy.
Steve says:
Regardless of a conscious or subconscious game, I treat her with dignity until my own dignity is robbed. I don't aggress upon her, unless I am first attacked.
Peter says:
OK, I admit that she starts this game, but you both play it as a game, to avoid sexual and emotional intimacy, and to avoid mutual and/or sexual invitation. It's sexual repression by the both of you in a way.
Steve says:
Whatever it is, I know I'm willing to cease these games, but I have no way of approaching her. I keep taking a hellish attitude for hours and hours, until she cycles back to a better mood, and I cant be on Skype (a telephone that workers over the Internet) all day long either.
Peter says:
Yes well, part of the problem, is that you won't show Mandy my latest article* I sent to you earlier tonight, because you don't want her knowing, that you have talked to me about your relationship with her, but you've got to tell her that I'm a high psychology genius - that my analysis in my latest article* about you both, is very thorough and accurate - and that I have the solutions to both your problems. You must do this, and you must read that new article soon, please, Steve mate.
Steve says:
I'll read the article, but if I want to keep her, as I know it will set her off, and she wont understand the article anyway.
Peter says:
Just read the first main part of my new article yourself then, now, as it’s only four or five paragraphs. Can't you just read that bit now? Just the first main part of the analysis, as it will only take you two minutes?
Steve says:
I will read it when I am of a clear mind. I don't feel well physically today, because I drank too much alcohol yesterday.
Peter says:
OK mate, no pressure. Forget about that then. You see, whilst it’s obvious that some people can often just be one-sidedly vitimised, there is nearly always someone who starts an actual psychological and social game, but a game also has to be colluded with or agreed upon by two people.
Steve says:
Yes, I agree.
Peter says:
Both things or aspects are true.
Steve says:
I understand what you are getting at.
Peter says:
Right, well I’m a hundred per-cent convinced now, that I know and have the solutions to all of your and Mandy’s relationship problems, but you have to show her, just that new article I sent you earlier this evening*. You must do this, and take a chance on this, because she might be OK about it, if you tell her in the right way.
Steve says:
I’ll feed her a synopsis of your new article*, but I cant just send it to her, as I don't want to rock the boat.
Peter says:
Why not? What are you frightened of?
Steve says:
Loss.
Peter says:
OK, I see. Then give Mandy a synopsis of my new article then*, or tell her that you got the article about another couple in a relationship, from a counselling website. Why can't you do that?, because it seems like you’re holding back a bit.
Steve says:
OK, I will.
Peter says:
Good, well do that then, please Steve mate, because Mandy will understand, and she won't twig that I wrote it, and that you have been speaking to me about all this, or if she does, she will turn a blind eye to it - I know her well.
Steve says:
Yes, OK.
Peter says:
OK, good, because all the solutions and accurate analysis, are there in that latest article I sent you earlier tonight*. You don't even have to read the other articles, about you and Mandy, as that’s the key, main, and complete article.
Steve says:
All right.
My Very Important Analysis, of Steve’s Email Comments and Response on my Article, about his Masochism and Relationship with his partner Mandy
I felt it right a proper, and that my analysis of Steve and Mandy’s relationship, wouldn’t be complete, until I had written and said something about his summarisation of my article in his email response, following my article, and because my realisations and conclusions about this, make my overall article analysis much more complete, and put a finishing touch to my main analysis and article. Also, Steve and Mandy, now have a thorough analysis of their relationship, in terms of communication and sexuality, and they now more or less have all the solutions to their problems.
Whilst most of the verbal and emotional domination, sadism, and humiliation, by Mandy towards Steve, which he likes and enjoys - but which also leads to some verbal, mental, and emotional abuse by her against him, which he hates and dislikes - is predominantly by Mandy against Steve, Steve admits here in his email response, that he both allows it, and participates in it, meaning that he sometimes does this back to her too.
By ‘participate’, it seems as if he means that he participates masochistically, with the female sadistic role play, which he often does, again, because he likes and enjoys it, but what he actually means, is that he is admitting that sometimes - as part of his protest and repulsion against the abuse aspects of Mandy’s verbal, mental, and emotional sadism and humiliation - that he sometimes ‘participates with it’, in a sense, that he sometimes does this back to her verbally, mentally, and emotionally, both sadistically and abusively, as revenge for her corresponding verbal, mental, and emotional abuse by Mandy towards him. Steve also admits here, that when he sometimes does this verbal, mental, and emotional abuse against Mandy, like Mandy, he also becomes less sexually inviting, and more accusatory and suggestive.
Many psychotherapists, would describe this verbal, mental, and emotional abuse - mostly by Mandy against Steve, but also by him against her - as a "defence", which prevents them both from being more mutually inviting, compromising, and more balanced sexually in bed with each other.
Steve didn’t reveal this somewhat mutual verbal, mental, and emotional abuse, between him and Mandy, to me in his main conversation with me, in the article, and he has never mentioned the reality of it all since, but I know from what Mandy has told me in the chat room in the past, and from what he says here and elsewhere in code and subtext, that he does sometimes do this to her too.
Along with the sexual matters, this is something that Steve needs to be honest and come clean about, and he has to admit to me and others, that he also sometimes does this, because in some ways (contrary to the view that masochist men idealise women), he is presenting to myself and others, an idealised view of him as man, and a somewhat cynical and stereotyped and distorted view of Mandy as a woman.
Steve then admits, that he 'over dominates’ when he encounters the abuse by Mandy against him, but he says that this is ‘in a verbal sense’, revealing that he is in denial about all the factors surrounding his sexual over domination and sadism towards Mandy in bed - some of which is abusive too - and that he is confessing that he sometimes verbally abuses her as well.
Steve is right to protest about the mistreatment, and the verbal, mental, and emotional abuse by his mother towards him as a child, but this cannot be blamed for his masochism, nor his sadism towards women, as child and adult abuse against a person, does not cause masochism or sadism, although it can intensify or imbalance it.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
***
Steve's Email Responses, and Comments, on my article about his Masochism
Your article sounds good to me, but I think I am aware with it. I either choose to ignore it, allow it, participate, or over-dominate when I encounter it. Sometimes I do feel like the game goes too far, and then I become the sadistic predator in a verbal sense. I only achieve a masochistic satisfaction, when the level is appropriate enough to overcome. If I feel threatened, I will change my mindset and become less inviting, and more accusatory and suggestive. I think it all boils down to how my mother treated me. I certainly found one like her: older, bipolar, and emotionally out of tune. The question is whether I feel satisfaction from the derogation and frustration, whether it goes too far, or whether I’m neither in the mood nor up to a challenge. Your article is good stuff, I have to agree.
***
Article, based upon a very Recent MSN Messenger conversation, with my Internet American Friend, Steve, who is a self-described Heterosexual Masochist
The contents, of my and Steve’s recent Internet conversation, are below, after my written analysis, discoveries, and insights, of what he had said to me in this conversation. Steve has given me permission to write, post, and email this article, to various groups and individuals. I have also changed the names of him and his female partner, and I will be interested to know what his and her thoughts, feelings, and responses are to this article, and other people’s too.
Steve is lying, or unaware, about the verbal and emotional domination and sadism, from his girlfriend, Mandy, which he naturally likes and enjoys, and which is fine, but which he says, also gives him a so-called balance, and a "moral" validation or "reason", for being dominant, controlling, and sadistic towards her in bed. Steve describes her emotional, and verbal, domination and sadism, as providing him with a "moral" point, and a valid "reason" for his sexual sadism towards her, unless Mandy’s verbal, and emotional, dominance, control, and sadism, all over-power his mood and will, and then he says that the so-called balance - involving in his case - his unnatural sexual sadism towards her in bed, is lost.
Steve is actually describing, this "moral" point, and "reason", for his justification, for his sexual dominance, control, and sadism towards Mandy in bed, but which is actually a punishment and a retaliation by him against her, for her force, domination, and control, that over-powers his will, emotionally and mentally. This is because, in some ways, he is trying to cure or "normalise" his sexual masochism, towards women - but this is not the right or fully-effective way of going about it - whilst in other ways, it is an immoral justification - and not a moral one as he describes it. Steve’s domination, control, and sadism, towards Mandy, sexually in bed, is not really his or her true and full sexual nature - and by itself - it will not cure, balance, nor moderate, his sexual masochism towards women.
However, contrary to his view, that the emotional and verbal, dominance, control, and sadism from his girlfriend, Mandy - which he naturally likes and enjoys - and which he says gives him a "moral reason", validation, and a so-called balance, to be dominant, controlling, and sadistic, in bed with her sexually - it is actually the other way round - that his dominance, control, and sadism, sexually in bed with Mandy - validates, and gives him a moral point and reason, for the verbal and emotional domination, control, and sadism, he receives from Mandy, and which he naturally likes and enjoys.
Steve, also says, that he doesn't like the verbal, and emotional, control, and domination from Mandy, if it over-powers his mood and will, because he then says, that he and Mandy gain nothing, because there is no understanding. By understanding, this is also a part of what he really means by a balance, because as a masochist, he also likes and prefers, consensual agreement, and not force without some consensus, although he retaliates with force and control, sexually in bed with her, when she over-powers his mood and will, with excessive verbal, emotional, and intellectual, control and domination.
Steve, also says - somewhat contradictorily - that he likes and enjoys his girlfriend, to dominate, control, accuse, blame, and make him squirm intellectually, because after a while, it makes him think things through, and stimulates his mind - giving him a goal - otherwise he would feel things are trivial, and then he would get bored.
Whilst there is some truth in this, that Steve lets, likes, and enjoys his girlfriend, Mandy, to dominate and control him intellectually - along with her unreasonable blames and accusations towards him - this is again what he means by "understanding" - that he also tries to understand, the nature and reasons, for her excessive force towards him, and which is a good and noble intention. However, Mandy’s intellectual domination, or mind-control, which temporarily controls, and diminishes Steve’s thoughts, is yet another so-called "moral" justification, for him to be dominant, controlling, and sadistic with her in bed, but which is again, actually an immoral justification, and which again, is not really his, or her, true sexual desires, thoughts, feelings, or nature.
Mandy’s intellectual domination, control, and unreasonable accusations, and blames, are both positive and negative for Steve, and serve three purposes. One purpose, is that he likes and enjoys it, and it gives him happiness and pleasure. Secondly, it is a valid justification for genuine understanding, of the reasons, for her excessive domination, control, and especially her excessive force. Thirdly, it is a blatant immoral justification, and a denial and self-betrayal, of his natural sexual masochism towards women.
The solution for Steve, is to continue to enjoy Mandy’s verbal and emotional domination, sadism, and control, which he naturally likes and enjoys, but to assert himself, when his mood and thoughts, are over-powered by her excessive domination, control, and force. Steve must also, not allow himself to be dominated, and controlled by Mandy, to the point where it over-powers his thoughts, feelings, and will, and prevents him from freely, discussing, debating, and negotiating with her, about all these matters, and creating some sort of shared contract, or some sort of free and equal agreement, between the two of them.
Whilst there are other reasons, I have already explained, for his sexual sadism towards Mandy, her intellectual mind-control towards him, is at the root, of his immoral and inauthentic justification, to be dominant, controlling, and sadistic with her, sexually in bed at night.
In order to achieve, the full balance and understanding he refers to, he needs to let his girlfriend, Mandy, be more dominant, controlling, and sadistic in bed with him, as he said that he has never tried this, and because both he and she would enjoy it, and it would also prevent, diminish, or put a stop, to the verbal and emotional domination - to the point where it over-powers his mood, mind, and will - and to the point where she has some mind-control over him, and which temporally, prevents him, from discussing, negotiation, and thinking, with her together, as part of a contract or consensus.
All of this, as a solution, would also, relieve, stop, or diminish, the trivualisation and boredom, Steve refers to, and which is related to, the emotional and intellectual mind-control, the occasional excessive verbal and emotional domination by Mandy, over-powering his will, and his dominance, control, and sadism, in bed with her at night, which is not really something he enjoys, and which is not really a part of his or her true feelings, thoughts, desires, love, or nature.
Steve: I like her to be a bit sadistic with how she talks, but I was always sadistic in bed. I don't know, all I know is we clash and it cant last forever, distance is hard, but 2 bipolar people can hardly work side by side, yet alone at our distance.
Myself: So you were both masochist and sadist? Do you regard yourself as a so-called "switch" then - submissive or dominant - in different situations, with different people?
Steve: All I know, is that I get bored if there's no challenge, but after I beat the challenge, I've got to (be) the sadist. I’m not sure how I'd be described.
Myself: What makes you want to beat the challenge?
Steve: Well, challenges give us goals, and if we have no goal to attain, we can either be at peace, or we can feel somewhat tired, trivialised, and bored. I think if Mandy argues and argues, and I finally get sexual satisfaction, its a fair exchange, but if she tears my head off and we don't talk, I think that's bad in any relationship.
Myself: So it's the force you object to, not the consensual masochist and sadist female agreement?, and that makes you sadistic or dominant?
Steve: I think if the balance is lost, and the mood she imposes, overpowers my will, she can just eat me up, and spit me out, without either of us gaining, but if I can make her see a moral or reason - and if I can gain something in bed - I feel accomplished, but if its just a 1-way beating, I don't care for it. Masochist at day, sadist at night.
Myself: Yes, that makes a lot of sense, and some masochists say and do that. So how are you sadistic to her in bed?, do you mean verbally?, or do you have sexual intercourse with her intensely, and order her to do what you like?
Steve: When I was there, I’d fuck her in the ass, or cum down her throat, and I’d say what to do and when. I think that gave me validation, for all of the verbal nonsense I took during the day, and that translates to webcam on MSN messenger too, but when I just get a verbal onslaught and get nothing, that's when I start thinking things are off-balance.
Myself: Right, so you feel like your getting your own back, on the force from her, like revenge in a way? Maybe out a sense of betrayal?
Steve: In a way, but more of an understanding, instead of forced feelings.
Myself: I see, and so in actual fact, you both become dominants and sadists.
Steve: A mutual exchange, yes, we can both exit at any time, but it became a ritual, but when that slips, then we both lose.
Myself: Has Mandy ever whipped you?
Steve: No, its just verbal, but its beyond the point of normality.
Myself: Does she like to humiliate you, debase you, and watch you grovel and squirm?
Steve: Probably. I think she feels power from screwing me over - a man - when all of her life, she claims the men have done the screwing over on her. I see a balance to it all, and when its off, I think its gone too far, and she went too far a few days ago, and now just like 100 times before, I've heard silence for 2 days. It’s either a grudge, or some silence from her. She said she didn't love me, and wanted to piss on my grave. I can handle being a dick, loser, or an asshole, but some things are sacred.
Myself: When you get sadistic in bed with her, do you think that is your way of recharging your masochism?, and does it afterwards make you more masochistic? Because that’s part of one of my explanations, in one of my new articles on masochism.
Steve: I just think its my way of evening things out, to produce a clean slate for the next day. They have a saying here: "Every boy, wants a gal just like the one that married good old dad". I think that's what I did.
Myself: Are you into being whipped by women at all?
Steve: I’ve never tried it.
Myself: What do you like masochistically?
Steve: Sexually, I'm very limited, and I'm sure there are 12 year-old kids, that know more than I do about sex. I really think its just the emotional aspect. I cant see myself dominated in the bedroom quite yet.
Myself: So do you prefer verbal humiliation to pain?
Steve: I think I get bored, if I'm not made to squirm in an intellectual fashion, and if I don't get accused or blamed, I don't have to do as much thinking, and that's when I get bored. I like to think my way out of the emotional pain. Maybe I'm also looking to carry a burden for a few days, and get the relief after its lifted.
Myself: I see, so the intellectual humiliation and domination, makes you think more when you work through it?
Steve: Yes, more or less. I also think, a factor, is that when I'm medicated by the doctors, then I'm emotionally restricted. I always think I cant experience, the full-scope of emotions, unless put to the test, and when Mandy breaks me down, and I'm needed to build it back up, and it gives me something right.
Myself: So it's like intellectual stimulation, that beats the over-sedation of the psychiatric drug?
Steve: Yes, its either get extreme and jolting emotional conflict, while being sedated by a Dr's drug - and feeling mundane - or I can ride a bipolar roller-coaster, and self-medicate, but neither is very nice, and I don't think I’ll ever find a good balance.
Myself: Well, I think its possible to find and get, a real and good balance.
Steve: I don’t know, because I feel a lot like a sociopath, when I'm medicated by Drs.
Whilst most of the verbal and emotional domination, sadism, and humiliation, by Mandy towards Steve, which he likes and enjoys - but which also leads to some verbal, mental, and emotional abuse by her against him, which he hates and dislikes - is predominantly by Mandy against Steve, Steve admits here in his email response, that he both allows it, and participates in it, meaning that he sometimes does this back to her too.
By ‘participate’, it seems as if he means that he participates masochistically, with the female sadistic role play, which he often does, again, because he likes and enjoys it, but what he actually means, is that he is admitting that sometimes - as part of his protest and repulsion against the abuse aspects of Mandy’s verbal, mental, and emotional sadism and humiliation - that he sometimes ‘participates with it’, in a sense, that he sometimes does this back to her verbally, mentally, and emotionally, both sadistically and abusively, as revenge for her corresponding verbal, mental, and emotional abuse by Mandy towards him. Steve also admits here, that when he sometimes does this verbal, mental, and emotional abuse against Mandy, like Mandy, he also becomes less sexually inviting, and more accusatory and suggestive.
Many psychotherapists, would describe this verbal, mental, and emotional abuse - mostly by Mandy against Steve, but also by him against her - as a "defence", which prevents them both from being more mutually inviting, compromising, and more balanced sexually in bed with each other.
Steve didn’t reveal this somewhat mutual verbal, mental, and emotional abuse, between him and Mandy, to me in his main conversation with me, in the article, and he has never mentioned the reality of it all since, but I know from what Mandy has told me in the chat room in the past, and from what he says here and elsewhere in code and subtext, that he does sometimes do this to her too.
Along with the sexual matters, this is something that Steve needs to be honest and come clean about, and he has to admit to me and others, that he also sometimes does this, because in some ways (contrary to the view that masochist men idealise women), he is presenting to myself and others, an idealised view of him as man, and a somewhat cynical and stereotyped and distorted view of Mandy as a woman.
Steve then admits, that he 'over dominates’ when he encounters the abuse by Mandy against him, but he says that this is ‘in a verbal sense’, revealing that he is in denial about all the factors surrounding his sexual over domination and sadism towards Mandy in bed - some of which is abusive too - and that he is confessing that he sometimes verbally abuses her as well.
Steve is right to protest about the mistreatment, and the verbal, mental, and emotional abuse by his mother towards him as a child, but this cannot be blamed for his masochism, nor his sadism towards women, as child and adult abuse against a person, does not cause masochism or sadism, although it can intensify or imbalance it.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
***
Steve's Email Responses, and Comments, on my article about his Masochism
Your article sounds good to me, but I think I am aware with it. I either choose to ignore it, allow it, participate, or over-dominate when I encounter it. Sometimes I do feel like the game goes too far, and then I become the sadistic predator in a verbal sense. I only achieve a masochistic satisfaction, when the level is appropriate enough to overcome. If I feel threatened, I will change my mindset and become less inviting, and more accusatory and suggestive. I think it all boils down to how my mother treated me. I certainly found one like her: older, bipolar, and emotionally out of tune. The question is whether I feel satisfaction from the derogation and frustration, whether it goes too far, or whether I’m neither in the mood nor up to a challenge. Your article is good stuff, I have to agree.
***
Article, based upon a very Recent MSN Messenger conversation, with my Internet American Friend, Steve, who is a self-described Heterosexual Masochist
The contents, of my and Steve’s recent Internet conversation, are below, after my written analysis, discoveries, and insights, of what he had said to me in this conversation. Steve has given me permission to write, post, and email this article, to various groups and individuals. I have also changed the names of him and his female partner, and I will be interested to know what his and her thoughts, feelings, and responses are to this article, and other people’s too.
Steve is lying, or unaware, about the verbal and emotional domination and sadism, from his girlfriend, Mandy, which he naturally likes and enjoys, and which is fine, but which he says, also gives him a so-called balance, and a "moral" validation or "reason", for being dominant, controlling, and sadistic towards her in bed. Steve describes her emotional, and verbal, domination and sadism, as providing him with a "moral" point, and a valid "reason" for his sexual sadism towards her, unless Mandy’s verbal, and emotional, dominance, control, and sadism, all over-power his mood and will, and then he says that the so-called balance - involving in his case - his unnatural sexual sadism towards her in bed, is lost.
Steve is actually describing, this "moral" point, and "reason", for his justification, for his sexual dominance, control, and sadism towards Mandy in bed, but which is actually a punishment and a retaliation by him against her, for her force, domination, and control, that over-powers his will, emotionally and mentally. This is because, in some ways, he is trying to cure or "normalise" his sexual masochism, towards women - but this is not the right or fully-effective way of going about it - whilst in other ways, it is an immoral justification - and not a moral one as he describes it. Steve’s domination, control, and sadism, towards Mandy, sexually in bed, is not really his or her true and full sexual nature - and by itself - it will not cure, balance, nor moderate, his sexual masochism towards women.
However, contrary to his view, that the emotional and verbal, dominance, control, and sadism from his girlfriend, Mandy - which he naturally likes and enjoys - and which he says gives him a "moral reason", validation, and a so-called balance, to be dominant, controlling, and sadistic, in bed with her sexually - it is actually the other way round - that his dominance, control, and sadism, sexually in bed with Mandy - validates, and gives him a moral point and reason, for the verbal and emotional domination, control, and sadism, he receives from Mandy, and which he naturally likes and enjoys.
Steve, also says, that he doesn't like the verbal, and emotional, control, and domination from Mandy, if it over-powers his mood and will, because he then says, that he and Mandy gain nothing, because there is no understanding. By understanding, this is also a part of what he really means by a balance, because as a masochist, he also likes and prefers, consensual agreement, and not force without some consensus, although he retaliates with force and control, sexually in bed with her, when she over-powers his mood and will, with excessive verbal, emotional, and intellectual, control and domination.
Steve, also says - somewhat contradictorily - that he likes and enjoys his girlfriend, to dominate, control, accuse, blame, and make him squirm intellectually, because after a while, it makes him think things through, and stimulates his mind - giving him a goal - otherwise he would feel things are trivial, and then he would get bored.
Whilst there is some truth in this, that Steve lets, likes, and enjoys his girlfriend, Mandy, to dominate and control him intellectually - along with her unreasonable blames and accusations towards him - this is again what he means by "understanding" - that he also tries to understand, the nature and reasons, for her excessive force towards him, and which is a good and noble intention. However, Mandy’s intellectual domination, or mind-control, which temporarily controls, and diminishes Steve’s thoughts, is yet another so-called "moral" justification, for him to be dominant, controlling, and sadistic with her in bed, but which is again, actually an immoral justification, and which again, is not really his, or her, true sexual desires, thoughts, feelings, or nature.
Mandy’s intellectual domination, control, and unreasonable accusations, and blames, are both positive and negative for Steve, and serve three purposes. One purpose, is that he likes and enjoys it, and it gives him happiness and pleasure. Secondly, it is a valid justification for genuine understanding, of the reasons, for her excessive domination, control, and especially her excessive force. Thirdly, it is a blatant immoral justification, and a denial and self-betrayal, of his natural sexual masochism towards women.
The solution for Steve, is to continue to enjoy Mandy’s verbal and emotional domination, sadism, and control, which he naturally likes and enjoys, but to assert himself, when his mood and thoughts, are over-powered by her excessive domination, control, and force. Steve must also, not allow himself to be dominated, and controlled by Mandy, to the point where it over-powers his thoughts, feelings, and will, and prevents him from freely, discussing, debating, and negotiating with her, about all these matters, and creating some sort of shared contract, or some sort of free and equal agreement, between the two of them.
Whilst there are other reasons, I have already explained, for his sexual sadism towards Mandy, her intellectual mind-control towards him, is at the root, of his immoral and inauthentic justification, to be dominant, controlling, and sadistic with her, sexually in bed at night.
In order to achieve, the full balance and understanding he refers to, he needs to let his girlfriend, Mandy, be more dominant, controlling, and sadistic in bed with him, as he said that he has never tried this, and because both he and she would enjoy it, and it would also prevent, diminish, or put a stop, to the verbal and emotional domination - to the point where it over-powers his mood, mind, and will - and to the point where she has some mind-control over him, and which temporally, prevents him, from discussing, negotiation, and thinking, with her together, as part of a contract or consensus.
All of this, as a solution, would also, relieve, stop, or diminish, the trivualisation and boredom, Steve refers to, and which is related to, the emotional and intellectual mind-control, the occasional excessive verbal and emotional domination by Mandy, over-powering his will, and his dominance, control, and sadism, in bed with her at night, which is not really something he enjoys, and which is not really a part of his or her true feelings, thoughts, desires, love, or nature.
Steve: I like her to be a bit sadistic with how she talks, but I was always sadistic in bed. I don't know, all I know is we clash and it cant last forever, distance is hard, but 2 bipolar people can hardly work side by side, yet alone at our distance.
Myself: So you were both masochist and sadist? Do you regard yourself as a so-called "switch" then - submissive or dominant - in different situations, with different people?
Steve: All I know, is that I get bored if there's no challenge, but after I beat the challenge, I've got to (be) the sadist. I’m not sure how I'd be described.
Myself: What makes you want to beat the challenge?
Steve: Well, challenges give us goals, and if we have no goal to attain, we can either be at peace, or we can feel somewhat tired, trivialised, and bored. I think if Mandy argues and argues, and I finally get sexual satisfaction, its a fair exchange, but if she tears my head off and we don't talk, I think that's bad in any relationship.
Myself: So it's the force you object to, not the consensual masochist and sadist female agreement?, and that makes you sadistic or dominant?
Steve: I think if the balance is lost, and the mood she imposes, overpowers my will, she can just eat me up, and spit me out, without either of us gaining, but if I can make her see a moral or reason - and if I can gain something in bed - I feel accomplished, but if its just a 1-way beating, I don't care for it. Masochist at day, sadist at night.
Myself: Yes, that makes a lot of sense, and some masochists say and do that. So how are you sadistic to her in bed?, do you mean verbally?, or do you have sexual intercourse with her intensely, and order her to do what you like?
Steve: When I was there, I’d fuck her in the ass, or cum down her throat, and I’d say what to do and when. I think that gave me validation, for all of the verbal nonsense I took during the day, and that translates to webcam on MSN messenger too, but when I just get a verbal onslaught and get nothing, that's when I start thinking things are off-balance.
Myself: Right, so you feel like your getting your own back, on the force from her, like revenge in a way? Maybe out a sense of betrayal?
Steve: In a way, but more of an understanding, instead of forced feelings.
Myself: I see, and so in actual fact, you both become dominants and sadists.
Steve: A mutual exchange, yes, we can both exit at any time, but it became a ritual, but when that slips, then we both lose.
Myself: Has Mandy ever whipped you?
Steve: No, its just verbal, but its beyond the point of normality.
Myself: Does she like to humiliate you, debase you, and watch you grovel and squirm?
Steve: Probably. I think she feels power from screwing me over - a man - when all of her life, she claims the men have done the screwing over on her. I see a balance to it all, and when its off, I think its gone too far, and she went too far a few days ago, and now just like 100 times before, I've heard silence for 2 days. It’s either a grudge, or some silence from her. She said she didn't love me, and wanted to piss on my grave. I can handle being a dick, loser, or an asshole, but some things are sacred.
Myself: When you get sadistic in bed with her, do you think that is your way of recharging your masochism?, and does it afterwards make you more masochistic? Because that’s part of one of my explanations, in one of my new articles on masochism.
Steve: I just think its my way of evening things out, to produce a clean slate for the next day. They have a saying here: "Every boy, wants a gal just like the one that married good old dad". I think that's what I did.
Myself: Are you into being whipped by women at all?
Steve: I’ve never tried it.
Myself: What do you like masochistically?
Steve: Sexually, I'm very limited, and I'm sure there are 12 year-old kids, that know more than I do about sex. I really think its just the emotional aspect. I cant see myself dominated in the bedroom quite yet.
Myself: So do you prefer verbal humiliation to pain?
Steve: I think I get bored, if I'm not made to squirm in an intellectual fashion, and if I don't get accused or blamed, I don't have to do as much thinking, and that's when I get bored. I like to think my way out of the emotional pain. Maybe I'm also looking to carry a burden for a few days, and get the relief after its lifted.
Myself: I see, so the intellectual humiliation and domination, makes you think more when you work through it?
Steve: Yes, more or less. I also think, a factor, is that when I'm medicated by the doctors, then I'm emotionally restricted. I always think I cant experience, the full-scope of emotions, unless put to the test, and when Mandy breaks me down, and I'm needed to build it back up, and it gives me something right.
Myself: So it's like intellectual stimulation, that beats the over-sedation of the psychiatric drug?
Steve: Yes, its either get extreme and jolting emotional conflict, while being sedated by a Dr's drug - and feeling mundane - or I can ride a bipolar roller-coaster, and self-medicate, but neither is very nice, and I don't think I’ll ever find a good balance.
Myself: Well, I think its possible to find and get, a real and good balance.
Steve: I don’t know, because I feel a lot like a sociopath, when I'm medicated by Drs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)