The Sadistic Eye

Or, why a woman should never wear more than blood, bruises and chains

The attention that Sadists and Masochists pay each other is qualitatively different from that found in other forms of sexual, psychological, and social relationships. The difference lies in its honesty. Vanilla sex is dishonest sex, and dishonest because those party to it pretend to a concern for the pleasure of the other with whom they are involved that is meant to exceed the concern of each for their own pleasure. Hence the myth of the tender, caring, and passionate lover who thinks more of his partner than he does of himself. Perhaps 'myth' is the wrong word. Perhaps I should say 'ideal' instead.

In a Vanilla sexual encounter each partner to that encounter is as much concerned for his or her personal satisfaction as any Sadist or Masochist - but they cannot admit to it, nor seek it with the intensity that full satisfaction demands of them, because to do so is to contradict, overturn, break that ideal. And what follows from such a break is guilt, shame, self-doubt, recrimination and bitterness.

Neither the Sadist nor the Masochist is subject to this ideal. The purpose of the Sadist in his encounters with a sexual partner is simple. To inflict the maximum degree of pain that is consonant with that calculus of risk and gratification that must govern him if he's not to end in jail.

Since it's rare for a true Sadist to fall into the company of a true Masochist that calculus must also include the slow steps by which an essentially Vanilla partner can be weened away from the notion that violence and blood have no part in sex. The true Sadist is an infinitely patient, profoundly cunning monster. As is the true Masochist.

The true Sadist exercises that patience and cunning in a campaign to induce in his partner a moment of sexual abnegation and surrender. In the case of that lover of whom I spoke in a previous article we developed a myth of 'the moment'. In the moment of our encounters there was nothing she would not suffer at my hands, from sexual strangulation, to beatings with crop and whip that drew blood, to sex that she, before meeting me, would have regarded as rape. From the point of view of the physical acts carried out, the violence of them, there was very little difference indeed between these so-called 'play-rapes' and actual rape. What marked the difference was not anything done, but her emotional acceptance of the final outcome - her sexual subjugation through physical force. As she said once; "You rape me, but I don't feel raped because you are there with me.'

And let no one think that she 'enjoyed' these encounters. In the moments in which they took place she hated me and fought with all her strength. But she would have hated me far more fiercely if I had not, each time, succeeded in overcoming her and forcing sex on her.

My wife hates me when I beat her, when I cut designs in her flesh with a razor-blade, when I beat the wounds after with the riding crop so that her blood spatters the wall. But she would both hate and despise me if I could not by force of will make her be still and endure these things.

But, in relation to this former lover, there was never a moment between us in which she regarded herself as my 'submissive' (still less my slave). Outside the periods of frenzy in which nothing whatever existed beside ourselves, when the world contracted first to the limits of my bedroom and then to being no more than a few millimetres of supercharged space between our skins, we were in every way a perfectly Vanilla couple. We indulged in the commonplace fantasy that there was between us no hierarchical relationship; we were equals; partners.

Whereas in reality there was on my part an ongoing campaign to extend those moments of subjugation outside the bedroom and into the world of our 'everyday' relationship. And on her part an absolute determination to resist further encroachment.

It is a founding principle of the nature of the Sadist that he wants more. That, in fact, he wants everything. Give him your body and he will seek to consume your mind. Give him both body and mind - and he will want your soul. My partner of the time was (and is) a peculiarly self-possessed woman. It was a continuing astonishment to her that I had managed to breach that self-possession to the degree that I had, that I had succeeded in bringing her to those levels of abnegation and servitude that we achieved. A part of what brought that relationship to an end was my lack of cunning in the way I pursued her soul. I was too crass. In the end, she revolted and we parted. Having learned my lesson I will not be so crass again.

So much for the purposes of the Sadist. What of the Masochist?

Among the D/s-BDSM community, on- and off-line, there is a phrase: 'topping from the bottom'. In essence, this means that the supposedly subordinate, 'submissive', partner in a D/s-BDSM relationship manipulates the supposed Dominant into satisfying the cravings of the 'submissive' as and when she (or he) requires them to be satisfied. Without exception (though they may sometimes be disguised as something else) these cravings are for subjugation and sexual humiliation. This may take the form of engineering situations which the submissive knows her or his Dominant will find displeasing, so bringing about punishment. Such manipulation occurs both in public and in private - and it's been my experience that it is Masochists (knowing or in denial), masquerading as submissives, who usually behave in this way.

The Masochist has one aim: to suffer. But they usually prefer to suffer in situations which they control and on their own terms. Masochists, unlike true submissives, have no desire to feel powerless. My wife, for most of her life, has been drawn to physically powerful, brutal, largely stupid men - precisely because they were easy to manipulate into giving her what she wanted but could not admit to.

Her inability to admit what she wanted to herself put her in many precarious situations over the years. Because a Sadist who does not understand himself usually practices his Sadism through uncontrolled rage. I have beaten my wife with whip and crop to a point where she could barely move - but never to the point where I put her physical safety in jeopardy. Her former partners, lost in their fury (she can be utterly infuriating) were incapable of considering her safety.

The Sadist and the Masochist each seeks to dominate the other: to bend the other to their respective will. This is often the case among Vanilla couples too - but the knowing Sadist and the knowing Masochist do so from a stand point of total honesty, with themselves and with each other, that is unavailable to either those who do not know themselves as Sadists or Masochists, or to the Vanilla couple caught up in the ideal of the tender lover.

To most who read this (as well as those other articles in which I've written honestly about Sadism) the things I've discussed will no doubt appear abhorrent, perhaps entirely incomprehensible. But let me ask you this.

When was the last time you knew with absolute certainty that you were the total, complete, utter and absolute focus of your lover's attention? When was the last time that you knew with certainty that you, and you alone, were the sole center, the burning core, of everything that mattered to your lover?

The Sadist's eye has only one focus, with which nothing can interfere: the body subjected to the will of the Sadist, the body and its suffering. I would not exchange a single tear, a single cry of pain, that I have extorted from my wife, for any amount of money that can be named or conceived. When her eyes take on the look of chromed steel, blazing in the light of her hatred for me, I know as in no other moment that I am alive, and that for her nothing else in the universe exists. I am the fundamental core of her universe, as she is mine, and my eye comprehends in her tormented face all that is or ever can be of true value to me.


When was the last time you were alive, in that way?"
1,809 views 14 replies
Reply #1 Top
An interesting article, but what of one who takes pleasure in the plasure of the other? One whose greatest joy is to see the other happy. Would not they go about selfishly satisfying themselves by striving to be the most tender, caring, passionate lover that they could be? Or is this the ideal which you said is pretend?
Reply #2 Top

Vanilla sex is dishonest sex, and dishonest because those party to it pretend to a concern for the pleasure of the other with whom they are involved that is meant to exceed the concern of each for their own pleasure


That's a very bold statement.  I don't think that it's true in my case....I see ours as more of a symbiotic sexual relationship.  I am concerned with my pleasure, which is derived in part from his pleasure....so pleasing him pleases me.  Sometimes there is no concern for him, sometimes I need/want/have to get mine and I use him for that.  He knows it.  I know too that there are times when I am nothing more than a sexual chattel to him....and that pleases me too.  Those times are rare, granted, but there.


When was the last time you knew with absolute certainty that you were the total, complete, utter and absolute focus of your lover's attention? When was the last time that you knew with certainty that you, and you alone, were the sole center, the burning core, of everything that mattered to your lover?


Last week.  Last Thursday, to be exact.

Reply #3 Top
To Dharmagirl

I won't dispute the validity of your experience, as you understand it. I will say this, though. Having experienced Vanilla sex, what might be termed 'sadism-lite' (aka D/s-BDSM relationships), the exaltation that accompanies a successful sexual encounter outside the frame of reference of Sadism and Masochism (and I don't deny that such encounters have their own measure of success and satisfaction) is rather like a candle-flame at noonday: pale, wan, and almost undetectable.
Reply #4 Top

the exaltation that accompanies a successful sexual encounter outside the frame of reference of Sadism and Masochism (and I don't deny that such encounters have their own measure of success and satisfaction) is rather like a candle-flame at noonday: pale, wan, and almost undetectable

Well yes, it would be...it would be like having to eat bread and water after having experienced foie gras and truffles - I'm sure you know what I mean.

 

Reply #5 Top
To Danny Bassette


Link

The link is to an essay that I wrote a few years ago, which my wife had the foresight to post here on JU (which means it wasn't lost when she performed major brain surgery on this machine and replaced the hard drive). It deals with what I consider to be the proper, natural, and honest relations between a man and a woman. Those relations are, of necessity (in my opinion), hierarchical and authoritarian.

The ideal that I referred to in the article to which you responded places an equality of attention and care at the heart of its sexual ethic. It is, again in my opinion, profoundly dishonest to attempt any form of sexual practice which accords with that ethic. Dishonest both in the sense of being self-deceptive and other-deceptive.

The attempt deceives the self by equating the full expression of the profoundly selfish quality of sexual activity with a failure to appreciate the Other involved as a being in his or her own right, a being whose autonomy requires the sacrifice of the full expression of the Lover's sexual interest in order to recognise that autonomy.

It deceives the Other, the Lover's Beloved, through the pretence (and it is pretence, no matter how sincerely believed and expressed in the act itself) that the Lover finds contentment and satisfaction in the less than full expression of the Desire for dominance which is inherent within the sexual act itself - even in those acts which avoid altogether the means of expression found in Sadism and Masochism.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear...

For a considerable period of time there was a debate within the D/s-BDSM community as to whether it was possible for a female Dominant to rape a male submissive. It was argued that the penis is the instrument of rape, and that by definition a female, no matter how Dominant her personality, could not physically rape a male.

To my mind, this is too literal a definition of rape. Rape, first and foremost, is sexual subjugation through violence, and its instrument is not a part of the body but an attribute of the mind and personality: the Will. Inherent in even the most Vanilla of sexual relations there is a struggle of the Will, a struggle over the method and practices which are involved in any particular sexual encounter: hence the woeful phenomenon that many men and women experience in their sexual relationships - the never-ending negotiation over how they are to fuck, which almost always results in a compromise which does not fully satisfy either - but which they must pretend does so.

By the very fact of being an attentive, caring lover devoted solely to the pleasure of his partner (and I confess, the notion of such a creature makes me want to laugh hysterically), the Lover devotes himself to the dishonesty of neglecting his own satisfaction - especially if the Lover in question is a man - because men in general in their natural sexual lives are not devoted to a passionate tenderness that recognises the Other as a sexual equal and partner. They are, naturally, devoted to rape and sexual subjugation/control.

Why naturally? The answer is contained in the linked article (which I'm giving some thought to updating - it's been several years since I wrote it and my thinking has changed) but I will paraphrase it here.

For almost all of the last 10 000 years humans have formed their relationships on the basis of hierarchy, of Dominance and subordination. It's only in the last century that the notion of democracy, equal rights and equality of persons, has come to the fore of human culture. It's my opinion that this is an unfortunate aberration, contradictory to the whole arc of human experience and destined to pass away. But for the moment its dominance is undeniable, and since I'm unlucky enough to live in so perverse and unnatural an age, I'm forced to deal with it.

One way of dealing with it is to point out its contradictions - the most glaring of which is found in sexual relations between men and women, most graphically expressed in the power struggle which is a constant of human sexual life.

It is my opinion that any sexual practice which takes account of the myth of sexual equality, which devotes itself to the illusion of the tender, passionate, caring Lover (no matter the sincerity with which this practice is conducted) is fundamentally a lie.

what of one who takes pleasure in the plasure of the other? One whose greatest joy is to see the other happy


What of him? No matter how sincere he is - he is a liar.

Reply #6 Top
To Danny Bassette

A shorter, more concise, reply to your question was provided to me by Sabrina (little_whip). If your true response to the sexual needs of another is to serve them with complete fidelity, without interest in your own sexual satisfaction... then, Danny, you are a natural sexual slave and you should seek out a female Dominant who will know how to respond to that devotion.
Reply #7 Top

If your true response to the sexual needs of another is to serve them with complete fidelity, without interest in your own sexual satisfaction... then, Danny, you are a natural sexual slave and you should seek out a female Dominant who will know how to respond to that devotion.


Perfect!

Reply #8 Top
That was a much longer reply then I expected, at least it sounds like you got a chuckle out of it. So either I disregard your opinion, I'm a liar, or natural sexual slave? I can't say I haven't entertained all of those possibilities in the past. Definetly something to think about. And now I've got this silly grin on my face
Reply #9 Top
By the very fact of being an attentive, caring lover devoted solely to the pleasure of his partner (and I confess, the notion of such a creature makes me want to laugh hysterically)


I need clarification here. So a submissive does not find pleasure in this type of role (regardless of whether it is motivated by self-gratification, this has no bearing on actual outcome). I need the clarification because you admit as much yourself when you say that Danny might possibly be a sexual slave if he is truly this type of lover.

Do you think such a creature is an impossibility (even though you admit to its existence), or do you laugh at the notion that it can and does exist?

The weird thing is consent is probably the last thing you want (or what your pleasure needs), but acting in accordance with your "calculus of risk" consent is what you ultimately need, the legality of your acts residing, for all intents and purposes, with your partner. As you say it does not really matter whether the act occurs within consent or whether consent occurs "after the fact". As can be seen in your article and experience, rape is only another - private - sexual act until the word "rape" is cried, and then it is a social phenomenon, a societal event and it could be this that interests me most about your sexuality - the way it forces you to consider the nexus between itself and the practices of the outside (supposedly vanilla) world, even when this nexus is one of contention.

As always an article that pleasantly repels but leaves one wanting more.
Reply #10 Top
To notsohighlyevolved

you ask a good question. And you are right to do so by pointing out the inconsistency in what I said. The only instance that I can honestly think of in which a Lover may truly be selflessly devoted to another's sexual needs over his or her own, is that of the submissive/slave. And I don't find that instance in any way laughable.

What amuses me beyond measure is the thought that somehow it has become possible to assume that the generality of men both can be and ought to be ideal lovers, ideal in the sense given in the article. Your average heterosexual male has never been renowned for his caring attention to the needs of his girlfriend.

You also make a good point about my sexuality:

the way it forces you to consider the nexus between itself and the practices of the outside (supposedly vanilla) world, even when this nexus is one of contention.


The full expression of what I know myself to want would inevitably involve me in contention with what the rest of the world regards as permissable. And since the world can always bring more resources to bear on me than I can on it, unless I intend to sacrifice all my satisfactions to the satisfaction of a single Desire (which I don't), then I must inevitably compromise.

I once fucked a woman in her bedroom while her husband and daughter watched TV in the living room: that point of compromise is what I can realistically get away with. Sadists become arch-pragmatists, of necessity. But that doesn't alter what they want.

Reply #11 Top
To Danny Bassette

grinnnnnnnns @ the silly grin
Reply #12 Top
The strange thing emperor, is that I find absolutely no note of moral aberration in your writing or person - this coming from a person who considers himself essentially decent, compassionate and empathetic.

I would have thought that I would have identified with your "victims" much more than I would with you, but I don't find this to be the case because as it stands I am yet to experience the role of "victim", but have had to struggle with what has been deemed as essential to "masculinity" - a use and gratification mentality when it comes to sex and pleasure.

Fantasy often goes further than moral remnants allow and conscience is always a check, even on intellectual curiosity.

I am glad that someone pushes as far as you do - the impetus for self reflection is one of the greatest gifts of the written word.
Reply #13 Top
To notsohighlyevolved

No problem over the redundant post.

It helps when you understand that the Masochist is complicit in what the Sadist does to her. Both Masochist and Sadist are driven to either suffer or impose pain. Both want the same thing - but from different sides. And I see no difficulty with sex as 'use and gratification' - we all use each other in a variety of ways, and sex is no different. Nor do I have any problem with being thought a phallocentric misogynist. There is an implacable hatred between men and women that needs acknowledgement - because without that acknowledgement hate breeds resentment and resentment leads to murder.

The knowing Sadist knowingly expresses this hate as he practices his arts on the body of the Masochist. And for the Masochist it is a motivating factor in her manipulation of weak Dominants to satisfy her craving for pain on her terms and at the expense of confusion, self-doubt and self-recrimination on the part of these so-called Dominants.

Certainly I hate women. In exactly the same degree that I lust for and admire them. In the same breath that I lust for and admire them.

Fantasy often goes further than moral remnants allow and conscience is always a check, even on intellectual curiosity.


Fantasy can be one of two things. A poor substitute for reality that eventually becomes threadbare and unravels into an uncontrolled (because not understood) motivation for murder. Or it can be a bridge to self-knowledge and self-control. It depends largely on the individual concerned.

But it needs to be remembered - even a demon shackled and kneeling at your feet needs to be fed.

Reply #14 Top
Wow.

I have to say I mis-read LW's articles in the past and thought she said she was a sexual MACHINIST! I looked it up all over the place and just couldn't find what it meant. Duh.

I am frankly sickened. Not by you as a person or LW as I know her to be on here, but at the violence.

I in no way can see how cutting and watching the blood of the person you are supposed to love splatter on the wall as anything but evil. I would do whatever I could do to keep my husband from enduring that at anyone's hand.

I don't understand how hate makes you feel alive. I just don't understand that. Hate takes so much more FROM you than it gives to you...so to claim when you see the hate in her eyes you feel alive is, well, confusing to me. Bizarre and sickening.

I don't care if LW wants it. I know she is a grown woman but she was a grown woman wanting all the losers who beat her before wasn't she?

If my best friend had a sexual deviation like this, and her husband fulfilled it, I would have to either end the friendship or beat his ass.

IMO your wife's body is for you alone to enjoy, not to torture. To slice, beat and harm her body in my mind means you are not being a very good steward of the gift you've been given. And I am confused about the safety thing too. You say you regard her safety more than the others before you.

Hmmmmm. I don't see it. Let one of those nice cuts get infected or cut just a little too deeply and then what?

I just don't understand it. What's more I don't want to understand it.

I am not saying I am better than you. I am not.

I just find this whole issue revolting and it takes me places frankly, I don't want to go, don't feel any better for having learned about it, and certainly don't want to know more.

I KNOW LW "wants" it but I could just cry that you as her husband, as her lover, as her friend, would want to see her suffer.

I just don't get it.