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.
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)