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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)